The Odd One Out: Media and the road to freedom

(Translation by Johanna Kratz)

I thought we could play a little game today.

I'm going to list seven sentences (in fact, they're headlines or subheadings) that were published by the press following the May 5, 2007, release of the third part of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The aim of the game is to find the odd one out among the seven sentences. So, let's begin:

The fight against global warming: less costly than anticipated (La Presse) [Our translation]

New international report reaffirms severity of the expected impacts of climate change more clearly than ever (www.visiondurable.com ) [Our translation]

Warming Triggers ‘Alarming' Retreat of Himalayan Glaciers (McClatchy Newspapers)

Antarctic Ocean Losing Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide (Environmental News Service)

Saving Earth's Plant Diversity From Global Warming (Environmental News Service)

NASA: Vast Areas of West Antarctica Melted in 2005 (Environmental News Service)

Climate change: the most pessimistic scenario becoming a reality (Canadian Press) [Our translation]

Did you spot the odd one out? If you did, you win the prize for clairvoyance. Well done!

You think I'm making fun of you? I wouldn't dare.

If you thought that my little game was a joke, you're very well informed; more informed than most people are. You may also have noticed that five of the seven headlines or subheadings come from fairly specialized publications.

I can just imagine the relieved readers to whom the news that the fight against global warming won't be a costly one is a balm to the soul.

However, I can also see other readers who don't know what to believe anymore. Those readers remember the study by British economist Sir Nicholas Stern (mandated by none other than Tony Blair), published a few months ago and according to which the world has to commit 1% of its economy to keep global warming in check. Those readers try to fight their way through the jungle of conflicting information, as the IPCC, the world authority in global warming is of the opinion that there is nothing to worry about and that we'll need to spend only 0.1%, that is, ten times less than Stern's estimate, to achieve this.

Strangely enough, among local publications, the best analysis of this issue was provided on one of the Web sites of major Quebecois publisher Transcontinental Media. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only media outlet that has properly drawn attention to the role played by some of the major powers: "The conclusions of the IPPC's summary report for decision-makers are not as alarming as those of the initial report. In fact, the US, Chinese and Saudi delegations have succeeded in greatly diluting the scientists' findings." (www.visiondurable.com ) [Our translation]

This shows that even the mass media can provide us with satisfactory coverage, even though it also has the annoying tendency to reflect the official version uncritically.

Recent examples testify to this. During the July 2005 London terrorist attacks, for example, the media transformed itself into the spokesperson for the British police. Last year, during the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the media seemed to be in bed with the nuclear lobby. A little later, coverage of the terrible terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, appeared to suggest that the life of an Indian was less-much less-important than that of a Westerner.

The question we need to ask is clearly what we can do against the apparent omnipotence of the mass media.

In my opinion, the answer is much more than we think, and this is much easier than it seems.

To start with, we have to read what is being written. That means setting aside our prejudice that everything the media says is nonsense.

Then, we must discard the more persistent myth, something of an urban legend, that there is too much information available.

Clearly, the increasing number of publications and specialized television channels as well as the explosion of the Internet can give us the impression that there is indeed too much information out there.

But, if you really start thinking about it, you'll find that we can never get enough information.

I'm not saying that there isn't any bad information out there, but what's the point of complaining about it given that this kind of information is easy to recognize and can therefore be avoided?

In fact, the increasing number of sources of information, and this does not only include so-called alternative media sources, provides us with an opportunity to cross-reference, speculate and hypothesize, and later validate (or not, as the case may be).

It provides us with an opportunity to exercise our freedom therefore.

Once you've cleared the slate, you have to acquire a certain willingness to absorb information like a sponge.

Once again, this is easier than it seems.

One morning, sitting drowsily in front of my computer, I realized that my brain, which until then I had thought to be asleep, was actually reacting very quickly as soon a subject or keyword, such as water, climate, war or peace, caught my eye.

It was quite a strange feeling: it was as if my brain was working away by itself without my having to give the order. In fact, the brain is made for this kind of work. Isn't that amazing?

From then on, I realized that I could trust my faculties, regardless of my level of alertness: my brain continues to absorb information, even when I feel as if I'm just operating on cruise control.

From there on, the sky's the limit!

You'll digest the information while doing other things, such as riding to work on the metro (in winter) or your bike (in the summer) or going for a coffee with a friend.

So, bon appétit, and enjoy the road to freedom.

— Little Jean