56 newspapers in 45 countries carry common editorial on climate change

[bascule]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial

 

Don't think I've ever heard of anything like this before, but 56 newspapers are going to carry the same editorial at once.

 

The editorial warns that action is needed to prevent the ill effects of climate change.

 

This is an interesting way to illustrate the urgency of the matter. I haven't heard of something like it being done before.

[iNow]

I like that they're putting it on the front page.

[CaptainPanic]

Although I like the idea this time - this is also the biggest propaganda I've ever seen.

 

It's nice that they address global warming, and urge politicians to come to an agreement. However, this also shows how independent newspapers are nowadays. What's next? 100 newspapers urge politicians to start a war? 200 newspapers who urge you to buy a new car?

 

Newspapers are supposed to be independent. They should inform us, not set the agenda for politics. This is one of the main problems in our modern world: Media think they can set the agenda of politics... and they cause politics to rush, they cause politics to focus on incidents and they cause politicians to become populists caring more about the headlines than about the actual added value of their actions to the country...

 

So, in short: I think this confirms what I feared: newspapers are not independent, and set the agenda of politics. and I very much dislike that.

.

[swansont]

So, in short: I think this confirms what I feared: newspapers are not independent, and set the agenda of politics. and I very much dislike that.

.

 

This may very well be true, but I don't see how you reach this conclusion from the datum presented here. 56 newspapers in 45 countries. That's an average of barely more than 1 per country — most medium-sized cities have their own paper, and large cities have more than 1. The US alone has more than 3,300 newspapers

 

And newspapers run syndicated editorials and reprint pieces that they like, all the time. Not having 3,300 different opinions on a topic is not evidence that newspapers aren't independent.

[CaptainPanic]

This may very well be true, but I don't see how you reach this conclusion from the datum presented here. 56 newspapers in 45 countries. That's an average of barely more than 1 per country — most medium-sized cities have their own paper, and large cities have more than 1. The US alone has more than 3,300 newspapers

 

And newspapers run syndicated editorials and reprint pieces that they like, all the time. Not having 3,300 different opinions on a topic is not evidence that newspapers aren't independent.

 

I know, I might overreact a little (a lot?). But I find it worrying that these are connected somehow. They seem to copy not only news, but also ideas.

 

This makes me wonder how often there is a contact between the papers. Do they also agree not to publish something? Who decides this? It's probably all very innocent in this particular case... but this has the potential to be less innocent.

 

I am overreacting because the media are our only way of getting information. They are basically the only reason that the democracy functions. They are essential to freedom.

 

And the newspapers involved are among the largest papers in the countries.

[John Cuthber]

OK, so just over 1 paper per country isn't a good hit rate.

Here's what another (fairly well respected) newspaper had to say on the subject.

The might not have shared the editorial but they seem to have the same sentiment.

 

from

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/

[padren]

OK, so just over 1 paper per country isn't a good hit rate.

Here's what another (fairly well respected) newspaper had to say on the subject.

The might not have shared the editorial but they seem to have the same sentiment.

 

You can't expect every newspaper that runs a political editorial cartoon to share the sentiment of the cartoon. A lot of newspapers would be rather bipolar if that was the case. The cartoon also has a very different topic - the editorial is about the need to act now, whereas that cartoon mocks the "climate conspiracy" deniers by pointing out how they wouldn't be taken seriously if they were talking about the moon landing.

 

Secondly, when you say they "share the same sentiment" what is meant exactly? That the editors hold a stance that makes their paper an unfairly biased? I ask because it really cuts to a deeper issue - what if all the facts are only on one side? If they run an editorial cartoon that mocks Flat Earthers, are they being unfair to the Flat Earth position?

 

If a newspaper only shows conclusions drawn in one direction, or mostly does stories that support one side when equally strong stories exist to support the other I think bias is worth calling. If they report that idiots act like idiots, I don't think it's unfair to call a spade a spade.

[John Cuthber]

Frankly, I think they are mocking flat earthers.

The two papers are pitching slightly different versions but both are saying that we need to stop listening to the people trying to derail the important issues, get off our butts and do something.

[padren]

Frankly, I think they are mocking flat earthers.

The two papers are pitching slightly different versions but both are saying that we need to stop listening to the people trying to derail the important issues, get off our butts and do something.

 

The papers are mocking flat earthers? I actually haven't heard of them getting enough traction to be mocked - it was a hypothetical.

 

And I agree with your second statement and think it's a worth-whole position editorially.