31 May 2011
We are busy preparing the AIBs (international media excellence awards) with its People Choice category for the best TV coverage of “Democracy Uprisings”, as well producing an article, to be published in the next edition of our magazine The Channel, on “Democracy Uprisings and Social Media”, detailing how social media has been used alongside and in place of traditional broadcasting in the Arab Spring and other popular movements.
So it is sometimes easy to be carried away with the idea that the progress towards democracy, supported by broadcasting in all its forms from radio stations to videos on mobile phones, is unstoppable and continual. But the publication by Freedom House of “Freedom in the World 2011: The Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy”, makes sobering reading as it reports on the fifth consecutive year of a decline in world freedom and states that “… the democratic community is not rising to the challenge”.
At the AIB, we add our voice to the fight for the freedom and independence of broadcasters everywhere to report without fear. We salute those organisations who take risks to bring the world news from difficult environments and especially the reporters who often put their lives on the line to report the reality in areas of conflict and repression. Unfortunately, all too often we have to pay tribute to those who are killed or wounded while doing their jobs.
We believe that the broadcasting community has continually risen to the challenge of supporting freedom by struggling to report the facts whatever the situation and that it must work hard to continue to do so. We welcome the many ordinary people who, while taking part in protests, are prepared to take the additional risk of sending out details of what they are experiencing and seeing, which is a vital help to professional broadcasters as they work to report truthfully and analyse carefully.
3 September 2010
After recently watching a lot of TV programmes on climate change (for the shortlist for the People’s Choice which will be revealed next week, with AIB members and those registered to vote the first to hear) and reading lots of articles about it, I have been wondering how people will make the changes to their habits that seem to be becoming more and more inevitable.
Will governments (multi-party democraties or others) impose top down changes to industry and consumption that are necessary for sustainable development? Or will concerned individuals persuade others and change behaviour from the bottom up.
The Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection is drawing up plans to speed up the closure of old inefficient coal power stations (see www.grist.org/article/2010-08-30-attention-congress-china-is-shutting-down-old-coal-plants/ for more coverage). But I was interested to read in Jonathan Watts’ book “When a Billion Chinese Jump” how the central authority in China does not seem able to impose as much control as we in the West might assume.
Also if, as expected, the Democrats in the US are soundly beaten in the elections later this year, then the US government is even less likely to take strong measures that support environmental concerns. So any moves from the US in the future look likely to result from the actions of individuals and concerned groups.
Maybe, in the end, it will be simple economics rather than bottom up or top down that will bring about changes. With increasing pressures on resources increased by changes in the climate, costs of food, transportation and most resources will increase so we will be forced by our wallets to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle. But that would be business as usual… would that work?
8 June 2010
The YouTube video which is embedded below is a presentation by Dr Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University of the results of the lastest Gallup survey of attitudes of people throughout the world to climate change. The survey has been carried out annually since 2006 and has a huge scope with nearly half a million people having been polled up to now. Although Dr Leiserowitz obviously believes in manmade climate change and the need to act to combat it, the figures provide interesting reading whatever your views.
The headline states that 40% of the world have not heard of climate change, but in fact the 40% figure includes those who answered “Do Not Know” and those who refused to answer the question, as well as those who actually said they had not heard of climate change. It also, as Dr Leiserowitz carefully points out, does not mean that 40% have not experienced changes in climate themselves. However, this headline figure is a good indication of how many people, usually the most disadvantaged by poverty and lack of education, are not aware of the debate and so have very little voice in deciding how the issue should be tackled.
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/B3R6VE4EvnU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0
The analysis by country is fascinating and makes the video well worth watching. The results of the first question, on awareness, are not that surprising, with the developed world most aware of the debate and Africa & South Asia the areas least aware. Some countries have over 70% of their population unaware and because of their large populations India & China have by far the largest number of inhabitants who are unaware. The example of Bangladesh is used to analyse the huge gap in awareness between those who are highly educated (98% aware) and those who are mainly or totally uneducated (under 30%).
But the question of belief in the causes of climate change presents a different geographical picture, with the USA joining India and a number of African countries as those with the highest belief that climate change is due to natural causes. Also, it is the countries of South America, particularly Brazil, who feel the risk to them from climate change is the highest.
Finally, despite the differing views, it is interesting to note that in nearly all the countries which are major carbon emitters, there is a majority of those who are aware who state that their governments should be doing more.
For more details of this report and similar work, visit the Yale Project Climate Change Communication website
4 June 2010
Because the AIBs (international media excellence awards) this year include a People’s Choice category for the best TV coverage of climate change, I have been looking at the online coverage on this subject and the wide range of different views expressed. It is a fascinating subject because of the way it affects, or may affect, different nations and peoples around the world (listen, for example to an interview with a campaigner from Samoa talking about climate justice) and also because of the widely differing views on the subject from fervent climate change disbelievers (e.g. Watts Up with That) to those who have made careers out of propounding manmade climate change (e.g. Al Gore)
But it is interesting to see other angles taken on climate change – from Ecological Buddhism’s view of the morality of mankind treating nature as a resource to be cared for, through those who care passionately about the effect on people living at the margins (see Oxfam’s website, for example) to those who focus on green technologies as business opportunities as well as necessary for our future (e.g. Clean Technology Business Review).
If you do not have a set viewpoint, it is difficult to make sense of all the conflicting claims and studies. Thank goodness for sites like “Information is beautiful”, in particular the blog post putting arguments from opposing views on climate change side by side with the data graphed inbetween. It is a really useful infographics tool to allow readers to make informed decisions themselves.
It can be difficult to make up your mind on the arguments, but once you have, you can be sure of finding a group who is championing the point of view on which you decide.
21 May 2010
The AIBs’ new People’s Choice category, focused this year on programmes dealing with climate change, is limited to television programmes. This is because, unfortunately, it is difficult to ask an international audience to judge radio programmes because of language barriers. At least with television we can (and will) provide subtitles in a range of languages for the programs to be chosen by popular vote, and the online viewers can see the original output and understand the way that the story is treated. With radio, in order to convey the quality of a programme, a translation has to be very precise and convey the original intonation and expression. We hope that AIB members and other colleagues working in radio will forgive us that we were not able to include radio this year.
This is a pity since there are many good examples of radio programmes dealing with climate change. Only this week it was possible to hear:
- Vatican Radio reporting on Pope Benedict XVI expressing serious concern for the plight of herders in Mongolia, where extreme weather conditions threaten the livelihood of hundreds of thousands. The Pope stated that “environmental issues, particularly those related to climate change, are global issues and need to be addressed on a global level”
- Vermont Public Radio (VPR) on the effects of climate change at Lake Champlain, which now often fails to freeze over in winter. This visible result brings home the reality of the changes to local people. While it causes problems, Curt Stager of Paul Smith’s College in the northern Adirondacks points out “It’s a mix of good news and bad news in a way. The bad news is that climate change is likely to amplify some of our existing environmental problems. And the good news is that you don’t have to reinvent the wheel to deal with that.”
- MetadelPlaneta, the first radio programme in Mexico about climate change, appealing for funds
- an online podcast about Project Survival Pacific, discussing the danger to low-lying islands in the Pacific of rising sea levels and how the islanders are reacting
However, there were claims that the 4th International Conference on Climate Change hosted by the Heartland Institute was not given coverage by the media. But you can catch up here to see video and audio of the conference as it is posted.
The programmes mentioned above show how radio broadcasts can bring to life personal stories of how climate affects individuals all over the world. But the continuing wide divergence of views about what change is happening, what causes it, how damaging it is and what we should do, still challenges the listeners ability to put facts into perspective and broadcasters ability to shed light.
23 April 2010
The conference, called by President Evo Morales of Bolivia to discuss climate change and in particular to highlight the views of the world’s poorest peoples, ended yesterday in Cochabamba. The output were declarations (see cmpcc.org for the full text) that covered the four main aims of the meeting: a universal declaration of the rights of Mother Earth (protecting ecosystems) ; the creation of an International Tribunal to bring to justice those who violate these rights ; compensation for poor countries from the industrialised countries who have caused the vast majority of environmental damage (6% of GDP annually was demanded) ; and a global referendum on climate change in a year’s time.
It is not hard to see why Bolivia is at the forefront of these demands. Scientists say that 50% of Bolivia’s ice mass, currently vital to supply water supplies to cities such as the capital La Paz, will be lost in the next 40 years – not due to their own actions, but due to economic activity in other countries. Also, like many less developed countries they felt left out of the discussions at the Copenhagen summit which were mainly between countries such as the US and China, with agreements being presented to them simply for acceptance. Plus in Evo Morales, they have a passionate president representing an indigenous population that until recently has hardly had any say in their government.
Will the summit have any effect? Apparently there were 48 governments represented among the 31,000 attendees, though in the end the only other president who attended was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and with rhetoric against capitalism in evidence, it would be easy to dismiss it as simply promoting left-wing propaganda. But hopefully, the voices of billions of poor people will be heard, if not here, then elsewhere. They are being badly affected by climatic variations and need a voice.
In the context of the AIBs People’s Choice award on climate change, we are hoping for programmes that cover the views of a huge variety of different nations, tribes and races.
