Dot Earth
Website review – Dot Earth - note - I'm still working on this one- it's not ready to publish.
Reporting from inside the bubble. I would like to qualify my following comments by stating that science is important, and without that it would be difficult to make our arguments for sustainability. This is because of the world system’s positivist bias that science is the only legitimate way to advocate for anything good. Consequently, the New York Times has traditionally followed a similar pattern of its parent culture’s thought process, which is to delegate environmental concerns to the science department. So, in all fairness to Dot Earth and its reporter Andrew C. Revkin, the blog is doing the necessary grunt work to make change where it matters to the press’ main reality filter: government and corporate policy.
Dot Earth is doing some good because it takes seriously climate change, and appears to be a nexus for the insider debate on policy and science. I’m guessing it’s required reading for Al Gore and anyone else arguing for change based on science. Current posts, for example, are a clearinghouse for a debate between the Gore camp, George Will and scientists in the Arctic about the threat of climate change. One of the most hotly contested issues concerns how graphics are used to describe climate change trends, the feeling from some that color choices bias how one looks at data, as if data is always neutral!
Revkin’s little intro slideshow, Planet in Flux, is a good effort to humanize the man behind the science. Additionally, in a small sidebar there are four broad categories: energy, climate, society, and biology. The blogroll is a healthy collection of sites that cover news; earth and environmental science and engineering; poverty, development and design; media and environment; environment and sustainability issues; analysis and policy; free market advocates, “skeptics,” industry views; and youth. The Times also has a link to a forum, “Green Inc.: Energy, Environment and the Bottomline,” and a new section on its Website, “Energy and Environment.” This is clearly a sign of the times, pun intended, because the environment is breaking out of its science shell, although I think the label, “energy and environment,” as opposed to “society” or “culture and environment” still holds a clinical and economic edge, recalling the disembedded view of ecology as a mechanical system of energy (as opposed to an animate life force).
The blog name is slightly curious, and clever. By alluding to a category of Internet domain (such as dot com), it’s stating, “we are the earth’s destination on the Web.” This is an inadvertent compartmentalization of ecology, in which it is relegated to special sections of the paper as opposed to being integrated throughout. All Websites are and should be “dot earth.” This is the same kind of knowledge division I encountered at the Global Warnings conference last October in Venice. During the event journalists from around the world struggled with how to get climate change into the public agenda. Many professional journalists argued that it wasn’t their job to advocate, but to report and let the public decide. I give Revkin credit for putting his views on his sleeve, i.e. he believes in climate change. Yet, he is constrained to give balance to the lunatic skeptics, as is his requirement as a journalist (for example, in a post about the recent protests in DC he gave free space to coal’s PR people, only later to retract it—he should have ignored a counter protest lead by “Celebrate Coal!”, which could only be cooked up by the mad geniuses of PR). But going back to the conference as a reference point, I had a feeling through out the meeting that it was lacking a deep ecology perspective. Likewise, all the debates and discussions you see in the Times are shallow ecology debates, meaning they don’t fundamentally challenge the operating paradigm of the system. Naturally the Times is not going to dispute the model that underpins its economic foundation. For example, with the exception of state sponsored media, most climate change coming from mass media is paid for by advertising, which drives consumerism. Can we debate the environment in the news while car ads run simultaneously? To be fair, Gore’s RePower America was a featured advertiser in some of the Times environmental coverage when I looked. Yet, another time I checked in there were greenwashing ads from Waste Management.
Journalists tend to think what they do is very important—it is—but what about the work of healers, spiritual activists, or cultural creatives who are also engaged in this process? Chances are you will not see them in the Times, although you will see a few links to their Websites in the blogroll, and in special “green” issues their projects may be highlighted. It’s telling, for example, that Dot Earth’s tag list doesn’t include anything about culture, art or spirituality. This is not Revkin’s fault; he should report what he knows best. But my hope is that ecology become not just a matter of economics, science and government policy, but also becomes the center of a debate about culture, because culture is what determines the kind of life our society chooses. Clearly the Times are a changin’, to make a bad pun. The expanded environmental coverage of the so-called (now increasingly electric) paper of record is an agenda setter. If we take seriously their self-important credo, “all the news that’s fit to print,” with Dot Earth we can expand that to say, “all the news that’s fit to hypertext,” which harks to one important change that has arrived regardless of ideology: the open architecture of the Web. A blog about environment is clearly different from print news journalist: it’s coded to leap into the hypertext fray (that is, because HTML levels the access playing field—no special literacy required). The blog is not part of a closed system (as long as it stays in front of a paywall, which could change at any point). Furthermore, Dot Earth’s commenting capacity, “meet your neighbor,” and YouTube features exemplify the increasingly social aspect of the Web. The Times should be credited for being flexible enough to adapt to the changes, even if it’s done to stave of bankruptcy and closure. That’s media evolution for you!
Reporting from inside the bubble. I would like to qualify my following comments by stating that science is important, and without that it would be difficult to make our arguments for sustainability. This is because of the world system’s positivist bias that science is the only legitimate way to advocate for anything good. Consequently, the New York Times has traditionally followed a similar pattern of its parent culture’s thought process, which is to delegate environmental concerns to the science department. So, in all fairness to Dot Earth and its reporter Andrew C. Revkin, the blog is doing the necessary grunt work to make change where it matters to the press’ main reality filter: government and corporate policy.
Dot Earth is doing some good because it takes seriously climate change, and appears to be a nexus for the insider debate on policy and science. I’m guessing it’s required reading for Al Gore and anyone else arguing for change based on science. Current posts, for example, are a clearinghouse for a debate between the Gore camp, George Will and scientists in the Arctic about the threat of climate change. One of the most hotly contested issues concerns how graphics are used to describe climate change trends, the feeling from some that color choices bias how one looks at data, as if data is always neutral!
Revkin’s little intro slideshow, Planet in Flux, is a good effort to humanize the man behind the science. Additionally, in a small sidebar there are four broad categories: energy, climate, society, and biology. The blogroll is a healthy collection of sites that cover news; earth and environmental science and engineering; poverty, development and design; media and environment; environment and sustainability issues; analysis and policy; free market advocates, “skeptics,” industry views; and youth. The Times also has a link to a forum, “Green Inc.: Energy, Environment and the Bottomline,” and a new section on its Website, “Energy and Environment.” This is clearly a sign of the times, pun intended, because the environment is breaking out of its science shell, although I think the label, “energy and environment,” as opposed to “society” or “culture and environment” still holds a clinical and economic edge, recalling the disembedded view of ecology as a mechanical system of energy (as opposed to an animate life force).
The blog name is slightly curious, and clever. By alluding to a category of Internet domain (such as dot com), it’s stating, “we are the earth’s destination on the Web.” This is an inadvertent compartmentalization of ecology, in which it is relegated to special sections of the paper as opposed to being integrated throughout. All Websites are and should be “dot earth.” This is the same kind of knowledge division I encountered at the Global Warnings conference last October in Venice. During the event journalists from around the world struggled with how to get climate change into the public agenda. Many professional journalists argued that it wasn’t their job to advocate, but to report and let the public decide. I give Revkin credit for putting his views on his sleeve, i.e. he believes in climate change. Yet, he is constrained to give balance to the lunatic skeptics, as is his requirement as a journalist (for example, in a post about the recent protests in DC he gave free space to coal’s PR people, only later to retract it—he should have ignored a counter protest lead by “Celebrate Coal!”, which could only be cooked up by the mad geniuses of PR). But going back to the conference as a reference point, I had a feeling through out the meeting that it was lacking a deep ecology perspective. Likewise, all the debates and discussions you see in the Times are shallow ecology debates, meaning they don’t fundamentally challenge the operating paradigm of the system. Naturally the Times is not going to dispute the model that underpins its economic foundation. For example, with the exception of state sponsored media, most climate change coming from mass media is paid for by advertising, which drives consumerism. Can we debate the environment in the news while car ads run simultaneously? To be fair, Gore’s RePower America was a featured advertiser in some of the Times environmental coverage when I looked. Yet, another time I checked in there were greenwashing ads from Waste Management.
Journalists tend to think what they do is very important—it is—but what about the work of healers, spiritual activists, or cultural creatives who are also engaged in this process? Chances are you will not see them in the Times, although you will see a few links to their Websites in the blogroll, and in special “green” issues their projects may be highlighted. It’s telling, for example, that Dot Earth’s tag list doesn’t include anything about culture, art or spirituality. This is not Revkin’s fault; he should report what he knows best. But my hope is that ecology become not just a matter of economics, science and government policy, but also becomes the center of a debate about culture, because culture is what determines the kind of life our society chooses. Clearly the Times are a changin’, to make a bad pun. The expanded environmental coverage of the so-called (now increasingly electric) paper of record is an agenda setter. If we take seriously their self-important credo, “all the news that’s fit to print,” with Dot Earth we can expand that to say, “all the news that’s fit to hypertext,” which harks to one important change that has arrived regardless of ideology: the open architecture of the Web. A blog about environment is clearly different from print news journalist: it’s coded to leap into the hypertext fray (that is, because HTML levels the access playing field—no special literacy required). The blog is not part of a closed system (as long as it stays in front of a paywall, which could change at any point). Furthermore, Dot Earth’s commenting capacity, “meet your neighbor,” and YouTube features exemplify the increasingly social aspect of the Web. The Times should be credited for being flexible enough to adapt to the changes, even if it’s done to stave of bankruptcy and closure. That’s media evolution for you!
- 4-4-09
- Antonio Lopez's blog
- Login or register to post comments
ShareThis- Printer-friendly version
Comments