The way we frame: global warming and the corporate media

A recent poll -- and take it only for what it's worth -- showed that just 49% of U.S. Americans believe global warming is a pressing issue. Compare that to other westernized democracies, and the number is embarrassing. For example, 73% of the French and 70% of Germans said they recognized the immediacy and gravity of global climate change.

Why do we refuse to care? The reasons are complex and plentiful; they include the weight of corporate energy interests, a lack of government regulation, Democrats' refusal to push absolute green policy, and perhaps, the overriding feeling among Americans that it hasn't yet affected us personally. It would be practically impossible, given my level of education, for me to account for all of these reasons in the following space. However, I believe it would be most purposeful to examine some of the ways in which corporate media influence our perception of global warming.

First, if we are to ready to make the assumption that the media is indeed corporate, it is not a great leap to suggest that said corporate media will be most concerned with its own interests. For the purposes of survival, they have no choice but to submit to the pursuits of parent companies, trustees, and big-money advertisers. And until recently, green policy has been most fervently dismissed by corporate interests.

Second, the media have long had a moral obligation to fairly present multiple sides of any issue. Even though few scientists would argue against the presence of global warming, they oftentimes receive equal air time -- especially on the cable news networks.

Third, because of inherent time constraints, cable news television is a medium that inspires ideologically defined debates lacking in quality and depth. Given those limitations, arguments that play well on television are those solidly grounded in contrarianism and anti-intellectualism. Along with materialism and individualism, those foundations of dominant U.S. ideology belie the complex scientific arguments needed for proof of global warming. They belie a "waning of the self" and "waxing of the commons" needed for pushing green policy. Corporate industries need to look beyond their own interests in order for climate change to be taken seriously in the United States.

Or do they?

Given the overnight rise to stardom of one T. Boone Pickens, and given IBM's recent advertising campaign, it's becoming painfully obvious that there is one way in which green policy might seep its way into U.S. American consciousness: make it profitable.