Epic Huggles

Class Response - Oct. 1

I really enjoyed last Wednesdays class.  We had a guest lecturer, Mike Owczarski, come speak with us about working with the media.  One point Mike made that really stood out to me is the fact that it is best to engage the media and tell your own side of the story.  The reason being, whether you like it our not the story is going to be told, regardless, so it is best to have this story told with your own personal input and touch, then to leave the story to an agenda-driven reporter.  Also when working with the media you have the power to set guidelines and rules that can manage your interaction with the media and serve as a safeguard.  These pointers were very helpful and i feel they will be beneficial to me in the future.

Oct 1 reflection

Wednesday's class was good, as usual. I was very impressed by what Mark Owczarski talked to us about how VT handles it's media outlets, and how it has changed since 4/16. I agree with Scott, it's amazing how really only 4 people handled the swamp of media coverage after the tragedy.  I would have never guessed that there were only 4 people. I guess at this large of a school, I assumed we had a larger media staff. Our group discussion was really good for being so off the cuff.  The discussion of the media and climate change I think can be discussed/debated from either side of the aisle.  It reminds me of something that's being discussed in another class of mine--having to do with rationalizing beliefs on a topic and as you gain more power, the less able you are to make truly "rational" decisions, but at the same time, there may not be just one answer to a problem. The best example for this is our Presidential race. Each candidate believes their stance is correct, and because of how we have divided into Democrat or Republican, then a lot of the solutions provided are very "black and white" (no pun, really), so that only those two options seem to be the ones available, when in reality there could be an option that's not being discussed that could be much better. I don't really know if that makes sense to anyone else, but it does in my head. Sorry if it's kind of rambly.

Class reflection from 10/1

Mike Owczarski guest lecture on working with the media really put things into perspective on how it’s accomplished.  Informing us on how a staff of four people dealt with the media after April sixteen was really amazing.  I had a lot of opinions about how Virginia Tech handled the media after the tragedy, but after Mike explained how they handled it, I don’t think anybody could have done a better job.  Mike is a true talent at what he does for a living.  Our discussion group was very interesting, we talk about climate change and how the media doesn’t give much coverage for such issues for a variety of reasons and how large corporations tried to cover up the issue in the beginning, but overall Wednesday was a good lecture as usual.

Oct. 1st Discussion Question

The major reason that global warming/climate change has not been given a higher position on the public agenda is mainly a result of only a small portion of society being aware of the problem. The media plays a HUGE role in determining what our nation’s citizens are aware of. Most Americans don’t have time to gather information on current issues, because our lifestyles are often too busy to sit down and read a book, research article, or journal. Television is really the only medium that Americans receive information from and how TV media frames, omits, or choose problems determines what issues are the most important. The first reason climate change isn’t being portrayed as a major threat is that the topic lacks “newsworthiness”. Stories that make it to a general audience usually involve human interest, are stimulating and exciting, and are usually negative in scope. News generally doesn’t try to be negative, but disasters and pending doom is much more exciting to talk about. “Global Warming” is pending doom though isn’t it? It is but its effects are not always visible and occur over long periods of time. The news media won’t show a video of ice melting, but will show pictures of bridges collapsing and planes crashing. Global warming also tends to be ignored by society, because it doesn’t really harm us close to home. Most of the negative effects of climate change are being felt in regions far away from are car filled cities. The media also attempts to remain “balanced” in their presentation of news. The media wants to make sure that major positions on controversial issues are adequately presented, and no one position is given undue emphasis (I believe Fox and Friends missed this memo). Global warming is a crisis to some, but a natural event that will right itself to others. The media won’t mention global warming often in order to not alienate faithful viewers. This is why Fox and Friends tells us that Obama might be a chain smoker, but doesn’t really show us too many videos of polar bears swimming across huge expansions of oceans (sorry).

.The major things to remember in this situation are “Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Delay”. In order for the Roanoke Times to publish a story about our organization, we must not withhold any information about our organizations’ actions, goals, and structure and this information must be delivered in a timely fashion. By supplying the newspaper with all of our information the editor will see that we are credible and present us in a good light. If the writer or editor senses that we are withholding any information, however, they could possibly spin what we in a negative fashion. Also when we provide information try to make what were doing as exciting as possible. If the reporter begins to wonder if our organization’s actions aren’t newsworthy we might end up on page eight or no page at all. In terms of global warming explain the famines certain regions are facing, discuss the potential (and present) armed conflicts over natural resources, and explain how global warming will affect individuals personally. Be responsive to their questions, and respond in ways that won’t offend the report. They will attempt to instigate certain reactions from us, but we really can’t afford to start some rant on how Republicans are to blame or some other incendiary remark. Stay clam, collected, and provide fast, educated, and emotional responses.

Discussion for class 10/1

Global warming and climate change didn’t get a lot of attention from the media because it’s nothing but a slow process of research being done by scientists and it’s taken a lot of years to get interest from the media and public because they needed solid evidence that climate change is actually occurring.  Plus nobody is suffering from the effects of global warming neither, I also think money is a big issue here because maybe the scientists didn’t have a lot of money to help spread the word about the issue. Solid research is a must to get the attention of people and if they don’t have good evidence people will ignore it.  At the beginning climate change error, it wasn’t an issue, a short write up in the paper or a small news clip on television didn’t make a difference.  Now solid research has brought the issue to the front of the paper with long episodes on the history channel.

I would go the Roanoke Times and pitch my idea on how the get the attention of people on this issue.  Most ordinary people don’t understand what’s happing to the world when a scientist try’s to explain.  Get with a write that’s interested in the topic and put the information out in a way people will understand it.  This will get the attention of people so they will start living in a way to help control global warming.

10/1 Discussion

Ever since I became more aware of what's going on in the world outside of my house, Climate Change has been a pretty hot issue. I would never have thought that it was overlooked for decades. Just from Creighton's writing, I would say that the issue was not very well known enough to be controversial. The community who actually understood it might not have the voices to put the issues up for debate. The rest of the population just didn't think it was that big of a deal to form an opinion against it; therefore, it lacks balance on both sides of the spectrum. That goes side by side with the lack of expertise, news folks probably just didn't have the knowledge about the issue that scientists did. Most people didn't think it was actually occurring so that means everything was going fine. Hence, it was not newsworthy

As the leader of an environmental group, I would rather have someone who has a background in this area who knows what they are talking about to write this piece. So I guess getting to know who these reporters are would be a great idea. Making the issues controversial would be good as well. Maybe at this point in time, this issue is no longer that controversial anymore. It has taken the other direction in regard to what it used to be. Now, most people will agree that Climate Change is happening. So the Climate is getting worse; therefore, it is newsworthy. I don't think it would have such problems making it to the newspaper anymore. Communicating the issue's potential threats is important as well. Then make a connection between the issue and values that are important to most people. So something like Climate Change is going to destroy this earth together with our future generations. Of course there will have to be a lot more facts supporting those claims. Lastly, like Creighton emphasizes, credibility is extremely important, which means timeliness, truthfulness, and accuracy of the information that I would hand to the reporter.

Discussion for 10/1-Media

In Chapter fourteen of the Public Participation Handbook, Creighton attempts to help the readers understand why the media acts the way the do. He identifies four observations to explain media actions- 1. Newsworthiness, 2. Balance, 3. Limited Time and Expertise, 4. Everybody has an axe to grind. Its likely that at least one of these was influential in keeping global warming out of the news for so long. Newsworthiness means its new, different, attention grabbing, and often bad news. Now I think global warming is bad news so it seems as if it would have been featured. But newsworthiness also means it will "hit home" for people. For so long people had very little interest and very little knowledge of climate change or the effects and so they wouldn't make that personal connection to the fact that some glaciers in the Arctic are melting. Balance is probably where companies like Exxon/Mobil etc came into play. In Erin's post she mentions how they spent millions of dollars a year to fund skeptic groups. Media wants to show "balance" in their reporting so these Exxon/Mobil funded skeptic groups would get just as much media as all other scientists that believe in global warming. Most reporters probably also had limited expertise on the subject of global warming and had little time to do much research on it. I think at least 3 of Creighton's 4 observations played into keeping global warming out of the news.

I agree with most other people in the way I would get an editor to assign climate change to one of their reporters. I would start with research. Looking through to see if there was a reporter who seemed to have interest or background in the environment. If I found such a reporter, I would contact the editor and request him/her. I would prepare an explanation of why the reporter would want to write an article on global warming. This may prove a little bit difficult because the biggest effects of climate change aren't really affecting most readers of the Roanoke Times. I would contact the editor over the summer. People are much more likely to pick up and read an article on global warming on a 95 degree day in August than a 20 degree day in February. I would mention that as part of my pitch. I think the biggest thing would be finding an interested reporter.. which may be hard to do.

Oct. 1 Discussion

The media is like any other business; thriving on “newsworthy” stories to inform the public.  However, the definition of newsworthy can be subjective, and can also be controlled by larger corporations.  As Creighton describes, when working with the media, it is all about maximizing disclosure with minimum delay.  By doing this, whoever is working with the media can gain or lose support of the public with a lack of responsiveness; this shows lack of commitment or care for the issue.  Because the media is controlled by money, it is easy to understand how the public’s recognition of Climate Change is being acknowledged as a new scientific theory. 

As a leader of an environmental advocacy group, I would first contact the Roanoke Times and create a professional relationship with the journalist and editor of the paper.  I would explain my stance on the environment, and correlate with a journalist who shares my similar views.  The journalist and I would then discuss the message of my advocacy group, and angle its “newsworthiness” on the relationship of the environment and Roanoke.  For example, if I wanted the public to be more aware of the alternatives for gas, I would look at the current gas shortage within the area, and stress the importance that alternatives can provide.  Furthermore, if a concerned citizen had any questions or comments, I would ensure that my advocacy group would respond in a timely manner.  When working with the public, it is important to gain their trust and respect through emotional media and being responsive to the issue at hand. 

Oct. 1 Discussion

The media is like any other business; thriving on “newsworthy” stories to inform the public.  However, the definition of newsworthy can be subjective, and can also be controlled by larger corporations.  As Creighton describes, when working with the media, it is all about maximizing disclosure with minimum delay.  By doing this, whoever is working with the media can gain or lose support of the public with a lack of responsiveness; this shows lack of commitment or care for the issue.  Because the media is controlled by money, it is easy to understand how the public’s recognition of Climate Change is being acknowledged as a new scientific theory. 

As a leader of an environmental advocacy group, I would first contact the Roanoke Times and create a professional relationship with the journalist and editor of the paper.  I would explain my stance on the environment, and correlate with a journalist who shares my similar views.  The journalist and I would then discuss the message of my advocacy group, and angle its “newsworthiness” on the relationship of the environment and Roanoke.  For example, if I wanted the public to be more aware of the alternatives for gas, I would look at the current gas shortage within the area, and stress the importance that alternatives can provide.  Furthermore, if a concerned citizen had any questions or comments, I would ensure that my advocacy group would respond in a timely manner.  When working with the public, it is important to gain their trust and respect through emotional media and being responsive to the issue at hand. 

October 1 Discussion Questions

The media receives a substantial amount of negative feedback from the public, and rightfully so.  They appear to be your friend one moment and then turn against you when you're least expecting it.  It's a love/hate relationship that we can't live with, but also cannot live without.  In the case of climate change, I believe the manner in which it was covered (or ignored) by the media has a lot to do with those parties who have a vested interest in seeing the topic covered in a certain way.  In this case, it is the extremely powerful oil companies and related special interest groups who have a vested interest in seeing concerns about climate change downplayed, ignored and disputed in the media.  ExxonMobil, in particular, has made concerted efforts to produce controversy around the issue of climate change through the use of media outlets.  The stories and angles to research they present have been in opposition of common scientific thought about climate change, making controversy that the media has long considered newsworthy, as Creighton describes.  From additional research I have done in the past on climate change, it it my understanding that "big oil" and other interested groups have used the media to create controversy around the issue climate change and by doing so, transforming what ought to be a black or white issue based off scientific research into a personal value or belief that you either choose to "believe in" or not.  All of these factors together have contributed to delay of public recognition on the topic of climate change. 

However, in an attempt to be balanced like a journalist, I must say that I think the media has started to flip its approach to covering climate change.  From originally focusing on the controvery surrounded by the issue, the media has now shifted to covering the "crisis" of climate change.  This video from the CEI has some truth in it when he speaks about the media and describes my point about the media shifting its approach to covering climate change - http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2073. 

If I were to say the the CEO of Surfrider Foundation (http://www.surfrider.org/default.aspx), a non-profit, grass roots environmental advocacy group that focuses on the protecting the oceans, beaches and shorebreaks, and I wanted the Roanoke Times or any other paper to write a piece about how climate change would impact the oceans, beaches and shorebreaks, among other things, there are several tools and techniques I would use.  I would first point out the changes caused by climate change that we have already witnessed, how it affects what we advocate for and the corrective and preventative measures Surfrider has taken to reduce the impact we as humans have on the climate.  This would all be communicated to the editor through a press release.  As part of a media kit that would follow the press release, I would include copies of Surfirder's quarterly magazine "Making Waves" that highlights some of the major victories and progress of the local chapters of Surfrider, a history and general background about the organzation and several detailed reports that Surfrider produces that further explain the impact of climate change on our oceans.  I think this would be adequate to convince the editor of the Roanoke Times that Surfrider's work and progress towards addressing climate change is newsworthy enough to dedciate the time and resources to write a feature story about it.

Discussion Post -10/1

The topic of climate change is a highly controversial topic for many reasons.  One major contributing factor to this controversy is the differing “expert” opinions on the subject.  On one side of the spectrum there are leading climatologists and other officials that believe that climate change and global warming are serious threats to our way of life now and most certainly in the future.  While on the other hand there are pundits that’s say that the climate changes are not as drastic as others say.  They contend that these climate changes will not affect us in the long run and claim that technological advances will circumvent future problems.  It would be very beneficial for large corporations such as Exxon/Mobil to slant the view of public perception of climate change in the media and claim that it has little to no affect on us or our way of life.  The reason being, these corporations (Exxon/Mobil, in particular) profit from the refinement of resources like as petroleum, however this process is a major contributor to increased climate change and global warming.  And for Exxon/Mobil, a corporation which brings in billions of dollars a year, it would behoove them to work in conjunction with the media to keep major issues like climate change as a result of industrial processes on the back-burner. 

             If I wanted my advocacy group’s stance printed in the Roanoke Times, I would first hold a forum open to the public where the topic of climate change and global warming was discussed on the individual level.  I would take the time to explain what the affects of global warming and climate change mean for individuals and their way of lives now and their children’s lives in the future.  Then I would take input from real people and use their fears, questions, and uncertainties to set up a framework for an Op-Ed piece, where I use plain English backed by my advocacy group to discuss the dangers of climate change and how global warming affects us now and how it will in the near future.  The reason being global warming and climate change affects us all in one way of another and I would sit down and explain this to the editor.                  

Response for Oct 1

Media is supposed to present us with unbiased information about events in the world, but ultimately, like all other businesses, media outlets need to make money. To do that they must make news interesting to consumers. Creighton discusses how conflict tends to give stories “newsworthiness” (122), and without it there will not be much coverage since people do not want to read lackluster stories. Until recently, issues are arising in relation to global warming, bizarre and hazardous weather patterns for example. Previously, there hasn’t been much impact of global warming on the public, the audience the media must target.  These new conflicts give stories involving global warming a human interest angle and people want to read/hear about it since it is a relevant issue in people’s lives. This is why climate change seems like a new discovery.

Furthermore, journalists see presenting both sides of a story as an important part of their job. Creighton discusses how journalists search for “balance” and aim to incorporate all prominent views, giving no one view emphasis (122). He also discusses how often groups find this practice frustrating since an expensive study will get the same acknowledgment as a view that has no basis in fact. It’s for this reason that there was so much “controversy” as to whether global warming was a “real” problem. Stories presented scientific studies saying that climate change was indeed real, but would also mention “scientists” who said it was not. “Balance” gave undue credibility to both sides.

A 2007article by the Union of concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html) discusses how ExxonMobil spent $16 million over seven years funding skeptic groups to create confusion about global warming and fabricate the illusion of disagreement among “experts” under the guise that it was attempting to “improve scientific understanding of global warming”. This method created a newsworthy controversy thus, global warming received coverage while at the same time, ExxonMobil was able to in a way bring into disrepute most scientific evidence by presenting evidence to the contrary.

If I were the leader of an environmental advocacy organization and wanted to publicize the risks posed by climate change I would try to contact a journalist who has some knowledge about climate change, or a journalist who agrees with my opinions of climate change. I'd avoid technical jargon when discussing global warming and its implications. I'd also provide the journalist with charts and graphs that were easy to read so people can visualize evidence of global warming and I'd encourage them to include these charts/graphs in the article. I'd also point out who was paying for the research, and hopefully get people to understand that my opposition lacks credibility. But like Creighton says, it's important to present both sides because otherwise the believability of information in the article is discounted by the audience. I'd then talk about the potential effects of global warming and how they'll affect the readers of the Roanoke times. I'd present this data in a factual rather than a hypothetical tone. Doing this will add a human factor and make the story newsworthy.

Oct 1 Discussion Question

The topic of Climate change has been a controversial issue in that some believe it is occuring, while others don't (at least for the same reasons).  The media may have played a role in delaying public recognition of this issue by there being such a large amount of "positive" information coming from large organizations that to the media, it didn't seem like a controversial issue, while more "negative" information was coming from lower level, smaller organizations.  The "negative" information may have made the paper (for "balance") but it may not have made the front page, like the larger orgs info, but a small story in the back corner of the paper, or just a 10 second blurb at the end of the news.  Also, since the larger organizations may have had a bigger reputation, since the reporters are working on a tight schedule, they may have just gone to those organizations as a source because they reporters saw them as experts on the subject.

If I wanted my organizations issues written about in the Roanoke Times, I would create a media kit for the paper, as an easy source of information for the writer in case they can't get a hold of me or my PR person. I would also research the paper's staff to find out if any particular writer has an interest in my cause. When contacting the Editor, I would request that writer, so that I know that they will potentially put more time into it because they have an interest in the subject. Also, I would have interviews or meet with the writer to get a personal connection with them so that hopefully they will get a full understanding of our topic. As an organization, we will "spin" it with a human interest story, such as how the climate change is hurting local farms, or how the heat is effecting the elderly, etc.--something to catch the attention of the public to bring it to the eye of the citizen, and to be appealing as "newsworthy."