Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: blog, blogger, communication, global warming, green blog, international news
Thanks to advanced technology, we can keep track of global news simultaneously 24/7. Media cover various environmental issues around the world and people’s awareness. Visual communication, such as images of flooding in China and melting glaciers in Antarctica, leaves a strong impact on the audience’s mind and and alerts them to the consequences of humans’ selfishness.
Photo Credit: World View of Global Warming
According to the poll released by Stanford University in June 2007, 85 percent of Americans believe global warming is “probably” happening.
Although the majority of Americans are aware of the issue, some people look at the global crises as if they were watching a movie or something happening outside their world. Those people are reluctant to take action for the environment unless they have incentives to do so.
Are they lazy, selfish or immoral? I don’t think so. I understand people who feel overwhelmed by enormous amount of information. The media send out a bunch of clueless information. The audience are loosing a connection with those information. If we really need the audience’s attention, we have to establish “Why do we care?” and “What can we do?”
It is not easy to provide a reason and solution, especially if it’s international news. But as bloggers, we can serve as the bridge to connect global news to the audience. How can we then communicate with readers as a blogger and persuade them to take action?
The best way of advocacy is give a direct experience to the readers and involve them into activities. We can suggest the readers to volunteer abroad to get their hands dirty. This will connect them to a certain region and influence their actions in the future. Learning about fair trade through chocolate, coffee and tea, is a good introduction, too. Donations for green especially to a specific place might make the readers care more about the place. Also, bloggers should gather readers around the world and encourage them to communicate on their blogs. The readers can learn about different opinions, including non-American voices.
Do you have any ideas? I’d love to share your strategy and feedback.
By Sachiko Miyakawa
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: environmentalism, internet, media, perception
Media makes me nauseous.
I have been exposed to a whirlwind of environmental media stories and world news on suffering, violence and hunger. Between the two, I’ve been left feeling skeptical and helpless. I would consider myself pretty well-informed on environmental issues. I live a life more green, and would like to say that my awareness is enough, but lifestyle is not enough, it’s my own perception, and that of others that counts towards a more healthy earth.
The media, I would argue, shapes perception on what is good and bad, and what are important issues to consider. No matter how unbiased a report may seem, the fact that they are published gives the issue an upper hand on importance, and some of the most pertinent issues are barely covered because it is most likely what media thinks people don’t want to hear
Recently, media has shaped the environmental movement in ways that previous generations of environmentalists only wish they had access to. There have been copious amounts of environmental documentaries made, and mentioning a tip here or there on how to be greener, or how your business is green has become a trend. Media takes on a big step for environmentalism, but unfortunately it is ridden with greenwashing, and is targeted to comfortable communities rather than those that are seeking real environmental justice.
Being green is the new feel-good.
I think it has been established that media has done well for environmentalism, although it is ridden with contradiction. As far as access goes for environmental media, it only helps on how much you are interested in it. Since environmentalism is imbued in my brain, I think it is what I am most attracted to when surfing the Internet or reading periodicals, so for me, it is an enormous issue that I am hopeful that many people are being exposed to.
Then I talk to my parents, or coworkers, or someone I run into at the grocery store, and the issues are all jargon to them.
I can mention no personal experience with television – I barely know how to work a remote anymore, so I will focus on the Internet. The internet is an amazing thing because it allows you to cut through the BS that you don’t want to see, you search for exactly what you want to see, you stay on websites that have the same point of view as you, and the websites reinforce your ideas by showing advertisements that they think you would be interested in.
Environmentalism, just as much as any other issue, seems to go only as far as people will allow it in their mind, how much exposure they choose to have in their life and whether or not they will act upon it.
Although the green movement is getting large, is environmentalism still a niche idea?
-Juliana Tran
Filed under: Society + Media, Waste + Recycling | Tags: eco-hottie, John Mayer, LEED, live earth, recycling, ReProduct, Reverb, zero waste
I’m just going to come out and say it: I heart John Mayer.
Photo by Kim Wallace | I waited four hours in the rain to get to the front row to see John at Uptown Theater in Kansas City in 2005. In 2006, I saw him in St. Louis (but not as close). I’m planning to see him in Mountain View, Calif., this summer, if all goes as planned…
Now, you may be thinking, “What the heck does this have to do with our environmental blog, Kim?”
Well, I’m a crazed fan, and I really like to keep up with what he’s doing because he’s my favorite musician. I read his blog, his fan blogs and any other JM-related stuff. Laugh it up, chuckles. Laugh it up.
So of course it caught my attention when I learned that John was getting all emo eco on me. He played at Live Earth and partnered with Reverb, a non-profit that “educates and engages musicians and their fans to promote environmental sustainability” for his 2007 summer tour. He designs and sells eco-friendly (but expensive—that’s another post) tote bags on his website.
But John’s newest venture got me wondering a bit.
He’s partnered with ReProduct, a green greeting card company that prides itself on the reuse of its cards. John designed a collection of cards that are “made from environmentally healthy plastic.”
Does that even make sense?
But it gets better: Instead of chucking the card when it’s time to clear what you’ve hoarded and pack-ratted for months, you can send the card back to the company so that it may be re-purposed into Shaw carpet tile backing.
That means that USPS is going to be driving a ways back and forth and around to redistribute these babies.
I’m just not sure that the supposed eco-friendliness of this product outweighs what can easily be done with conventional, recycled-paper cards: Receive card. Take out money. Put card in recycling bin. Take recycling to the curb/to Wal-Mart recycling center. Spend green on shoes.
ReProduct could have saved so much paper by NOT encouraging the mailing cycle, and could have refused “healthy plastics” by using recycled paper—there’s enough of it to go around, right?
But did John think of that? I just wonder how schooled he is in the pros and cons of the sustainability market. Sure, I’m no expert, but it seems that if I was a famous person, I would want to think before I added my name to something “eco.” I won’t stop loving him for this, but I just wonder why he couldn’t have just designed a cool e-card for Care2 and said to hell with all tangible greeting cards, paper or plastic?
Do you think some celebrities are as schooled in the environment as they need to be? John doesn’t claim to be an eco-hottie, but you could put him in that category for the different things he’s been doing.
What do you think about the pros and cons of the sustainability initiative? Is it really give and take, as it seemed to be with the LEED video we watched in class, as well as this ReProduct company? Can anything EVER be zero-waste? Should companies be allowed to claim “zero-waste”? Tell me, tell me, tell me!
-Kim “I-Wish-I-Was-An-Eco-Hottie” Wallace
Filed under: Business + Politics, Society + Media | Tags: Adam Werbach, Center for Food Safety, consumerism, corporate spying, Greepeace, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Jones magazine, salt, spying, Wal-Mart
Photo courtesy of found_drama
Fellow classmates, the next time we meet for class on Thursday, take a good look at the person sitting to either side of you–chances are one of them is a corporate mole!
At least, that might have been the case if we had held this class between 8 to 10 years ago.
A recent Mother Jones article revealed that several major corporations (among them Wal-Mart and Taco Bell) hired security firms to spy on environmental groups:
A private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings. According to company documents provided to Mother Jones by a former investor in the firm, this security outfit collected confidential internal records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these organizations and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies.
The story goes into great detail about the methods these firms used to spy on groups like Greenpeace, and the ominous-sounding Center for Food Safety, methods which mostly consisted of infiltrating groups with undercover agents, leaking information about their efforts to the corporate enemies they were battling, and digging through their trash for financial records and office memos (silly corporate spies, don’t they know environmental groups have minimal waste).
True, this happened years ago (back when we were still searching for the answer to, “Who let the dogs out” Who? Who? Who? I still don’t know…), but that doesn’t mean we should simply forget it.
I mean, we always knew that Wal-Mart liked to spy on its own employees, but is it somehow okay that they were spying on environmentalists, too?
It all makes me think of Adam Werbach’s efforts to green the retail giant. I understand why he would try to “change the system from within,” but at what point do we acknowledge that the “system” is far too nefarious to fix?
That is, I took great offense to Werbach comparing his consumer-friendly revolution to that of previous anti-imperialistic struggles, most notably that of Gandhi in India. As he states:
Gandhi rallied a nation against imperial British rule with the simple and radical call for a march to the sea to make salt.
Gandhi’s call for a salt march was more about sustainability than economics. His purpose was not to alter the marketing patterns of the British Empire, but to show that, through sustainable practices such as creating their own salt or spinning their own cotton they could eventually circumvent–and remove–a powerful empire. Big difference. It’s not like Gandhi was trying to get the British to create a more “colony-friendly” empire–he wanted them gone. So, unless Werbach is secretly trying to bring down Wal-Mart from within, I’m really not too interested in their latest “Green” efforts.
Don’t get me wrong, everyone should be attempting to live a green lifestyle–but I won’t suddenly jump up and down because one of the giant retailers decides to get on board. I’m glad changes are being made, but I think the bigger issue is teaching Americans that they simply don’t have to consume as much as they think they do–and that we can’t “buy” our way out of our environmental problems, no matter how eco-friendly the products are.
–Ranjit
Filed under: Waste + Recycling | Tags: biodegrable, eco-friendly, green pets, homeless animals, organic dog, tree hugger
When we think about reducing our family’s carbon footprints, we often are neglecting to remember the impacts of our extended family…our pets. You know, the cute little ones we can’t live without?
With almost 62 million dogs in the in US, they are unquestionably making an impact on our environment too. They poop outside, they eat unnatural food, and they chew up plastic toys that have to be replaced. Now companies are giving pet owners the opportunity to green their pets too! Organic dog toys, biodegradable poop bags, and microchip trackers are the future of the ‘green pet.’
The most important thing to do is to adopt a homeless pet. Over 50,000 cats and dogs are born every day in the US, most without homes. Adopting a furry, loving, homeless pet is a great feeling – and a huge step forward to getting rid of this problem. And remember as Bob Barker says, “Spay and neuter your pets!”
A little dog, with a big opinion.
Photo: Dasqutt, Flickr
In order to green your pet, buy sustainable goods for them. Web sites like EarthDog and GreatGreenPet offer everything from organic toys to hemp collars and leashes. While browsing through Petsmart the other day, I even came upon a whole section of organic dog clothes and toys that were reasonably priced, and also some natural doggy shampoos. Not only are organic and all natural dog foods better for you pet, they are also obviously more eco-friendly. There is a growing number of these types of foods available in pet stores and online.
An eco-friendly pet store.
Photo: ddp4566, Flickr
The main eco-concern about our animals is their poop, as fun as that is to talk about. People need to make sure to clean up after their dogs and if possible, use biodegradable bags to do so. Something little that can make a huge difference.
Without pets, life wouldn’t be the same for me. At least now we can start helping our animals live a little greener, and healthier, while making the change for ourselves as well.
-Sarah Nelson
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: al gore, Britney Spears, celebrities and the environment, hybrid cars, Leonardo DiCaprio
In today’s day and age of celebrity obsession, it is hard to dismiss the power of celebrities because they are simply everywhere. Whether we are standing in line at the grocery store checkout or chatting around the water cooler at work, the hot celebrity topics seem to be constantly shoved in our faces. Not that I mind. I enjoy reading my US Weekly and watching Entertainment Tonight, but even I have to admit that sometimes it is just too much.
For example, I work for a morning news show in Kansas City. For about a month, every newscast we had included a Britney Spears story.
The newscast would transition from the latest local news story to Britney’s crazy antics. It was obvious that the anchors were also getting tired of having to read Britney stories day after day. However, there is a way to use Britney’s image in a positive way. Since it seems that celebrities are everywhere, why not use their popularity for good? And for that matter, why not use their popularity to help the environment?
Many people know that Hollywood has jumped onto the environmental bandwagon in some respect. For example, movie star Leonardo DiCaprio is a huge environmental activist who is a well-known friend and ally of Al Gore.
While many celebrities are seen driving hybrid cars and promoting the green movement in their own ways, why not get the celebrities more organized and use their popularity to the fullest extent. For example, find every green product out there and sign up willing celebs to be the spokespeople for it.
This sounds like a good idea initially. However, it could potentially backfire. For example, what if a celebrity that you absolutely hated became the rep for a new green product? Would you automatically turn against that product? Or what if another celebrity became involved in a highly publicized scandal? Would people be turned away from green products and issues because the celebs who represent those products are morally compromised? Or would people even care that much about their personal lives in the first place?
Lindsay
Filed under: Business + Politics, Food + Health | Tags: consumer report, gardenburger, green, greener choice, greenwashing, kellogg's, wiki
groovygreen.com
This week I had to write a food review for Natural Home magazine. I was amazed at how difficult it was to find out which food companies were green and which were greenwashed, and which products were organic and which were….organic…washed? I contacted about 25 different companies, asking if they’d send samples. A week later I received an e-mail from Kellogg’s saying that they could not send me their Gardenburger product because they did not have many to spare. But that I should not feel insulted and that our magazine is the most amazing magazine that ever wrote about nature or homes or natural homes.
Ok, so it didn’t go exactly like that. But you get the idea. I didn’t care. I didn’t want their darn burger anyways. But what really irked me was that Gardenburger was not a small blossoming company like I suspected. No-no, they were owned by Big Papa K.
I felt so used and lied to. I needed a shower.
So if I (a well-informed, green-blogging, prudent, brilliant, environmental magazine intern) couldn’t easily tell the difference between the green and that which has been washed green, how is the average consumer supposed to?
The world is in a desperate need of a green consumer report organization. Now I realize that Consumer Reports actually does have a green site called Greener Choice. This site is actually a great place to start, its very informative and helpful. But it is not nearly developed as the Consumer Reports Web site. Or how about a green consumer wiki like Tip the Planet where people can easily log on and write about the greenness or greenwashing behind different products and companies?
Man, I should really get on that.
Or maybe I’ll just leave it to some corporation with a lot of money.
Talk about a vicious cycle…
-Travis Brown
Filed under: Business + Politics, Society + Media | Tags: Chevron, controlled media, Make Magazine, Niger, uncontrolled media, worldmapper
I was taking a test last week and was stumped by this question. It was something like – Which of the following are “controlled” media? It then listed multiple choice options (company-produced brochures, advertisements, news releases, etc). I’ve been taught in about 3-4 journalism classes that media messages can be broken into these two subcategories. Controlled media being things that a company or organization produce themselves (brochures, advertising) and uncontrolled media being media channels like television, radio and magazines. Maybe I’m just bitter about having a hard time with the question, but honestly, there is no such thing as controlled media. It’s a myth whose phrasing is inherently biased against media skeptics or the media literate (not saying I’m necessarily either but I’m trying at least). This phrase seems to imply some magic-bullet one-way communications theory. That’s an archaic way of looking at communications. Sure, the company or organization is designing (“controlling”) the content, but they have considerably less control over how the media is interpreted and understood. These companies and organizations simply cannot effectively manage an entire population’s response to their messages. Human response is often uncontrolled and the human population isn’t a monolith.
These “controlled” responses can, however, help shape perception and their placement ensures some folks are left out of the discussion. Imagine if this slightly ridiculous Chevron commercial ran in Niger for example, where Chevron has been active in suppressing local dissent and complicit in tolerating human rights abuses. As this Worldmapper map indicates, this part of the world has severely limited access to television which further illuminates not only the importance of media access, but the recognition that access alone doesn’t solve the problem. It’s crucial for us to realize, for example, that SEER technology, discussed in class two weeks ago, is basically a marketing tool to generate positive brand experiences by monitoring blog topics and finding the influencers to generate a “viral” media campaign. We’ve got to realize we can use this wonderful technology in ways that don’t necessarily have to be used to produce commercial transactions. Better yet, let’s design our own technology like the developers and contributors at MAKE Magazine. It’s really up to us, as media consumers to understand how different mediums favor certain perspectives over others and that there truly is no such thing as controlled communication. I think this realization can go a long way in helping us separate the “green” from the “greenwash.”
Does anyone agree? Disagree? Is there a difference between controlled and uncontrolled media?
Worldwide television access map (courtesy of worldmapper.org)
-Vince Meserko
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: developing countries, environment, Japan, media, worldometers
I admit to falling under this category at times. Yet, I always enjoy a good eye awakening moment. For example, like this one. It’s about time we step out of this box (or should I say the United States) and think about the world. How is the world doing? Is it hanging in there? Is the world happy?
It seems like the world is suffering a bit. Large populations are being stuffed into these small countries (for example, Japan) and as worldmapper.org claims: “Out of every 100 persons added to the population in the coming decade, 97 will live in developing countries.” -Hania Zlotnik, 2005
Well why did I not know about this? Why is the media picking and choosing what it is telling its viewers? Don’t you think the world has a right to know what is going on its own world!?
How is the world doing on an environmental level? Good, bad? Getting any better? You always hear these large numbers about the amount of waste we are consuming or how many trees are being cut down. Worldometers has an ongoing count of the destruction we are doing to our world. I think on some level some may have an idea of how bad this is, but honestly, even though it’s hard to imagine these large numbers, it still scared me. My eyes widened as I realized, “Look what is happening to our world. Why didn’t I know this before?”
I guess all I’m saying at this point is, why is the media so picky and choosy? Maybe the world wouldn’t be so self-focused if we were aware of what was going on outside our bubble.
-Dena Hart
Filed under: Business + Politics, Society + Media | Tags: Bambi, blue, cartoons, corporations, Disney, environment, green, green washing, man
Recently a new book has come out about how cartoons have helped in education of conservation.
And not just any cartoons, but big box office cartoons like; Bambi, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Finding Nemo, The Jungle Book, and… wait a second, those are all Disney movies.
But Disney is a giant corporation. Shouldn’t they be making movies about a cute little oil monster who saves the family car?
Just the opposite is true. As Adam Werbach pointed out in his “The birth of blue” speech, not all company CEOs are only consumed with profits. Many are people just like us who care about things.
The proof is in what amazing things corporations have done without their green PR reps there to point it out to the world.
For example, Disney animation. Who could reach generations of youngsters like Disney? Yet as the author points out, they are providing a positive sustainable message.
“Disney films have often been criticised as inauthentic and pandering to popular taste rather than developing the animation medium in a more thought-provoking way.
“In fact, these films have taught us variously about having a fundamental respect for nature. Some of them, such as Bambi, inspired conservation awareness and laid the emotional groundwork for environmental activism.
“For decades Disney films have been providing children with potent fantasies, enabling them to explore how they relate to the natural world.”
Has the EPA done that? Or the Sierra Club? Perhaps, but not nearly to that scale.
Then there is the story Werbach told about McDonald’s putting pressure on soy bean farmers.
It came about through a European consumer campaign led by Greenpeace to put pressure on McDonald’s to stop buying chickens for Chicken McNuggets that were produced with soy from the Amazon. McDonald’s investigated and then put pressure on its soy producers. The soy moratorium has protected millions of acres so far.
So don’t knock the corporate sustainable initiatives, as many of us were brought up and influenced to be environmentally conscious by a piece of contrived corporate pop-culture.
-Adam
