Replies: 0 (jump to last) Started by Frank J. Regan on 07/27/09 2:10pm
Several models of how future media might evolve are rampant. But, one thing is for sure: Our evenings with Uncle Walter Cronkite are over. No more ‘most trusted man in America’ giving us “the way it is.”
There might be paid links to each online news services. News aggregators might be charged. Non-profit status might be given to some media. Or, citizen reporters could join professionals (ProPublica) digging down into stories in a novel way. You’ll get your environmental news from TV, radio, podcasts, websites, independent local films (like “The Last Experiment”) and your all-in-one gadget phone. Alas, the future bodes to be much messier than a few experienced professions speaking together on a relatively few stories directed by a cabal of know-it-all editors. The Recession, media consolidation, and the Internet have seen to that.
One possible scenario for future environmental reporting: We imagine connecting the dots of environmental stories through many dimensions"not one. The past, present, future and all of the possible variations of each could very well be how our grandchildren manage the planet. That’s right; in the future we won’t be watching in horror as a Katrina-like Hurricane unfolds. Our kids will have to be involved in the story. They’ll be connecting the dots along with the experts trying to find out how this disruption occurred, what past activities brought it on, how various actions by everyone might play out, what other events will be linked to any particular reactions they have to the event and so on. In other words, we have been for some time now (regardless of present media coverage) active players in our planet’s environment. We control the temperature, water levels, chemical dispersals, resources, and probably a host of factors we haven’t even discovered yet that run our planet’s ecology. Survival will require an acknowledgement and understanding of this fact so that our children can actually thrive on it. Putting our environment on the media’s backburner will not be an option.
For example: News coverage on manmade chemicals and pharmaceutical that show up in our lakes and rivers won’t be same. Presently, the media marches a study out and lets the naysayers carp at it at will"often questioning the motives of those doing such a study. The public shakes their collected heads in frustration and shrugs at yet another ‘remote’ news story, which will have to be ignored if they’re going to remain happy.
In the future I imagine the media (which will be the full breath of all our abilities) will tear into these studies like bulldogs. I imagine the new media checking how much the government knew about this issue, what capabilities our water filtration systems have in screening our medicines in our drinking water, how future studies might be designed to find out all the possible pharmaceuticals and how they all react together as they land in one place (our drinking water). All possible effects on all possible plants and animals, including ourselves and our ability to have future selves (endocrine disruptors) will be thoroughly examined. Future media won’t be sitting back and asking Dr. Blowhard who probably works for a pharmaceutical company what his or her spin is on it"that would properly be regarded as insane.
Connecting the green dots, the effects of one species who consumes 25% of the energy and resources on this planet, will not be a headline one day and a phantom the next. The green dots will comprise our existence and they won’t be ignored.
Frank J. Regan RochesterEnvironment.com
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login now.
