Nina Jankovic
Overlaps and Contradictions for Perceptions of Peak-oil Theory
Perspective on any topic is a determining factor to how the information will be received by one who is uninformed. The “spin” or propaganda greatly affects the attitude and/ or actions of a reader. After looking at the articles Life after the Oil Crash, the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times and Die Off I see a surprisingly small difference between the articles, since the main-stream articles offered the perspective of the pessimists as well, and have only recently started talking about peak-oil. The apocalyptic articles are far more powerful, logical and much more thorough and insightful. I can understand why; the topic of peak-oil has been very significant for the past fifteen years amongst the apocalyptic circles of activists and writers, the optimists have only started to cover the vital subject in their mainstream media in the past six months (however there have been some comments made on the topic years ago at press conferences). Generally both sides agree that there will be a peak in oil production, however the dates of which, the main- stream side doesn’t seem to have chosen which predicted year they will support. Another agreement can be found with the surface relationship between the global financial system and the supply of oil; since the main stream does not go in to great detail. It is also clear for both that once oil is on the decline this will disrupt our western civilization’s way of life, though this is not explicitly discusses in the main- stream. A clear discrepancy is that the MSM has hope that alternative energies could be implemented, the only real problem is that time is limited. (The CS monitor, implies this twice.) The MSM is just introducing the subject to the masses, therefore they are mostly still trying to explain the fatal issue we are all facing, and do have a degree of objectivity in which they try and present both sides (the optimists and the pessimists or catastrophists). The NYT in its fashion makes it explicitly clear that as far as the political situation of the Empire goes in terms of peak-oil they do not support Bush; they must keep their reputation of being a liberal and democratic newspaper. They seem to be more conservative about the consequences of a collapse than the CS monitor, who in its article does acknowledge that war, violence and starvation will most likely occur. Of course the MSM does not recognize that it is the nature of the civilization, the western way of life that must change/ be replaced and not the energy source.
Overlaps and Contradictions for Perceptions of Peak-oil Theory
Perspective on any topic is a determining factor to how the information will be received by one who is uninformed. The “spin” or propaganda greatly affects the attitude and/ or actions of a reader. After looking at the articles Life after the Oil Crash, the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times and Die Off I see a surprisingly small difference between the articles, since the main-stream articles offered the perspective of the pessimists as well, and have only recently started talking about peak-oil. The apocalyptic articles are far more powerful, logical and much more thorough and insightful. I can understand why; the topic of peak-oil has been very significant for the past fifteen years amongst the apocalyptic circles of activists and writers, the optimists have only started to cover the vital subject in their mainstream media in the past six months (however there have been some comments made on the topic years ago at press conferences). Generally both sides agree that there will be a peak in oil production, however the dates of which, the main- stream side doesn’t seem to have chosen which predicted year they will support. Another agreement can be found with the surface relationship between the global financial system and the supply of oil; since the main stream does not go in to great detail. It is also clear for both that once oil is on the decline this will disrupt our western civilization’s way of life, though this is not explicitly discusses in the main- stream. A clear discrepancy is that the MSM has hope that alternative energies could be implemented, the only real problem is that time is limited. (The CS monitor, implies this twice.) The MSM is just introducing the subject to the masses, therefore they are mostly still trying to explain the fatal issue we are all facing, and do have a degree of objectivity in which they try and present both sides (the optimists and the pessimists or catastrophists). The NYT in its fashion makes it explicitly clear that as far as the political situation of the Empire goes in terms of peak-oil they do not support Bush; they must keep their reputation of being a liberal and democratic newspaper. They seem to be more conservative about the consequences of a collapse than the CS monitor, who in its article does acknowledge that war, violence and starvation will most likely occur. Of course the MSM does not recognize that it is the nature of the civilization, the western way of life that must change/ be replaced and not the energy source.
posted by Nina Jankovic at 23:51
1 Comments:
Nina,
Your discussion of the MSM seems to attempt to outline the box that the corporate media is constructing around the hole that peak oil is drilling in the dominant story. That's an interesting project - it reminds me of meditation.
I'd be interested in your speculation as to why the NYT and the CSM have recently decided to report this long-standing issue (and now CNN, etc).
Do you see the corporate media as fully incorporated into the elite, a wing of the elite, or partially independent of the elite, on this issue? What implications does that suggest to you for future events and processes?
Post a Comment
<< Home