We’re halfway through a catastrophic bushfire season. The fires are a tragedy — but now there’s another tragedy unfolding in their wake: the deliberate misinformation, obfuscation and climate equivocation playing out in certain sections of the media.
With that in mind, we’d like to ask you some questions about the media you support:
- Does it believe, and actively champion, the fact that man-made climate change is real?
- Is it beholden to big business, big polluters or the fossil fuel industry?
- Does it deliberately spread misinformation to support these industries?
- Is it owned by Australians? Is Australian quality journalism its primary purpose? Is it trustworthy?
We’d like you to consider these questions and, depending on your answers, decide whether it’s time to unsubscribe from media that’s on the wrong side of history. To support independent, Australian media that consistently ask tough questions, without commercial interests or political affiliations clouding their judgement. To invest your attention, time and money into the right kind of media.
Unfortunately this admonition is on the wrong side of history, by about 50 years: ‘man-made’ is sexist and should be eschewed by all seeking equity.
Perhaps a sense of proportion may help Gavin. “Human induced” is more common nowadays and probably more your sort of thing and your point is slightly better than just semantics.
However climate change is way off the scale by comparative importance.
I won’t be adjusting my subscriptions based on this appeal. Crikey publishes enough of its own preferred reactionary nonsense but I’m still here for the quality regulars.
It’s true that women are equally culpable, if the number of them driving lard-arsed Suburban assaUlt Vehicles is any indication. But large-scale changes required to combat climate change are beyond the remit and abilities of individuals. And who have overwhelmingly been in power and are responsible for the rampages of predatory capitalism? Men.
A bit disappointing from Crikey. Normally the bastion of mostly sensible thought, requesting people to narrow their view of the world, to not seek to consider all viewpoints (fleetingly should they be of the crackpot variety), this request is one that I cannot and will never consent to.
I subscribe to both Crikey and The Australian. I find it instructive and productive in the formation of my world views to review the reporting of various topics in both papers. To limit myself to one would be to do a disservice to that which I aspire to – quiet intellectual development.
Poor form Crikey. Keen to hear your explanation of why you think this is a good idea.
I suppose there are 2 justifications for urging people to unsubscribe from media that deliberately spread misinformation to inhibit reducing carbon emissions. The Guardian and the Australian edition of the Conversation refuse to publish denialism because it is not only has no merit, but because it is harmful.
Secondly, so serious is the harm caused by climate change that one should boycott not only its big perpetrators, but also their supporters and protectors.
Ketchel, Misha (2019, September 19) There’s a good reason we’re moderating climate change deniers: uninformed comments undermine expertise. Conversation.
Ketchel, Misha (2019, September 17) Climate change deniers are dangerous – they don’t deserve a place on our site. Conversation.
Zeldin-O’Neill, Sophie (2019, October 16) ‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters. Guardian.
So *you’re* the person who subscribes to the Australian. Are you a fish and chip shop owner, or do you have a budgie?
For some odd reason the media reads The Australian for me and tells me all about it. No sub required.
I read a variety of media, not just Crikey. But I will never support a media that is clearly propaganda. False information, lies and manipulation. That has nothing to do with listening to every site. Look at the mess the U.K., USA and Australia is in. They all have two things in common. Murdoch press and Shock Jocks . Worse, Murdoch owns well over 50 % of Australian media, and he is not even Australian. That’s not balance reporting, that is brainwashing and far too much media power in the hands of one company!
Quite agree. How would the govt /public react if a national of another country ( chinese,russian, indian , saudi arabia, turkey , australian or what ever) had as much power over our media. I read a variety of sources and do at times read those of a denialist – to keep up to date with the latest falsehood being promoted.
I cancelled my News Ltd sub a few weeks ago after having purchased the paper daily for 40 years.
I’d been meaning to do it for years. Habit held me back but this summers events crystallised my thinking.
When I cancelled they tried to dissuade me with a 90% price reduction!
I said nah, I’m going to spend the cash on better booze.
While that amused the lady in the News Ltd sub dept it wasn’t really true as I’ve spent in on subs to other media.
Keep up the great work Crikey & Inq
I already do as this piece suggests, but Crikey doesn’t help by often giving links to Murdoch items that prove to be paywalled.
The Murdoch paywall is a blessing in disguise. If they won’t let me read their propaganda without paying and I won’t pay to read it I may keep my blood pressure under better control.
Good point Woopwoop. Crikey should stop linking to ‘media that’s on the wrong side of history’.
It may seem harsh to declare that Australia’s media is foreign dominated, lying, vague, timid, full of desperate careerists and job seekers desiring not to rock any boat, a vague aggregation of smear and smut and smog floggers, but it is basically true. One must seek core facts from many sources to approach a vague grasp, some truth. Opinion from well known egofixated ignoramuses does not help, especially in core commercial media. The “Public” a sweet term for a large number of indolent, uncaring, uninformed and basically incapable types does not help. Elections are bought, politicians are rented and reporters are ..?