I’m not sure that entirely agree with Jenkins’ assessment of cap-and-trade’s merits, but he is correct that policymakers and pundits must consider whether or not a wholly new policy strategy is in order. Here’s an idea: the team and The Breakthrough Institute has repeatedly clashed with the team at The Center for American Progressive—the former favoring a direct public investment in clean-energy technology deployment and innovation, the latter favoring a price on carbon. These organizations are great candidates to help journalists read the ashes of climate legislation, since the total failure of that legislation gives neither outfit what it wants. With the weak bill that the Senate now intends to pursue threatening to render their often-vitriolic debate about clean-tech R&D versus cap-and-trade moot, it would be interesting for reporters to ask those two now if they can find common ground toward a new policy path.
After all, if two organizations that both profess a deep concern for the environment cannot resolve their differences, what chance is their that progressive Democrats, Blue-Dog Democrats, and Republicans will ever resolve theirs? That is the kind of question the public needs to hear—and the kind more journalists should be asking.
Curtis, (and others)
I enjoyed the beginning of your piece and the key point, "where's the print coverage?"
So, thanks for that, and it's a positive step.
But I'd like to point out three things . . .
They can all be tied together under the idea that deep and accurate analysis can't rest on comfortable paradigms or on the "good news"/"bad news" way of thinking.
First, The New York Times editorial, if viewed from an outside and analytical perspective, is so bizarre in key ways (in relation to the question of the media's own coverage and role) that it is rather astonishing. The Times critiques others (and rightly so) in a way that seems perfectly oblivious to the very same problems committed by The Times itself. If you compare The Times' editorial to The Times' coverage of climate change over the last two years, the only conclusion you could possibly come to is that you'd wish The Times would look in a mirror for once. It's like the pot calling the kettle black, so to speak.
Second, the same goes with Andy's piece. Andy talks about the things that Obama and/or the administration didn't do, or didn't do well, as if he doesn't understand the things that he and/or The Times didn't do, or didn't do well.
Third, the very way that you (also) write about the matter also falls into a conventionally journalistic "one side vs. the other mentality". The Times did this too, and so you do in the present piece. It's a "the Democrats lost" or "the Democrats failed to pass ..." thing. Last I heard, we all live on the same planet. Last I heard, 97 percent of the most relevant climate scientists tell us that global warming is a very real problem. The very notion that "Democrats lost and Republicans won" is (do I need to tell you?) NOT conveying the real story, the one that matters and will matter, in a grounded way. The fact that it was Democrat sponsored and supported legislation IS a relevant part of the story, of course, and I'm not suggesting that the point should be overlooked or hidden, of course. Not at all. That's PART of the story. But it is not the most important part of the story. It is not the main thing that "people need to know" so that they can form their views and understand the genuine gravity of the matter. It is not the way that an issue such as climate change should be covered. The fact that the story was not on the front page is only part of the problem. The fact that the highlighted positioning, and "frame", was "these people lost and these people won" is the other problem.
For the life of me, I'm starting to wonder whether anyone in journalism really understands the situation, and the gravity of the situation, and whether anyone in journalism understands that there is a larger, and more relevant, and more important, title to be written (for such an event as yesterday) than the "she lost and he won" positioning indicates. May I ask, do journalists "get it"? May I ask, do YOU "get it"?
Realize, Stephen Schneider didn't work his **** off for all these years because he wanted one political party to win and the other to lose. Right? He worked his ***** off for all these years because we (all of us) DO have a problem and we ALL lose if we don't face and address it. 97 percent of scientists have said that we DO have a problem. I have a pretty good understanding of the science, and I agree that we DO have a problem. Joe Romm and Andy and you and Stephen Schneider and Jim Hansen and the IPCC have all said that we DO have a problem. But the media habitually refuse to come clean and straightforwardly say, and position, things that way. Our government fails to deal with the matter, and the article's title is "Demos lose" or "Demo's fail".
I would like to know, do you "get" that particular point, that I'm trying to make? For all the talk of "framing" and "positioning" and the importance of communication that the
#1 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Fri 23 Jul 2010 at 09:45 PM
The reality is that "Demos lose" not even the right political frame. You have a situation in which there is overwhelming evidence that the carbon economy has become unfeasible because of the difficulty of extraction and the consequences of waste, you have the exoneration of the scientists from their flakey partisan charges, you have a oil slick blobbing its way down the southern coast destroying a couple of their major industries for years, and you have this during one of the hottest recorded years on record producing record heat waves in Washington itself.
And they can't get a climate/energy bill passed.
Compare that to the process which got the Iraq war started o far less grounds but with far more effort.
The problem isn't that the Demos lose, it's that they don't even try. They assume the loss and surrender before the fight.
We can't claim these people represent us if they fight for nothing we care about.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 24 Jul 2010 at 02:09 AM
Progressive Science, Illustrated:
Coldest winter on record in DC? - Global warming.
Hottest summer in a few years in DC? - Global warming.
Himalayan glaciers Himalayan glaciers NOT melting away in 250 years? - Global warming.
Artic ice receding - Global warming.
Artic ice growing - Global warming.
More hurricanes than average - Global warming.
Fewer hurricans than average - Global warming.
Runaway "hockey stick" temperature increase? - Global warming.
No significant warming in the last 15 years? Global warming.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 25 Jul 2010 at 08:05 AM
The "gravity of the situation"?
There's more of enviro funding "gravy" than of "gravity".
Homo sapien adaptability...long may it wave.
#4 Posted by Bingo, CJR on Mon 26 Jul 2010 at 09:32 AM