An Open Letter to Roger Alton

Dear Roger Alton,

I saw the following posted on the Medialens messageboard:

“Dear [Name withheld]
I assume you have this stuff from medialens. It does seem clear, and forgive me if wrong, that you actually don't read our paper. Our coverage of the political, economic and environmental issues around climate change has been immense, balanced, and thorough. It is of course none of my business, but I don't think you should send out emails like this just because Medialens tells you to.
Best wishes
Roger”

Well I can’t speak for “Name withheld”, but I can for myself.

Firstly, no, I don’t read the paper in the traditional sense. I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m just not interested in products or fashion or celebrities or film reviews. I’m interested in news and comment, and that’s all available online, your paper included. And of course unlike with the hardcopy there’s loads of other interactive civvies out there picking through it all, and tipping each other off. All without any features on Toyotas, Kate Moss or Big Brother. In my position, why on earth would I want to buy or read the paper itself?

Secondly, you describe your coverage of climate change as immense and balanced, but surely that leaves the most important question unanswered: What’s the net effect of your output? Does the overall influence of The Observer’s environmental warnings actually outweigh the effects of its promotion of 4x4’s and air travel? After reading a copy, is one more likely or less likely to buy a new car? More likely to join Greenpeace or more likely to join the mile high club? Surely it must be the adverts that win the day. No corporation would pay you good money to come off worse in the public mind. What sane business would line the pockets of company that was striving to rein-in their output?

There once was a billboard advert in a Viz cartoon which read, “SMOKE TABS”. Beneath, in smaller case it read, “H.M Government warning: Don’t smoke tabs”. The Observer, Independent, and Guardian environmental stance seems much the same: A huge banner headline reading, “INCREASE CONSUMPTION!” over a much smaller “Over-consumption is killing us”

For that’s what it’s come to. The Siberian permafrost is melting. Human survival depends upon us sharply decreasing our use of fossil fuels. We can’t afford any more cars, we can’t even afford the ones we’ve got. The last thing any concerned party should do is help to promote them. And here’s the Orwell, I only know this because I read it in the bleeding Observer and Independent and Guardian!

You can see why it looks like madness to so many of us. It really doesn’t matter how good your coverage of climate change is when at the same time you’re obliged to ensure it doesn’t outweigh the effect of adverts for the very products causing the crisis. I know it’s not intentional, but it’s still a cruel trick. Getting affluent liberals to frown at melting icecaps on one page, then drool over the causes of melting icecaps on the next. Even for those who don’t buy the products the effect is fogging. The mere existence of such adverts waters down the urgency of the situation, normalises the madness. I mean, how real can the dangers of climate change actually be when the ‘liberal’ press still push cars and air travel? As with cigarettes, as long as such things are given the legitimacy of advertising it’s hard to take the threat seriously.

If the net effect of reading The Observer is to make one less sensitive to environmental problems then this sort of coverage is worse than none at all. If climate change articles are just another way to get people to fly then it would be better not to bother. In a nutshell, lose the cars or stop pretending to care.

Finally, I don’t send letters to journalists because Medialens tell me to. I do it when they point out contradictions that trouble me. Huge glaring holes in the media worldview, ones that help maintain this madness. Not that it’s my business, and forgive me if I’m wrong, but do you ever actually read Medialens alerts? They’re enough to make you scream. They enough to drive some members of the general public to actually take some journalists to task. Surely that’s better than a passive audience? News output is chronically skewed by corporate interests, and corporate lobbying. Isn’t it good for democracy that everyday folk can now question journalists? You have the right to challenge them, why shouldn’t we?

All the best,

Martin.