[ennui2]

Please stop claiming the MSM doesn't cover doom. It DOES.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope- ... SKCN1174CG

If you guys won't concede it I will keep appending to this thread.

The whole blame the MSM thing is no different from Trump blaming the MSM. It's a scapegoating tactic.

It's not that the MSM won't cover doom--it's the fact it goes in one ear and out the other of the general public.

[ennui2]

Zing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gre ... e_facebook

[ennui2]

I guess I'll drop these links in here for a while.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12754956/ar ... disappears

[ralfy]

Various military and intelligence organizations, science groups, multinational banks, and insurers have been issuing reports concerning peak oil, global warming, financial crises, etc., for some time.

[ennui2]

According to some on this board, the MSM doesn't cover doom. So I've got to prove gravity exists to them.

[dohboi]

Which types of doom are we talking about.

Very rare to have coverage of the Mass Extinction event we are going through, which should be pretty much the biggest story since complex life evolved on the planet.

And of course in the great, wide swath of the world's MSM, you can find some coverage of GW. But the many studies on it have found that, in the Anglophone world at least, and in the US in particular, it has not been covered very well, given the gravity and urgency of the matter:

A number of studies have shown that particularly in the United States and in the UK tabloid press, the media significantly understated the strength of scientific consensus on climate change established in IPCC Assessment Reports

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cov ... ate_change

(Thanks for doing this separate thread on this distinct issue, though. It would still be nice if you defined your terms and standards a bit more precisely, for the sake of clear and productive discussions.)

[ennui2]

it has not been covered very well, given the gravity and urgency of the matter

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. It's not that it isn't covered. It's that it's not covered like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS4aiA17YsM

The MSM is supposed to be our savior, right? Wake us up?

How realistic are such expectations?

Again, how many people remember Earth 2100? That was a prime-time EVENT. It was incredibly pushy and activist. It went in one ear and out the other because it was aired in 2009 and the only thing people cared about was the economy and oil prices had tanked so the peak-oil message seemed false.

Anyway, some of the doomiest editorials have been showing up in Rolling Stone lately. This one got shared on George Takei's Facebook wall overnight. As far as people's eyeballs go, it's hard to beat George Takei's wall. I bet more people saw this through his wall post than the total viewership of the nightly network news combined.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... 8c08864990

Note the language in the first paragraph:

Historians may look to 2015 as the year when shit really started hitting the fan.

Rolling Stone is intentionally "edgy". It doesn't feel the need to mince words (not that it's uncommon to see swearing in any of the MSM these days). But this is a tone that would feel right at home here.

Not good enough, right?

Didn't think so, because the whole MSM doesn't cover doom thing is an attempt to kind of scapegoat inaction onto the media.

[AdamB]

Various military and intelligence organizations, science groups, multinational banks, and insurers have been issuing reports concerning peak oil, global warming, financial crises, etc., for some time.

Too bad most of them only proved that they knew no more about resource economics than, say, Matt Savinar or Richard Heinberg.

Remember the US military one, where we should have shortages...right about now? Now you need to redefine glut as shortage, and you'll be golden!

[ennui2]

Zing:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ?CMP=fb_gu

[ennui2]

Zing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al4giu0rgoI

[ralfy]

Multiple reports are shared in the link in my signature.

[ennui2]

Zing.

http://europe.newsweek.com/one-tenth-ea ... ars-496706

[ennui2]

ZING

http://www.sciencealert.com/bill-nye-ex ... d-on-earth

BTW, ScienceAlert's reach:
http://www.sciencealert.com/advertise-with-us
"Based in Australia, we reach an engaged international audience of more than 20 million people each week"

[regardingpo]

I will do the unspeakable and agree with ennui2.

[ennui2]

Thesis: MSM does cover doom.

Posts: Evidence that MSM covers doom.

Typical rebuttals:

The media outlet doesn't have sufficient readership to be classified MSM, or the reportage is not alarmist ENOUGH because it's not flailing and screaming that billions will die. Or it should be disregarded because it doesn't openly advocate for this or that solution (like abolishing money, steady state economy, instituting marxism, forced-sterilization, etc...)

None of these rebuttals disprove the point. MSM covers doom. The reason we're not trying to face doom enough is not the media's fault, it's human nature.

Too much of what people contribute here are grumpy drive-by screeds that are unsupported by any evidence. We are asked to just accept this because we're all assumed to be equally grumpy and cynical and fed-up with "the man".

Typical screed is "The media(TM) won't report doom because they(TM) need us to buy soap."

Well, sorry to insert some reality into the echo-chamber.

The media does focus on Kim Kardashian's ass too much, but it ALSO reports on doom.

People would rather fixate on Kim Kardashian's ass, though.

Is that not substantive and relavant enough to peak oil and limits to growth?

Should I jump in the 911 topic and keep rehashing a stale 15 year old tinfoil topic ad nauseum the way so many do instead?

Maybe post political caricatures?

I think we know how this place operates, with all it's dysfunction. It's about as obvious as...

[regardingpo]

I will do the unspeakable and agree with ennui2.

Agree with what? What point has ennui made, other then that George Takei is an out of work ex-actor?

Oh come on now, the point he's trying to make in this topic is pretty clear:

"It's not that the MSM won't cover doom--it's the fact it goes in one ear and out the other of the general public."

That's what I was I agreeing with, not because of his links but based on my own experience. My impression is that the general public is willfully ignorant and it's their own fault.