Arquivo da tag: jornalismo

II Fórum Mundial de Mídia Livre fará parte da Cúpula dos Povos, durante a Rio +20 (Revista Fórum)

01/06/2012UncategorizedCidadania, discurso ambiental, Enquadramento, Interatividade, Internet, jornalismo, Mídia, Mediação tecnológica, Redes sociais, Rio+20, sociedade civilrenzotaddei

Envolverde Rio + 20
31/5/2012 – 11h08

por Por Mikaele Teodoro, da Revista Fórum.

Evento acontece no Rio de Janeiro, nos dias 16 e 17 de junho.

Nos dias 16 e 17 de junho acontece, no Rio de Janeiro, o II Fórum Mundial de Mídia Livre. O evento vai reunir “midialivristas” tais como: representantes de sites, ativistas, rádios e TVs comunitárias, pontos de cultura, coletivos atuantes nas redes sociais e também agências, revistas e emissoras alternativas comprometidas com a luta pelo conhecimento livre. O encontro fará parte da Cúpula dos Povos da Rio+20, evento paralelo à Conferência da ONU sobre desenvolvimento sustentável.

Bia Barbosa, do Coletivo Intervozes, explica que o momento é ideal para discutir a mídia livre. “O II Fórum Mundial de Mídia Livre acontecerá num momento em que a mídia livre e todas as suas formas de organização e expressão ganham espaço no contexto das mobilizações globais por um mundo mais justo, como ocorreu na Primavera Árabe e também nas ocupações realizadas, no último ano, em diversas partes do globo”, destaca.

No II FML, midialivristas de diversos países discutirão temas como alternativas de produção de informação, maneiras de estruturar politicamente a mídia livre internacional, discutir alternativas de financiamento e de compartilhamento de conteúdo, propagar novas possibilidades de atuação disponibilizadas pelas novas tecnologias, entre outros. “Vai ter gente de varias partes do mundo, um grupo grande de pessoas do norte da África, representantes do Uruguai, França, Alemanha e muitos outros”, afirma Bia. “A intenção dos organizadores é atrair diferentes públicos para as discussões. Não queremos tornar o debate muito técnico, comum apenas para os profissionais da comunicação.”

O encontro contará com atividades autogestionadas, além de painéis, debates livres, oficinas e plenárias, e será na Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), ao lado do Aterro do Flamengo.

Confira abaixo a programação:

Dia 16

9h: Abertura – Auditório Pedro Calmon (campus da UFRJ – Urca)
O II Fórum Mundial de Mídia Livre e a Rio+20: A luta da comunicação e da cultura como bens comuns

11h: Painéis simultâneos

Eixo 1 – Direito à Comunicação – Auditório Pedro Calmon (UFRJ – Urca)
Temas em debate: acesso à informação; liberdade de expressão; agressões a jornalistas; criminalização da mídia livre; conglomerados mundiais de comunicação e o discurso hegemônico sobre desenvolvimento

Eixo 2 – Apropriação Tecnológica – Auditório Eletrobras (Casa do Estudante – Flamengo)
Temas em debate: novos modelos organizacionais e econômicos; protocolos livres; liberdade de internet; espectro livre e tecnologia digital (rádio e TV digital); formação para apropriação tecnológica

13h – Almoço

14h – Painel eixo 3: Políticas Públicas – Auditório Pedro Calmon (UFRJ – Urca)
Temas em debate: comunicação e democracia; marcos regulatórios; padrões internacionais e boas práticas de regulação; sistema público de comunicação; rádios comunitárias; rádios livres; sustentabilidade das mídias livres

16h – Atividades autogestionadas – salas de aula ECO (UFRJ – Urca)
Rodas de conversa, desconferências, oficinas, Fórum Extendido

Dia 17

9h – Painéis simultâneos

Eixo 4 – Movimentos Sociais – Auditório Pedro Calmon (UFRJ – Urca)
Temas em debate: Produção de conteúdo e informação pela sociedade civil (incluindo o debate sobre a disputa de valores em torno do desenvolvimento sustentável); as lutas nas redes e nas ruas e o ativismo global; como aumentar o impacto da mídia livre nas lutas sociais; sinergia entre plataformas regionais de informação; troca de experiências e iniciativas; os midialivristas e o processo do Fórum Social Mundial

Mulher, mídia e bens comuns – Auditório Eletrobras (Casa do Estudante – Flamengo)
Temas em debate: invisibilidade e exclusão da história das mulheres; liberdade de expressão e negação da memória; lutas das mulheres nas redes sociais; das Marchas das Vadias às denúncias de discriminação das mulheres na Primavera Árabe; produção de conteúdo pelo direito à igualdade e diversidade de gênero e raça na rede; regulação de mídia e a questão da representação da imagem da mulher; o potencial de impacto desse debate nas redes sociais.

10h30 – Plenária Geral – Auditório Pedro Calmon (UFRJ – Urca)
Organização de estratégias e encaminhamento de propostas para a Plenária de Convergência da Cúpula dos Povos sobre Bens Comuns

13h – Almoço

14h – Atividades autogestionadas – salas de aula ECO (UFRJ – Urca)
Rodas de conversa, desconferências, oficinas, Fórum Extendido

Inscrição de atividades para o II Fórum Mundial de Mídia Livre: http://cupuladospovos.org.br/fmml/

Outras informações:
http://medias-libres.rio20.net
http://forumdemidialivre.org
http://freemediaforum.org

* Publicado originalmente no site da Revista Fórum.

No campo acadêmico, o futebol é titular (Faperj)

01/06/2012UncategorizedAntropologia, Argentina, Cultura, Enquadramento, Esporte, Futebol, jornalismo, Uruguairenzotaddei

Elena Mandarim

Livro mostra as mudanças por que vêm passando as paixões dos torcedores brasileirosDivulgação / ufv.br

Desde que chegou ao país, o futebol passou por um processo de incorporação cultural até se constituir na chamada “paixão nacional”. Durante o Campeonato Brasileiro de Futebol, que é o principal torneio nacional entre clubes, organizado oficialmente desde 1971 pela Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), milhares de torcedores espalhados comemoram as vitórias e choram as derrotas de seus times. Basta observar a popularidade do Brasileirão, como é conhecido e que este ano começou no dia 19 de maio, para perceber que, atualmente, torcer pelos times locais se tornou mais importante do que torcer pela própria seleção. Esta é uma das reflexões trazidas no livro Futebol, Jornalismo e Ciências Sociais: interações, organizado por Ronaldo Helal, Hugo Lovisolo e Antonio Jorge Golçalves Soares, todos professores da Faculdade de Comunicação da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Uerj) e publicado com recursos do programa de Apoio à Editoração (APQ 3), da FAPERJ. Para aqueles que quiserem entender melhor como essa “paixão nacional” interage com questões significativas para a sociedade, o livro conta ainda como se deu o processo de construção da narrativa do “futebol arte”, o estilo único do brasileiro jogar. Outras análises também são abordadas, como a mudança do olhar da imprensa esportiva da Argentina em relação ao Brasil e a maneira de se criar alguns simbolismos e heróis do futebol brasileiro.

O termo “País do futebol” foi uma construção social realizada, a partir dos anos 1930, dentro do projeto nacionalista do Estado Novo – época em que o Brasil buscava consolidar sua identidade nacional. Contudo, Helal explica que, com o processo de globalização e comercialização do futebol, o jogador se internacionaliza e não só veste a camisa de seu país como também pode representar outras nações. “O Kaká, por exemplo, é ídolo não apenas dos brasileiros, mas também de italianos e espanhóis. Por isso, observamos que, atualmente, os torcedores brasileiros se envolvem mais com seus times locais, nos quais encontram seus heróis nacionais, aqueles que vestem a camisa do clube”, acredita o sociólogo.

É evidente que a Copa do Mundo ainda tem uma estrutura que estimula os nacionalismos. Não é por acaso que, de quatro em quatro anos, o significado “Brasil: País do futebol” ganha uma dimensão mais intensa. Mas uma análise jornalística, mostrada no livro, evidencia que o próprio noticiário já não trata o futebol como sinônimo de nação. “Observa-se, por exemplo, que, a derrota na final para o Uruguai, em 1950, e a conquista do tricampeonato, em 1970, foram sentidas como derrota e vitória, respectivamente, de projetos da nação brasileira. Já as vitórias em 1994 e 2002 e a derrota na final para a França, em 1998, foram comemoradas e sofridas como vitórias e derrotas da seleção, não transcenderam o terreno esportivo”, exemplifica Helal.

Do atraso para a peculiaridade

Outro artigo do livro explica como a miscigenação do brasileiro, antes considerada como motivo do atraso do país, passou a ser o ingrediente básico para formação de grandes jogadores de futebol. “Tudo começou com a obra clássica do sociólogo Gilberto Freyre, Casa Grande e Senzala, que pela primeira vez mostra o valor positivo da mistura de raças, que traz peculiaridades e força à população brasileira”, conta Helal.

Logo depois de Freyre, Mario Filho, um dos fundadores do jornalismo esportivo no Brasil, lançou O Negro no Futebol Brasileiro, em que a junção do futebol com a nação miscigenada se torna mais evidente, ajudando a consolidar uma identidade nacional. Gilberto Freyre, por sua vez, escreveu em sua coluna no Diário de Pernambuco, do dia 18 de junho de 1938, o artigo “Foot-ball Mulato“, que se tornou fundamental para a simbologia do futebol. “Ali, ele louva a miscigenação racial e afirma que ela funda certo estilo de jogo que seria típico do Brasil – uma ‘dança vibrante e gingada’, o que tempos depois se convencionou chamar de ‘futebol arte’”, exemplifica Helal.

Outro aspecto interessante levantado pelo livro é a mudança de postura da imprensa argentina em relação ao futebol brasileiro. Helal explica que, no início do século XIX, o grande adversário do Brasil era o Uruguai, grande potência futebolística na época. “Nessa ocasião, os hermanos argentinos torciam para o Brasil. Quando a Argentina começou a despontar como nossa grande adversária, a imprensa e a publicidade brasileiras começaram a provocar os argentinos. Só recentemente eles passaram a revidar nossas provocações”, relata Helal, que analisou este ponto em seu pós-doutorado, realizado em Buenos Aires.

Os estudos acadêmicos sobre o futebol vêm crescendo e se consolidando nas últimas duas décadas. Na Faculdade de Comunicação Social da Uerj, Ronaldo Helal e Hugo Lovisolo organizaram o grupo de pesquisa “Esporte e Cultura”, cadastrado no CNPq desde 1998. Nas cerca de 200 páginas de Futebol, Jornalismo e Ciências Sociais: interações”, os leitores ainda encontrarão, entre outros assuntos, uma revisão geral da literatura sobre o tema; um estudo sobre a construção de alguns simbolismos e heróis do futebol brasileiro; uma análise jornalística sobre a reconstrução da memória da partida entre Brasil e Uruguai na final da Copa do Mundo de 1950; uma comparação sobre as figuras públicas de Pelé e Maradona; e uma investigação etnográfica em bares onde são transmitidas partidas de futebol. Por tudo isso, o livro é uma obra interessante tanto para estudiosos do assunto como para amantes do futebol.

How Bad Is It? (The New Inquiry)

29/05/2012Uncategorizedciência, Cultura, Economia, Educação, Enquadramento, jornalismo, Marketing, Mediação tecnológica, Semiótica, Sensacionalismorenzotaddei

By GEORGE SCIALABBA

Jasper Johns, Green Flag, 1956 (Graphite pencil, crayon and collage on paper)

Pretty bad. Here is a sample of factlets from surveys and studies conducted in the past twenty years. Seventy percent of Americans believe in the existence of angels. Fifty percent believe that the earth has been visited by UFOs; in another poll, 70 percent believed that the U.S. government is covering up the presence of space aliens on earth. Forty percent did not know whom the U.S. fought in World War II. Forty percent could not locate Japan on a world map. Fifteen percent could not locate the United States on a world map. Sixty percent of Americans have not read a book since leaving school. Only 6 percent now read even one book a year. According to a very familiar statistic that nonetheless cannot be repeated too often, the average American’s day includes six minutes playing sports, five minutes reading books, one minute making music, 30 seconds attending a play or concert, 25 seconds making or viewing art, and four hours watching television.

Among high-school seniors surveyed in the late 1990s, 50 percent had not heard of the Cold War. Sixty percent could not say how the United States came into existence. Fifty percent did not know in which century the Civil War occurred. Sixty percent could name each of the Three Stooges but not the three branches of the U.S. government. Sixty percent could not comprehend an editorial in a national or local newspaper.

Intellectual distinction isn’t everything, it’s true. But things are amiss in other areas as well: sociability and trust, for example. “During the last third of the twentieth century,” according to Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone, “all forms of social capital fell off precipitously.” Tens of thousands of community groups – church social and charitable groups, union halls, civic clubs, bridge clubs, and yes, bowling leagues — disappeared; by Putnam’s estimate, one-third of our social infrastructure vanished in these years. Frequency of having friends to dinner dropped by 45 percent; card parties declined 50 percent; Americans’ declared readiness to make new friends declined by 30 percent. Belief that most other people could be trusted dropped from 77 percent to 37 percent. Over a five-year period in the 1990s, reported incidents of aggressive driving rose by 50 percent — admittedly an odd, but probably not an insignificant, indicator of declining social capital.

Still, even if American education is spotty and the social fabric is fraying, the fact that the U.S. is the world’s richest nation must surely make a great difference to our quality of life? Alas, no. As every literate person knows, economic inequality in the United States is off the charts – at third-world levels. The results were recently summarized by James Speth in Orion magazine. Of the 20 advanced democracies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. has the highest poverty rate, for both adults and children; the lowest rate of social mobility; the lowest score on UN indexes of child welfare and gender inequality; the highest ratio of health care expenditure to GDP, combined with the lowest life expectancy and the highest rates of infant mortality, mental illness, obesity, inability to afford health care, and personal bankruptcy resulting from medical expenses; the highest homicide rate; and the highest incarceration rate. Nor are the baneful effects of America’s social and economic order confined within our borders; among OECD nations the U.S. also has the highest carbon dioxide emissions, the highest per capita water consumption, the next-to-largest ecological footprint, the next-to-lowest score on the Yale Environmental Performance Index, the highest (by a colossal margin) per capita rate of military spending and arms sales, and the next-to-lowest rate of per capita spending on international development and humanitarian assistance.

Contemplating these dreary statistics, one might well conclude that the United States is — to a distressing extent — a nation of violent, intolerant, ignorant, superstitious, passive, shallow, boorish, selfish, unhealthy, unhappy people, addicted to flickering screens, incurious about other societies and cultures, unwilling or unable to assert or even comprehend their nominal political sovereignty. Or, more simply, that America is a failure.

That is indeed what Morris Berman concludes in his three-volume survey of America’s decline: The Twilight of American Culture (2000), Dark Ages America (2006), andWhy America Failed (2011), from which much of the preceding information is taken. Berman is a cultural and intellectual historian, not a social scientist, so his portrait of American civilization, or barbarism, is anecdotal and atmospheric as well as statistical. He is eloquent about harder-to-quantify trends: the transformation of higher (even primary/secondary) education into marketing arenas for predatory corporations; the new form of educational merchandising known as “distance learning”; the colonization of civic and cultural spaces by corporate logos; the centrality of malls and shopping to our social life; the “systematic suppression of silence” and the fact that “there is barely an empty space in our culture not already carrying commercial messages.” Idiot deans, rancid rappers, endlessly chattering sports commentators, an avalanche of half-inch-deep self-help manuals; a plague of gadgets, a deluge of stimuli, an epidemic of rudeness, a desert of mutual indifference: the upshot is our daily immersion in a suffocating stream of kitsch, blather, stress, and sentimental banality. Berman colorfully and convincingly renders the relentless coarsening and dumbing down of everyday life in late (dare we hope?) American capitalism.

In Spenglerian fashion, Berman seeks the source of our civilization’s decline in its innermost principle, its animatingGeist. What he finds at the bottom of our culture’s soul is … hustling; or, to use its respectable academic sobriquet, possessive individualism. Expansion, accumulation, economic growth: this is the ground bass of American history, like the hum of a dynamo in the basement beneath the polite twitterings on the upper stories about “liberty” and “a light unto the nations.” Berman scarcely mentions Marx or historical materialism; instead he offers a nonspecialist and accessible but deeply informed and amply documented review of American history, period by period, war by war, arguing persuasively that whatever the ideological superstructure, the driving energy behind policy and popular aspiration has been a ceaseless, soulless acquisitiveness.

The colonial period, the seedbed of American democracy, certainly featured a good deal of God-talk and virtue-talk, but Mammon more than held its own. Berman sides emphatically with Louis Hartz, who famously argued in The Liberal Tradition in America that American society was essentially Lockean from the beginning: individualistic, ambitious, protocapitalist, with a weak and subordinate communitarian ethic. He finds plenty of support elsewhere as well; for example in Perry Miller, the foremost historian of Puritanism, according to whom the American mind has always “positively lusted for the chance to yield itself to the gratification of technology.” Even Tocqueville, who made many similar observations, “could not comprehend,” wrote Miller, “the passion with which [early Americans] flung themselves into the technological torrent, how they … cried to each other as they went headlong down the chute that here was their destiny, here was the tide that would sweep them toward the unending vistas of prosperity.” Even Emerson and Whitman went through a phase of infatuation with industrial progress, though Hawthorne and Thoreau apparently always looked on the juggernaut with clearer (or more jaundiced) eyes.

Berman also sides, for the most part, with Charles Beard, who drew attention to the economic conflicts underlying the American Revolution and the Civil War. Beard may have undervalued the genuine intellectual ferment that accompanied the Revolution, but he was not wrong in perceiving the motivating force of the pervasive commercial ethic of the age. Joyce Appleby, another eminent historian, poses this question to those who idealize America’s founding: “If the Revolution was fought in a frenzy over corruption, out of fear of tyranny, and with hopes for redemption through civic virtue, where and when are scholars to find the sources for the aggressive individualism, the optimistic materialism, and the pragmatic interest-group politics that became so salient so early in the life of the nation?”

By the mid-nineteenth century, the predominance of commercial interests in American politics was unmistakable. Berman’s lengthy discussion of the Civil War as the pivot of American history takes for granted the inadequacy of triumphalist views of the Civil War. It was not a “battle cry of freedom.” Slavery was central, but for economic rather than moral reasons. The North represented economic modernity and the ethos of material progress; the economy and ethos of the South, based on slavery, was premodern and static. The West — and with it the shape of America’s economic future — was up for grabs, and the North grabbed it away from an equally determined South. Except for the abolitionists, no whites, North or South, gave a damn about blacks. How the West (like the North and South before it) was grabbed, in an orgy of greed, violence, and deceit against the original inhabitants, is a familiar story.

Even more than in Beard, Berman finds his inspiration in William Appleman Williams. When McKinley’s secretary of state John Hay advocated “an open door through which America’s preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world” and his successor William Jennings Bryan (the celebrated populist and anti-imperialist!) told a gathering of businessmen in 1915 that “my Department is your department; the ambassadors, the ministers, the consuls are all yours; it is their business to look after your interests and to guard your rights,” they were enunciating the soul of American foreign policy, as was the much-lauded Wise Man George Kennan when he wrote in a post-World War II State Department policy planning document: “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population … In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity … To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives … We should cease to talk about vague and … unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

As a former medievalist, Berman finds contemporary parallels to the fall of Rome compelling. By the end of the empire, he points out, economic inequality was drastic and increasing, the legitimacy and efficacy of the state was waning, popular culture was debased, civic virtue among elites was practically nonexistent, and imperial military commitments were hopelessly unsustainable. As these volumes abundantly illustrate, this is 21st century America in a nutshell. The capstone of Berman’s demonstration is a sequence of three long, brilliant chapters in Dark Ages America on the Cold War, the Pax Americana, CIA and military interventions in the Third World, and in particular U.S. policy in the Middle East, where racism and rapacity have combined to produce a stunning debacle. Our hysterical national response to 9/11 — our inability even to make an effort to comprehend the long-festering consequences of our imperial predations — portended, as clearly as anything could, the demise of American global supremacy.

What will become of us? After Rome’s fall, wolves wandered through the cities and Europe largely went to sleep for six centuries. That will not happen again; too many transitions — demographic, ecological, technological, cybernetic — have intervened. The planet’s metabolism has altered. The new Dark Ages will be socially, politically, and spiritually dark, but the economic Moloch — mass production and consumption, destructive growth, instrumental rationality — will not disappear. Few Americans want it to. We are hollow, Berman concludes. It is a devastatingly plausible conclusion.

An interval — long or short, only the gods can say — of oligarchic, intensely surveilled, bread-and-circuses authoritarianism, Blade Runner- or Fahrenheit 451-style, seems the most likely outlook for the 21st and 22nd centuries. Still, if most humans are shallow and conformist, some are not. There is reason to hope that the ever fragile but somehow perennial traditions and virtues of solidarity, curiosity, self-reliance, courtesy, voluntary simplicity, and an instinct for beauty will survive, even if underground for long periods. And cultural rebirths do occur, or at any rate have occurred.

Berman offers little comfort, but he does note a possible role for those who perceive the inevitability of our civilization’s decline. He calls it the “monastic option.” Our eclipse may, after all, not be permanent; and meanwhile individuals and small groups may preserve the best of our culture by living against the grain, within the interstices, by “creating ‘zones of intelligence’ in a private, local way, and then deliberately keeping them out of the public eye.” Even if one’s ideals ultimately perish, this may be the best way to live while they are dying.

There is something immensely refreshing, even cathartic, about Berman’s refusal to hold out any hope of avoiding our civilization’s demise. And our reaction goes some way toward proving his point: We are so sick of hucksters, of authors trying — like everyone else on all sides at all times in this pervasively hustling culture — to sell us something, that it is a relief to encounter someone who isn’t, who has no designs on our money or votes or hopes, who simply has looked into the depths, into our catastrophic future, and is compelled to describe it, as Cassandra was. No doubt his efforts will meet with equal success.

Relação entre cientistas e jornalistas é debatida em seminário (FAPESP)

18/04/2012Uncategorizedciência, comunicação científica, jornalismo, Mídia, Sensacionalismorenzotaddei

Divulgação científica ganha peso no meio acadêmico e relacionamento entre as duas classe profissionais se torna mais próximo,dizem especialistas em encontro realizado pela FAPESP

18/04/2012

Por Karina Toledo

Agência FAPESP – Com as ações de divulgação científica ganhando cada vez mais peso no meio acadêmico, a relação entre jornalistas e pesquisadores parece mudar para melhor. Mas é preciso ter em mente que cientistas eminentes não são autoridades em todos os assuntos.

O alerta foi feito pelo biólogo Thomas Lewinsohn, professor da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), durante sua participação no seminário Ciência na Mídia, realizado pela FAPESP no dia 16 de abril.

“Antigamente os pesquisadores davam muito peso para publicação em revistas científicas, o que lhes garantia prestígio acadêmico e financiamento, e quase nenhuma atenção à divulgação científica, que servia apenas para aumentar a popularidade. Hoje estamos perto de um equilíbrio entre os dois ramos”, afirmou.

Percebeu-se que além de popularidade, a exposição na mídia afetava também a influência e o poder de decisão no meio acadêmico, aumentando as chances de ter um projeto financiado e, consequentemente, elevando o prestígio acadêmico.

Um exemplo claro do novo paradigma, segundo Lewinsohn, é a mudança no sistema de avaliação dos cursos de pós-graduação pela Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). “Hoje se dá um peso maior à visibilidade do trabalho dos cientistas que compõem os quadros”, avaliou.

Outro sinal é a transformação pela qual as mais importantes revistas científicas, entre elas Sciencee Nature, passaram nos últimos anos, ganhando novas seções com conteúdo noticioso e linguagem mais acessível.

“Está se tornando impossível para o cientista ignorar a mídia. Muitos hoje cortejam os jornalistas e isso dá margem a distorções. Existe uma ideia de que o cientista terá sempre uma opinião racional e bem embasada sobre tudo e isso não é verdade”, afirmou o biólogo.

Por esse motivo, recomendou, os jornalistas devem resistir ao impulso de, na correria das redações, recorrer sempre àquela fonte que tem respostas para todos os temas. “Alguns têm uma agenda pessoal, que nem sempre tem a ver com a ciência.”

Durante sua apresentação, o médico Paulo Saldiva, da Faculdade de Medicina da USP, reclamou do fato de que a maioria dos jornalistas que o procura querer falar de temas que não têm relação com sua área de estudo: os efeitos da poluição atmosférica sobre a saúde.

Outro problema abordado por ele foi o pouco tempo dispensado aos temas e o risco da superficialidade. “Você fala durante meia hora e aparece apenas dez segundos. Esse é o maior pavor dos cientistas”, acrescentou Saldiva.

Para o biólogo Fernando Reinach, que se tornou conhecido após participar do Projeto Genoma , financiado pela FAPESP, e hoje mantém uma coluna de divulgação científica no jornal O Estado de S. Paulo, o grande problema do jornalismo científico é “contar o milagre e não contar o santo”.

“Dá-se muita ênfase à descoberta e não se explora bem os métodos usados. Isso dificulta avaliar se o que está sendo dito é verdade”, opinou.

Reinach contou que após deixar a vida acadêmica manteve o hábito de ler artigos científicos e idealizou a coluna no jornal por considerar que havia muitos temas interessantes escondidos atrás de títulos obscuros. “Tenho o cientista como personagem. Tento dar uma dimensão humana à pesquisa”, revelou.

Já o editor de Ciência do jornal Folha de S. Paulo, Reinaldo José Lopes, falou sobre o encolhimento do espaço nos jornais para as notícias em geral e para ciência em particular. “Como empacotar a notícia, a metodologia e o lado humano em meia página? A gente sente uma impaciência do leitor que é assustadora e isso acaba conduzindo à superficialidade”, disse.

O encontro ainda teve a participação de Roberto Wertman, editor do programa Espaço Aberto Ciência & Tecnologia da Globonews, que comentou as limitações da cobertura científica na TV, extremamente dependente da existência de imagens. E de Sonia López, ex-editora do AlphaGalileu, um dos maiores portais de notícias acadêmicas.

A abertura ficou por conta de Clive Cookson, editor de Ciência do jornal Financial Times, que listou os três principais problemas que, em sua opinião, afetam a qualidade do jornalismo científico.

Em primeiro lugar, Cookson mencionou a tendência de abordar os resultados de pesquisas de forma exagerada e sensacionalista. “O repórter precisa convencer seu editor de que vale a pena publicar aqueles dados e a verdade científica às vezes acaba em segunda plano. E quando o subeditor escreve a manchete a notícia fica ainda mais exagerada”, comentou.

Outro problema é a tendência de abordar os dados de forma negativista, o que pode causar distorções. “A ideia é que notícia ruim vende mais”, disse.

Por último Cookson mencionou a divulgação de notícias não objetivas, permeadas de interesses políticos. “Cientistas devem se ater à ciência. Mas mesmo em situações controversas devem aproveitar para passar sua mensagem. Se deixarem um vazio, fontes com motivações políticas podem se aproveitar.”

Cresce valorização da divulgação científica (FAPESP)

17/04/2012Uncategorizedcomunicação científica, jornalismorenzotaddei

Para Clive Cookson, editor de Ciência do Financial Times, qualidade da cobertura de temas científicos melhorou quando pesquisadores adquiriram consciência de que é importante trabalhar em parceria com jornalistas para divulgar seus trabalhos

17/04/2012 – Por Fábio de Castro

Agência FAPESP – Editor de Ciência do Financial Times há duas décadas, o jornalista britânico Clive Cookson acredita que os temas científicos têm se tornado mais familiares e mais valorizados para o público, graças a uma cobertura jornalística que se revela pouco a pouco mais profunda e mais precisa que no passado.

Essa transformação, de acordo com Cookson, deve-se em parte às novas tecnologias que facilitaram o trabalho do jornalista nos últimos anos. Mas, segundo ele, a principal razão para que o noticiário de ciência ganhasse mais qualidade está em uma mudança de atitude dos próprios cientistas, que perceberam a importância da comunicação.

Cookson, que atua há mais de 30 anos na cobertura dos temas de ciência e tecnologia, em diversos países e diferentes veículos e contextos, participou nesta segunda-feira (16/4) do seminário “Ciência na Mídia”, promovido pela FAPESP na sede da Fundação, em São Paulo.

O evento teve o objetivo de estimular a reflexão, por parte de todos os envolvidos na produção e divulgação científicas, sobre as maneiras de propiciar um espaço para a troca de conhecimentos e a proposição de novos modos de pensar a divulgação desses temas na sociedade. Em entrevista exclusiva à Agência FAPESP, Cookson comentou esses temas.

Agência FAPESP – Como tem evoluído a cobertura jornalística sobre ciência, considerando os seus 30 anos de experiência na área?
Clive Cookson– Apesar de existirem muitos blogs e sites de ciência, as pessoas continuam obtendo a maior parte de suas informações sobre o que está acontecendo no mundo científico por meio da mídia tradicional: jornais impressos, revistas, TV e rádio. Assim, o cientista se comunica com o público por meio desses veículos não especializados em ciência. Essa não é uma relação trivial. Mas sou muito otimista, porque, olhando com essa perspectiva de 30 anos, percebo que os cientistas estão se tornando muito melhores na tarefa de se comunicar com a mídia.

Agência FAPESP – O que mudou nessa relação, da perspectiva dos cientistas?
Clive Cookson– Eles estão se tornando muito mais proativos, mais abertos. Perderam o medo do contato com os repórteres. É uma mudança muito grande se você olha em uma perspectiva de longo tempo. E acredito que se trata de algo até certo ponto generalizado. Aqui no Brasil percebi que os cientistas são muito abertos.

Agência FAPESP – Qual pode ter sido a razão para essa transformação?
Clive Cookson– Os cientistas perceberam – certamente nos Estados Unidos e Europa, mas acho que no Brasil também – que é mais provável conseguir investimentos públicos e auxílios para fazer suas pesquisas na medida em que eles se tornam bons comunicadores. Na Grã-Bretanha os conselhos de pesquisa incluem explicitamente a comunicação dos resultados científicos como um dos critérios importantes para conseguir investimentos. De modo geral, podemos dizer que você tem mais facilidade para conseguir o investimento se você estiver preparado para comunicar. Isso é verdade para os pesquisadores, de forma individual, mas também em uma perspectiva mais geral: os pesquisadores sabem que a ciência como um todo terá mais apoio público se os cientistas gastarem um pouco de tempo e esforço para falar com jornalistas.

Agência FAPESP – Além dessas mudanças do lado da comunidade científica, houve também evolução do lado da produção da notícia? A qualidade do jornalismo melhorou?
Clive Cookson– Houve melhora, mas nada que justificasse um aumento muito grande da confiança dos pesquisadores nos jornalistas. A qualidade do jornalismo melhorou, mas não acho que isso tenha acontecido porque os jornalistas se tornaram melhores. O que ocorreu é que ficou muito mais fácil escrever uma matéria sobre ciência, agora que podemos ter acesso a artigos científicos na internet, podemos obter comentários por e-mail e coisas assim. Quando eu comecei no ofício, se quiséssemos ter acesso a um artigo era preciso ir às bibliotecas e para um simples comentários era preciso ter muita sorte e localizar os pesquisadores por telefone na hora certa.

Agência FAPESP – No Brasil os jornalistas de ciência, com frequência, têm formação em jornalismo, mas não uma formação científica. Qual é a característica dos divulgadores na Inglaterra?
Clive Cookson– Na Inglaterra há uma mistura. A maior parte dos jornalistas de ciência tem uma formação em ciência. Eu, por exemplo, sou formado em química. Mas há outros ótimos jornalistas de ciência que têm seu background em artes ou humanidades e depois começaram a trabalhar com ciência e foram excepcionalmente atraídos pela área. Acho que há prós e contras em ambos os casos.

Agência FAPESP – Em uma situação hipotética: se o senhor tivesse que contratar um repórter, iria preferir um indivíduo com uma formação científica, que escreve bem, mas não tem nenhuma experiência prévia em jornalismo, ou alguém que é um jornalista capaz e talentoso, mas sem qualquer envolvimento com ciência, nem experiência em jornalismo científico?
Clive Cookson– Se eu estivesse contatando essa pessoa para um trabalho de reportagem de ciências em um jornal, por exemplo, não hesitaria: escolheria o jornalista que tem experiência em reportagem, em vez de escolher o cientista. Acho que a capacidade para ser um bom jornalista é de fato o mais importante. Não adianta ser um bom cientista que escreve corretamente. Porque a ciência realmente requer um texto diferente, vívido. Prefiro um excelente jornalista que um excelente cientista para fazer isso.

Agência FAPESP – A percepção do público em relação à importância da ciência também tem mudado?
Clive Cookson– Minha impressão é que o conhecimento sobre ciência em meio ao público geral melhorou sim. Ainda não é o suficiente, mas acho que, em geral, a população ficou mais alfabetizada em ciência que há alguns anos atrás. Muita gente passou a entender melhor as bases da ciência. As pessoas têm mais intimidade com temas e termos centrais no mundo científico. Até certo ponto a internet contribuiu com isso, mas não sei se há grande potencial para melhorar muito mais, porque na rede também temos muito ruído e desinformação.

Agência FAPESP – Os jornalistas procuram fazer a ciência mais atraente para o público. Ao mesmo tempo, tendem a mostrar exclusivamente os resultados de sucesso, deixando em segundo plano o processo de produção da ciência. Com isso não se corre o risco de mistificar a ciência junto ao público?
Clive Cookson– Tem toda razão, esse é um problema absolutamente fundamental na relação entre jornalismo e ciência. No noticiário não há tempo nem espaço para descrever todos os passos da produção da ciência, mostrando ao público que não se trata de mágica, mas de um processo difícil, pontuado de dificuldades e fracassos momentâneos. O que deixa essa situação pior é que mesmo que você privilegie as pesquisas de qualidade, publicadas em revistas de prestígio, os artigos científicos também não lhe darão pistas sobre o processo de como a ciência funciona. Você só conseguiria dar ao público uma educação científica se fosse possível acompanhar o trabalho por meses a fio no laboratório. Geralmente isso é impossível.

Agência FAPESP – Além disso os insucessos raramente são publicados, não é?
Clive Cookson– Sim, essa é outra questão. A publicação, em particular na área de saúde, normalmente descreve apenas os resultados positivos. Os resultados negativos quase nunca têm espaço em publicações. É preciso estar atento a isso para não dar uma falsa impressão de que a ciência é feita só de acertos.

Agência FAPESP – Quando se noticia os resultados de um novo estudo, pode ser difícil repercutir a notícia com outros cientistas, porque muitas vezes eles alegam que ainda não tiveram contato com o artigo. Como o senhor lida com essa situação?
Clive Cookson– É uma situação extremamente difícil. Em primeiro lugar porque os cientistas normalmente não indicam seus competidores que trabalham na mesma área e que poderiam contribuir com um comentário. Além disso, geralmente é difícil conseguir um comentário sobre um artigo que acaba de sair e que não foi lido por quase ninguém. Na Inglaterra temos uma organização é muito útil, nesse sentido, para os jornalistas da área de saúde: o Science Media Centre.

Agência FAPESP – Como funciona?
Clive Cookson– É um serviço que foi criado há exatos 10 anos e reúne cientistas que atuam como se fosse assessores de imprensa. Eles pegam qualquer estudo e avaliam se é controverso, ou interessante o suficiente para render uma manchete. Então usamos seus contatos, que fazem comentários com grande qualidade. Acho que o SMC fez mais que qualquer outra instituição para melhorar a cobertura jornalística de ciência na Inglaterra. Eles têm excelentes bases de dados e uma incrível lista de contatos especializados. É muito eficiente.

Agência FAPESP – Muita gente vê os repórteres de ciência como tradutores de uma linguagem especializada para a linguagem do senso comum. O que o senhor acha dessa noção?
Clive Cookson– Parte do que fazemos pode ser visto como uma espécie de tradução, mas espero que nosso trabalho seja algo mais criativo e complexo que isso. Acho que os jornalistas são capazes de colocar novas maneiras de se olhar para a ciência que os próprios cientistas não poderiam proporcionar. É algo mais que simplesmente traduzir. Podemos gerar imagens, comparações, que os cientistas não conceberiam. Não se trata apenas de questão de simplificar uma linguagem, mas de fornecer uma interpretação nova de ideias, contextos e visões. E, mesmo no campo da linguagem, acho que esse trabalho extrapola a simples tradução: devemos ser autores capazes de tornar o conhecimento mais vívido, mais interessante para o público.

Agência FAPESP – Como foi sua trajetória? Por que se interessou por ciência?
Clive Cookson– Sempre me interessei por ciência e me formei em Química em Oxford. Mas dois fatos mudaram minha trajetória. Um deles é que notei que o jornalismo científico na Inglaterra não era bom. Ao mesmo tempo, percebi que eu não seria brilhante o suficiente para fazer um bom doutorado em química. Eu sabia que se não fosse tão brilhante, um doutorado em química poderia se transformar em algo não muito criativo, uma espécie de trabalho braçal para um orientador. Eu sabia que não era na verdade bom o suficiente para me tornar um grande cientista. Mas percebi que poderia escrever bem sobre ciência.

Agência FAPESP – E como começou de fato a atuar como jornalista?
Clive Cookson– Fui aceito em um programa de treinamento de um jornal local, em Londres. Depois de dois anos, tive a oportunidade de ir para Washington, nos Estados Unidos, por quatro anos, para trabalhar no suplemento de Educação Superior do Times. Foi uma experiência fantástica, eu escrevia sobre as universidades e institutos de pesquisa norte-americanos. Depois voltei para Londres para me tornar repórter de tecnologia do Times. Comecei, na década de 1980, a trabalhar na rádio BBC, como correspondente da área da saúde. E de lá fui para o Financial Times, onde tenho atuado como editor de ciência nos últimos 20 anos.

Community Media: A Good Practice Handbook (UNESCO)

12/04/2012UncategorizedCidadania, Educação, Interatividade, jornalismo, Mídia, participatividade, Redes sociaisrenzotaddei

Compiled and edited by Steve Buckley

Published by UNESCO and available free online at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002150/215097E.pdf

Among its activities to mark World Radio Day 2012, UNESCO has
launched a new good practice handbook with case studies of community
media from around the world. The publication draws on a diversity of
experiences to provide inspiration and support for those engaged in
community media practice and advocacy and to raise awareness and
understanding of community media among policy makers and other stakeholders.

13 February has been proclaimed by UNESCO as a date to celebrate
radio broadcast, improve international cooperation among radio
broadcasters and encourage decision-makers to create and provide
access to information through radio. Community Media: A Good Practice
Handbook is a compilation of 30 community radio and other community
media examples demonstrating successful approaches to strengthening
public voice.

“The value of this publication lies in the fact that it highlights
problems while at the same time offering possible solutions. It
presents a useful empirical basis for replicating time-tested
decisions about how community media can become an even more effective
element of a free, independent and pluralistic media system of any
democratic society. This book will be a useful reference to community
media practitioners, policy-makers, researchers, community
organizers, and other media development stakeholders.”

From the Foreword by Wijayananda Jayaweera, former Director,
Communication Development Division/IPDC, UNESCO, Paris

The Inside Story on Climate Scientists Under Siege (Wired/The Guardian)

28/03/2012Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Mediação tecnológica, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsão, Religião, Sensacionalismo, Visualidaderenzotaddei

By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian
February 17, 2012 |

It is almost possible to dismiss Michael Mann’s account of a vast conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to harass scientists and befuddle the public. His story of that campaign, and his own journey from naive computer geek to battle-hardened climate ninja, seems overwrought, maybe even paranoid.

But now comes the unauthorized release of documents showing how a libertarian thinktank, the Heartland Institute, which has in the past been supported by Exxon, spent millions on lavish conferences attacking scientists and concocting projects to counter science teaching for kindergarteners.

Mann’s story of what he calls the climate wars, the fight by powerful entrenched interests to undermine and twist the science meant to guide government policy, starts to seem pretty much on the money. He’s telling it in a book out on March 6, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.

“They see scientists like me who are trying to communicate the potential dangers of continued fossil fuel burning to the public as a threat. That means we are subject to attacks, some of them quite personal, some of them dishonest.” Mann said in an interview conducted in and around State College, home of Pennsylvania State University, where he is a professor.

It’s a brilliantly sunny day, and the light snowfall of the evening before is rapidly melting.

Mann, who seems fairly relaxed, has just spoken to a full-capacity, and uniformly respectful and supportive crowd at the university.

It’s hard to square the surroundings with the description in the book of how an entire academic discipline has been made to feel under siege, but Mann insists that it is a given.

“It is now part of the job description if you are going to be a scientist working in a socially relevant area like human-caused climate change,” he said.

He should know. For most of his professional life has been at the center of those wars, thanks to a paper he published with colleagues in the late 1990s showing a sharp upward movement in global temperatures in the last half of the 20th century. The graph became known as the “hockey stick”.

If the graph was the stick, then its publication made Mann the puck. Though other prominent scientists, such as Nasa’s James Hansen and more recently Texas Tech University’s Katharine Hayhoe, have also been targeted by contrarian bloggers and thinktanks demanding their institutions turn over their email record, it’s Mann who’s been the favorite target.

He has been regularly vilified on Fox news and contrarian blogs, and by Republican members of Congress. The attorney general of Virginia, who has been fighting in the courts to get access to Mann’s email from his earlier work at the University of Virginia. And then there is the high volume of hate mail, the threats to him and his family.

“A day doesn’t go by when I don’t have to fend off some attack, some specious criticism or personal attack,” he said. “Literally a day doesn’t go by where I don’t have to deal with some of the nastiness that comes out of a campaign that tries to discredit me, and thereby in the view of our detractors to discredit the entire science of climate change.”

By now he and other climate scientists have been in the trenches longer than the U.S. army has been in Afghanistan.

And Mann has proved a willing combatant. He has not gone so far as Hansen, who has been arrested at the White House protesting against tar sands oil and in West Virginia protesting against coal mining. But he spends a significant part of his working life now blogging and tweeting in his efforts to engage with the public – and fending off attacks.

On the eve of his talk at Penn State, a coal industry lobby group calling itself the Common Sense Movement/Secure Energy for America put up a Facebook page demanding the university disinvite their own professor from speaking, and denouncing Mann as a “disgraced academic” pursuing a radical environmental agenda. The university refused. Common Sense appeared to have dismantled the Facebook page.

But Mann’s attackers were merely regrouping. A hostile blogger published a link to Mann’s Amazon page, and his opponents swung into action, denouncing the book as a “fairy tale” and climate change as “the greatest scam in human history.”

It was not the life Mann envisaged when he began work on his post-graduate degree at Yale. All Mann knew then was that he wanted to work on big problems, that resonated outside academia. At heart, he said, he was like one of the amiable nerds on the television show Big Bang Theory.

“At that time I wanted nothing more than just to bury my head in my computer and study data and write papers and write programs,” he said. “That is the way I was raised. That is the culture I came from.”

What happened instead was that the “hockey stick” graph, because it so clearly represented what had happened to the climate over the course of hundreds of years, itself became a proxy in the climate wars. (Mann’s reconstruction of temperatures over the last millennium itself used proxy records from tree rings and coral).

“I think because the hockey stick became an icon, it’s been subject to the fiercest of attacks really in the whole science of climate change,” he said.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a poster-sized graph for the launch of its climate change report in 2001.

Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.

Mann, like other scientists, was just not equipped to deal with the media barrage. “It took the scientific community some time I think to realize that the scientific community is in a street fight with climate change deniers and they are not playing by the rules of engagement of science. The scientific community needed some time to wake up to that.”

By 2005, when Hurricane Katrina drew Americans’ attention to the connection between climate change and coastal flooding, scientists were getting better at making their case to the public. George Bush, whose White House in 2003 deleted Mann’s hockey stick graph from an environmental report, began talking about the need for biofuels. Then Barack Obama was elected on a promise to save a planet in peril.

But as Mann lays out in the book, the campaign to discredit climate change continued to operate, largely below the radar until November 2009 when a huge cache of email from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was released online without authorization.

Right-wing media and bloggers used the emails to discredit an entire body of climate science. They got an extra boost when an embarrassing error about melting of Himalayan glaciers appeared in the U.N.’s IPCC report.

Mann now admits the climate community took far too long to realize the extent of the public relations debacle. Aside from the glacier error, the science remained sound. But Mann said now: “There may have been an overdue amount of complacency among many in the scientific community.”

Mann, who had been at the center of so many debates in America, was at the heart of the East Anglia emails battle too.

Though he has been cleared of any wrongdoing, Mann does not always come off well in those highly selective exchanges of email released by the hackers. In some of the correspondence with fellow scientists, he is abrupt, dismissive of some critics. In our time at State College, he mentions more than once how climate scientists are a “cantankerous” bunch. He has zero patience, for example, for the polite label “climate skeptic” for the network of bloggers and talking heads who try to discredit climate change.

“When it comes to climate change, true skepticism is two-sided. One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all,” he said. “I will call people who deny the science deniers … I guess I won’t be deterred by the fact that they don’t like the use of that term and no doubt that just endears me to them further.”

“It’s frustrating of course because a lot of us would like to get past this nonsensical debate and on to the real debate to be had about what to do,” he said.

But he said there are compensations in the support he gets from the public. He moves over to his computer to show off a web page: I ❤ climate scientists. He’s one of three featured scientists. “It only takes one thoughtful email of support to offset a thousand thoughtless attacks,” Mann said.

And although there are bad days, he still seems to believe he is on the winning side.

Across America, this is the third successive year of weird weather. The U.S. department of agriculture has just revised its plant hardiness map, reflecting warming trends. That is going to reinforce scientists’ efforts to cut through the disinformation campaign, Mann said.

“I think increasingly the campaign to deny the reality of climate change is going to come up against that brick wall of the evidence being so plain to people whether they are hunters, fishermen, gardeners,” he said.

And if that doesn’t work then Mann is going to fight to convince them.

“Whether I like it or not I am out there on the battlefield,” he said. But he believes the experiences of the last decade have made him, and other scientists, far better fighters.

“Those of us who have had to go through this are battle-hardened and hopefully the better for it,” he said. “I think you are now going to see the scientific community almost uniformly fighting back against this assault on science. I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, but I do know that my fellow scientists and I are very ready to engage in this battle.”

Video: James West, The Climate Desk

Original story at The Guardian.

Arjun Appadurai: A Nation of Business Junkies (Anthropology News)

24/11/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Cidadania, Cultura, Economia, Enquadramento, jornalismo, Marketing, Mídia, Mediação tecnológica, Opinião pública, Política, Semiótica, sociedade civilrenzotaddei

Guest Columnist
Arjun Appadurai

By Anthropology News on November 3, 2011

I first came to this country in 1967. I have been either a crypto-anthropologist or professional anthropologist for most of that time. Still, because I came here with an interest in India and took the path of least resistance in choosing to maintain India as my principal ethnographic referent, I have always been reluctant to offer opinions about life in these United States. I have begun to do so recently, but mainly in occasional blogs, twitter posts and the like. Now seems to be a good time to ponder whether I have anything to offer to public debate about the media in this country. Since I have been teaching for a few years in a distinguished department of media studies, I feel emboldened to offer my thoughts in this new AN Forum.

My examination of changes in the media over the last few decades is not based on a scientific study. I read the New York Times every day, the Wall Street Journal occasionally, and I subscribe to The Atlantic, Harper’s, The New York Review of Books, the Economist, and a variety of academic journals in anthropology and area studies. I get a smattering of other useful media pieces from friends on Facebook and other social media sites. I also use the Internet to keep up with as much as I can from the press in and about India. At various times in the past, I have subscribed to The Nation, Money Magazine, Foreign Policy, the Times Literary supplement and a few other periodicals.

I have long been interested in how culture and economy interact. Today, I want to make an observation about the single biggest change I have seen over my four decades in the United States, which is a growing and now hegemonic domination of the news and of a great deal of opinion, both in print and on television, by business news. Business news was a specialized affair in the late 1960’s, confined to a few magazines such as Money and Fortune, and to newspapers and TV reporters (not channels). Now, it is hard to find anything but business as the topic of news in all media. Consider television: if you spend even three hours surfing between CNN and BBC on any given day ( surfing for news about Libya or about soccer, for example) you will find yourself regularly assaulted by business news, not just from London, New York and Washington, but from Singapore, Hong Kong, Mumbai and many other places. Look at the serious talk shows and chances are that you will find a talking CEO, describing what’s good about his company, what’s bad about the government and how to read his company’s stock prices. Channels like MSNBC are a form of endless, mind-numbing Jerry Lewis telethon about the economy, with more than a hint of the desperation of the Depression era movie “They Shoot Horses Don’t They?”, as they bid the viewer to make insane bets and to mourn the fallen heroes of failed companies and fired CEO’s.

Turn to the newspapers and things get worse. Any reader of the New York Times will find it hard to get away from the business machine. Start with the lead section, and stories about Obama’s economic plans, mad Republican proposals about taxes, the Euro-crisis and the latest bank scandal will assault you. Some relief is provided by more corporate news: the exit of Steve Jobs, the Op-Ed piece about the responsibilities of the super-rich by Warren Buffet, Donald Trump advertising his new line of housewares to go along with his ugly homes and buildings. Turn to the sports section: it is littered with talk of franchises, salaries, trades, owner antics, stadium projects and more. I need hardly say anything about the section on “Business” itself, which has now virtually become redundant. And if you are still thirsty for more business news, check out the “Home”, “Lifestyle” and Real Estate sections for news on houses you can’t afford and mortgage financing gimmicks you have never heard off. Some measure of relief is to be in the occasional “Science Times” and in the NYT Book Review, which do have some pieces which are not primarily about profit, corporate politics or the recession.

The New York Times is not to blame for this. They are the newspaper of “record’ and that means that they reflect broader trends and cannot be blamed for their compliance with bigger trends. Go through the magazines when you take a flight to Detroit or Mumbai and there is again a feast of news geared to the “business traveler”. This is when I catch up on how to negotiate the best deal, why this is the time to buy gold and what software and hardware to use when I make my next presentation to General Electric. These examples could be multiplied in any number of bookstores, newspaper kiosks, airport lounges, park benches and dentist’s offices.

What does all this reflect? Well, we were always told that the business of America is business. But now we are gradually moving into a society in which the business of American life is also business. Who are we now? We have become (in our fantasies) entrepreneurs, start-up heroes, small investors, consumers, home-owners, day-traders, and a gallery of supporting business types, and no longer fathers, mothers, friends or neighbors. Our very citizenship is now defined by business, whether we are winners or losers. Everyone is an expert on pensions, stocks, retirement packages, vacation deals, credit- card scams and more. Meanwhile, as Paul Krugman has argued in a brilliant recent speech to some of his fellow economists, this discipline, especially macro-economics, has lost all its capacities to analyze, define or repair the huge mess we are in.

The gradual transformation of the imagined reader or viewer into a business junkie is a relatively new disease of advanced capitalism in the United States. The avalanche of business knowledge and information dropping on the American middle-classes ought to have helped us predict – or avoid – the recent economic meltdown, based on crazy credit devices, vulgar scams and lousy regulation. Instead it has made us business junkies, ready to be led like sheep to our own slaughter by Wall Street, the big banks and corrupt politicians. The growing hegemony of business news and knowledge in the popular media over the last few decades has produced a collective silence of the lambs. It is time for a bleat or two.

Dr. Arjun Appadurai is a prominent contemporary social-cultural anthropologist, having formerly served as Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at The New School in NYC. He has held various professorial chairs and visiting appointments at some of top institutions in the United States and Europe. In addition, he has served on several scholarly and advisory bodies in the United States, Latin America, Europe and India. Dr. Appadurai is a prolific writer having authored numerous books and scholarly articles. The nature and significance of his contributions throughout his academic career have earned him the reputation as a leading figure in his field. He is the author of The Future as a Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Condition (Verso: forthcoming 2012).

Ken Routon is the contributing editor of Media Notes. He is a visiting professor of cultural anthropology at the University of New Orleans and the author of Hidden Powers of the State in the Cuban Imagination (University Press of Florida, 2010).

Where Did Global Warming Go? (N.Y. Times)

24/11/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, discurso ambiental, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsão, Visualidaderenzotaddei

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: October 15, 2011

Mark Pernice and Scott Altmann

IN 2008, both the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, Barack Obama and John McCain, warned about man-made global warming and supported legislation to curb emissions. After he was elected, President Obama promised “a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change,” and arrived cavalry-like at the 2009 United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen to broker a global pact.

But two years later, now that nearly every other nation accepts climate change as a pressing problem, America has turned agnostic on the issue.

In the crowded Republican presidential field, most seem to agree with Gov. Rick Perry of Texas that “the science is not settled” on man-made global warming, as he said in a debate last month. Alone among Republicans onstage that night, Jon M. Huntsman Jr. said that he trusted scientists’ view that the problem was real. At the moment, he has the backing of about 2 percent of likely Republican voters.

Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified, Mr. Obama now talks about “green jobs” mostly as a strategy for improving the economy, not the planet. He did not mention climate in his last State of the Union address. Meanwhile, the administration is fighting to exempt United States airlines from Europe’s new plan to charge them for CO2 emissions when they land on the continent. It also seems poised to approve a nearly 2,000-mile-long pipeline, from Canada down through the United States, that will carry a kind of oil. Extracting it will put relatively high levels of emissions into the atmosphere.

“In Washington, ‘climate change’ has become a lightning rod, it’s a four-letter word,” said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainable Development.

Across the nation, too, belief in man-made global warming, and passion about doing something to arrest climate change, is not what it was five years or so ago, when Al Gore’s movie had buzz and Elizabeth Kolbert’s book about climate change, “Field Notes From a Catastrophe,” was a best seller. The number of Americans who believe the earth is warming dropped to 59 percent last year from 79 percent in 2006, according to polling by the Pew Research Group. When the British polling firm Ipsos Mori asked Americans this past summer to list their three most pressing environmental worries, “global warming/climate change” garnered only 27 percent, behind even “overpopulation.”

This fading of global warming from the political agenda is a mostly American phenomenon. True, public enthusiasm for legislation to tackle climate change has flagged somewhat throughout the developed world since the recession of 2008. Nonetheless, in many other countries, legislation to control emissions has rolled out apace. Just last Wednesday, Australia’s House of Representatives passed a carbon tax, which is expected to easily clear the country’s Senate. Europe’s six-year-old carbon emissions trading system continues its yearly expansion. In 2010, India passed a carbon tax on coal. Even China’s newest five-year plan contains a limited pilot cap-and-trade system, under which polluters pay for excess pollution.

The United States is the “one significant outlier” on responding to climate change, according to a recent global research report produced by HSBC, the London-based bank. John Ashton, Britain’s special representative for climate change, said in an interview that “in the U.K., in Europe, in most places I travel to” — but not in the United States — “the starting point for conversation is that this is real, there are clear and present dangers, so let’s get a move on and respond.” After watching the Republican candidates express skepticism about global warming in early September, former President Bill Clinton put it more bluntly, “I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right?”

Americans — who produce twice the emissions per capita that Europeans do — are in many ways wired to be holdouts. We prefer bigger cars and bigger homes. We value personal freedom, are suspicious of scientists, and tend to distrust the kind of sweeping government intervention required to confront rising greenhouse gas emissions.

“Climate change presents numerous ideological challenges to our culture and our beliefs,” Professor Hoffman of the Erb Institute says. “People say, ‘Wait a second, this is really going to affect how we live!’ ”

There are, of course, other factors that hardened resistance: America’s powerful fossil-fuel industry, whose profits are bound to be affected by any greater control of carbon emissions; a cold American winter in 2010 that made global warming seem less imminent; and a deep recession that made taxes on energy harder to talk about, and job creation a more pressing issue than the environment — as can be seen in the debate over the pipeline from Canada.

But it is also true that Europe has endured a deep recession and has had mild winters. What’s more, some of the loudest climate deniers are English. Yet the European Union is largely on target to meet its goal of reducing emissions by at least 20 percent over 1990 levels by 2020.

Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner on climate action, told me recently: “Look, it was not a piece of cake here either.”

In fact, many countries in Europe have come to see combating climate change and the move to a “greener” economy as about “opportunities rather than costs,” Mr. Ashton said. In Britain, the low-carbon manufacturing sector has been one of the few to grow through the economic slump.

“One thing I’ve been pleasantly surprised about in the E.U. is that despite the economic and financial crisis, the momentum on climate change has more or less continued,” Mr. Ashton said.

And Conservatives, rather than posing an obstacle, are directing aggressive climate policies in much of the world. Before becoming the European Union’s commissioner for climate action, Ms. Hedegaard was a well-known Conservative politician in her native Denmark. In Britain, where a 2008 law required deep cuts in emissions, a coalition Conservative government is now championing a Green Deal.

In the United States, the right wing of the Republican Party has managed to turn skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability, forming an unlikely triad with antiabortion and gun-rights beliefs. In findings from a Pew poll this spring, 75 percent of staunch conservatives, 63 percent of libertarians and 55 percent of Main Street Republicans said there was no solid evidence of global warming.

“This has become a partisan political issue here in a way it has not elsewhere,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. “We are seeing doubts in the U.S. largely because the issue has become a partisan one, with Democrats” — 75 percent of whom say they believe there is strong evidence of climate change — “seeing one thing and Republicans another.”

Europeans understand the challenges in the United States, though they sound increasingly impatient. “We are very much aware of the political situation in the United States and we don’t say ‘do this,’ when we know it can’t get through Congress,” said Ms. Hedegaard, when she was in New York for the United Nations General Assembly last month. But she added:

“O.K. if you can’t commit today, when can you? When are you willing to join in? Australia is making a cap-and-trade system. South Korea is introducing one. New Zealand and the E.U. have it already. So when is the time? That’s the question for the U.S.”

MEANWHILE, in the developing world, emerging economies like India and China are now pursuing aggressive climate policies. “Two years ago the assumption was that the developed world would have to lead, but now China, India and Brazil have jumped in with enthusiasm, and are moving ahead,” said Nick Robins of HSBC Global Research.

Buffeted by two years of treacherous weather that they are less able to handle than richer nations — from floods in India to water shortages in China — developing countries are feeling vulnerable. Scientists agree that extreme weather events will be more severe and frequent on a warming planet, and insurance companies have already documented an increase.

So perhaps it is no surprise that regard for climate change as “a very serious problem” has risen significantly in many developing nations over the past two years. A 2010 Pew survey showed that more than 70 percent of people in China, India and South Korea were willing to pay more for energy in order to address climate change. The number in the United States was 38 percent. China’s 12th five-year plan, for 2011-2015, directs intensive investment to low carbon industries. In contrast, in the United States, there is “no prospect of moving ahead” at a national legislative level, Mr. Robins said, although some state governments are addressing the issue.

In private, scientific advisers to Mr. Obama say he and his administration remain committed to confronting climate change and global warming. But Robert E. O’Connor, program director for decision, risk and management sciences at the National Science Foundation in Washington, said a bolder leader would emphasize real risks that, apparently, now feel distant to many Americans. “If it’s such an important issue, why isn’t he talking about it?”

Elisabeth Rosenthal is a reporter and blogger on environmental issues for The New York Times.

The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate (Washington Post)

26/10/2011UncategorizedClima, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

By Eugene Robinson, Published: October 24

For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there.

The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.

“Global warming is real,” Muller wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the neo-Luddites who are turning the GOP into the anti-science party should pay attention.

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.”

In other words, the deniers’ claims about the alleged sloppiness or fraudulence of climate science are wrong. Muller’s team, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, rigorously explored the specific objections raised by skeptics — and found them groundless.

Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.

This agrees with the increase estimated by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.

The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.

Muller found that skeptics are wrong when they claim that a “heat island” effect from urbanization is skewing average temperature readings; monitoring instruments in rural areas show rapid warming, too. He found that skeptics are wrong to base their arguments on the fact that records from some sites seem to indicate a cooling trend, since records from at least twice as many sites clearly indicate warming. And he found that skeptics are wrong to accuse climate scientists of cherry-picking the data, since the readings that are often omitted — because they are judged unreliable — show the same warming trend.

Muller and his colleagues examined five times as many temperature readings as did other researchers — a total of 1.6 billion records — and now have put that merged database online. The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.

Not so, I predict, with the blowhards such as Perry, Cain and Bachmann, who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the Earth’s future. They may concede that warming is taking place, but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause.

It is true that Muller made no attempt to ascertain “how much of the warming is due to humans.” Still, the Berkeley group’s work should help lead all but the dimmest policymakers to the overwhelmingly probable answer.

We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.

It is the know-nothing politicians — not scientists — who are committing an unforgivable fraud.

A Map of Organized Climate Change Denial (Dot Earth, N.Y. Times)

04/10/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Enquadramento, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

October 2, 2011, 3:51 PM

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Oct. 3, 9:00 p.m. | Updated
A chart of “key components of the climate change denial machine” has been produced by Riley E. Dunlap, regents professor of sociology at Oklahoma State University, and Aaron M. McCright, an associate professor of sociology at Michigan State University. The diagram below (reproduced here with permission) is from a chapter the two researchers wrote on organized opposition to efforts to curb greenhouse gases for the new Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society.
That there are such well-financed and coordinated efforts is not contentious. And this is not the first attempt to map them.

But it’s important to keep in mind that not everyone skeptical of worst-case predictions of human-driven climate disruption, or everyone opposed to certain climate policies, is part of this apparatus.

And there’s plenty to chart on the other edge of the climate debate — thosegroups and outlets pursuing a traditional pollution-style approach to greenhouse gases.

[Oct. 3, 9:00 p.m. | Updated As it happens, the blogger behind Australian Climate Madness has posted a skeptics’ map of “the climate alarmism machine.” (see below) I think some, though by no means all, aspects of the map are not bad. But, as with so much of the climate debate, it is an overdrawn, overblown caricature of reality.]

It’s also important to examine whether a world without such efforts — in which citizens had a clear view of both what is known, and uncertain, about the human factor in shaping climate-related risks — would appreciably change. Some insist the answer is yes. Given the deep-rooted human bias tothe near and now and other aspects of our “inconvenient mind,” I’m not nearly so sure (although this doesn’t stop me from working on this challenge, of course).

Nigerian car thief turns into goat! (The Christian Science Monitor)

17/09/2011UncategorizedÁfrica, Bruxaria, Cultura, jornalismo, Psicologia, Religiãorenzotaddei

In West Africa, widespread belief in witchcraft, black magic, and superstition undermine the fundamentals of journalism.

By Walter Rodgers / July 6, 2009

ABUJA, NIGERIA
In Nigeria recently, an angry mob demanded that police jail a goat. Vigilantes insisted the animal was a human car thief who transmogrified upon being apprehended. Nigerian law doesn’t recognize magic, witchcraft, or voodoo. Yet, faced with an angry mob, police acquiesced, arresting the goat.

This story was my object lesson for a Practical Reporting 101 class I taught to Nigerian journalism students this spring. There was just one problem: Some felt the goat was guilty. “These things actually happen,” one woman protested.

Objective truth is the ideal of journalism. It’s a destination reached through rigorous reporting rooted in skepticism. That’s a tall order in a society that’s so heavily riddled with superstition. In Nigeria, the sharp line between fact and fiction is badly blurred by centuries of animism and occultism that infects contemporary Muslim and Christian thinking as well as secular thought.

Journalistic skepticism is hard to teach where public imagination supersedes rational disbelief. As a result, journalism’s leavening effect on society is diminished. Reporters must always tread lightly in matters of religion, of course. Nearly all faiths hold to beliefs that defy everyday evidence. But, in the West at least, it’s understood that private religious beliefs – along with political beliefs – should be compartmentalized from the practice of journalism. A reporter’s religious beliefs, no matter how odd, don’t necessarily preclude good journalism. But when those beliefs clearly interfere with basic fact-checking and verification, then it’s worth examining how collective belief in magic can impede the civic development that good journalism fosters.

Black magic, malevolent curses, and witch doctors are woven into the fabric of West African society. “I don’t believe in witches, but I know they exist,” one of my students said. Television soap operas feature a villain sprinkling green powder on the doorstep of the woman next door. The following day she is shown writhing in agony. Great swaths of Nigerian society take these curses seriously.

Not infrequently, police hear reports that a man claims someone cast a spell to capture his spirit. Tradition here holds that if you sleep in bed with your feet at the headboard, you are communing with witches. Criminals buy charms from witch doctors to become invisible and escape arrest. A hairdresser tells of a client of another customer who reported a snake in her house that turned into a young woman. When the girl was taken to a Pentecostal church service she turned back into a snake. The journalistic canon of having two independent sources to confirm a news story becomes irrelevant when an entire congregation insists “it really happened.”

In Nigeria hearsay becomes conviction, then “truth,” and credibility grows in the retelling.

TV coverage lends currency to rumor. Take the story of four thieves apprehended by vigilantes who tied and bound them. According to dozens of village witnesses, there was supposedly a puff of smoke and the bound villains became four tethered crocodiles. One student insisted this was more credible than transubstantiation at Roman Catholic communion – the doctrine that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ – because “the TV news showed video of the four crocodiles.”

“We believe in God,” says Lydia Tolulope Adeleru, an American-educated daughter of a Baptist minister. “We also believe in our cultural gods like Sango, the god of iron, as well as Esu, the devil. We are a deeply religious people but we never left the old ways.” Africans often look for an unknown element to blame for disasters, floods, and crop failures. “If Christians have a God who makes Lucifer fall from heaven,” adds Ms. Adeleru, “what’s so strange about our juju [black magic]?”

The “rules of evidence” are easily contaminated here. Beatrice Funmilayo, a diplomat’s daughter, was a rare skeptic. “Nigerians have rich traditions of storytelling, but as journalists, we have to divorce ourselves from our cultural inclinations.” “Besides,” she said, “if these things really happened, wouldn’t they happen everywhere and not just [in] Nigeria?”

Shebanjo Ola is a university-educated attorney. He told of a woman in his village mixing sand and stones in a bowl and covering it with paper. When she removed the paper, the contents had magically turned into rice and meat. I asked, “Did you see it?” “No, but my mother did, and she never lies,” he replied. So much for the journalistic canon: “When your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”

In one class I abruptly asked, “Has anyone here actually seen someone magically disappear?” Temple Ojutalayo assured me he had. He said his university professor teaching traditional folk medicine “disappeared in front of the entire class.”

I asked how many of these aspiring journalists believed in ghosts. The hands shot up. “What about UFOs?”

No response. Then a voice from the rear said, “Those only happen in America.”

Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN. He writes a biweekly column for the Monitor’s weekly edition.

We Need To Do More When It Comes To Having Brief, Panicked Thoughts About Climate Change (The Onion)

12/09/2011Uncategorizedciência, Humor, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Previsão, Psicologiarenzotaddei

COMMENTARY
BY RHETT STEVENSON
SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 | ISSUE 47•36

The 20 hottest years on record have all taken place in the past quarter century. The resulting floods, wildfires, and heat waves have all had deadly consequences, and if we don’t reduce carbon emissions immediately, humanity faces bleak prospects. We can no longer ignore this issue. Beginning today, we must all do more when it comes to our brief and panicked thoughts about climate change.

Indeed, if there was ever a time when a desperate call to take action against global warming should race through our heads as we lie in bed and stare at the ceiling, that time is now.

Many well-intentioned people will take 20 seconds out of their week to consider the consequences of the lifestyle they’ve chosen, perhaps contemplating how their reliance on fossil fuels has contributed to the rapid melting of the Arctic ice cap. But if progress is what we truly want, 20 seconds is simply not enough. Not by a long shot. An issue this critical demands at least 45 seconds to a solid minute of real, concentrated panic.

And I’m not talking about letting the image of a drowning polar bear play out in your mind now and then. If we’re at all serious, we need to let ourselves occasionally be struck with grim visions of coastal cities washing away and people starving as drought-stricken farmlands fail to yield crops—and we need to do this regularly, every couple days or so, before continuing to go about our routines as usual.

This may seem like a lot to ask, but no one ever said making an effort to think about change was easy.

So if you pick up a newspaper and see an article about 10 percent of all living species going extinct by the end of the century, don’t just turn the page. Stop, peruse it for a moment, look at the photos, freak out for a few seconds, and then turn the page.

And the next time you start up your car, stop to think how the exhaust from your vehicle and millions of others like it contributes to air pollution, increasing the likelihood that a child in your neighborhood will develop asthma or other respiratory ailments. Take your time with it. Feel the full, crushing weight of that guilt. Then go ahead and drive wherever it was you wanted to go.

To do anything less is irresponsible.

Suppose you’ve just sat down in a crisply air-conditioned movie theater. Why not take the length of a preview or two to consider the building’s massive carbon footprint? Imagine those greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere, disrupting ecosystems and causing infectious diseases to spread rampantly, particularly in regions of the world where the poorest people live. Visualize massive storm systems cutting widespread swaths of destruction. Think of your children’s children dying horrible, unnecessary deaths.

You might even go so far as to experience actual physical symptoms: shaking, hyperventilation, perhaps even a heart palpitation. These are entirely appropriate responses to have, and the kinds of reactions each of us ought to have briefly before casting such worries aside to enjoy Conan The Barbarian.

Ultimately, however, our personal moments of distress won’t matter much unless our government intervenes with occasional mentions of climate change in important speeches, or by passing nonbinding legislation on the subject. I implore you: Spend a couple minutes each year imagining yourself writing impassioned letters to your elected representatives demanding a federal cap on emissions.

Global warming must be met with immediate, short-lasting feelings of overwhelming dread, or else life as we know it will truly cease—oh, God, there’s nothing we can do, is there? Maybe we’re already too late. What am I supposed to do? Unplug my refrigerator? I recycle, I take shorter showers than I used to, doesn’t that count for something? Devastating famines and brutal wars fought over dwindling resources? Is that my fault? Jesus, holy shit, someone do something! Tell me what to do! For the love of God, what can possibly be done?

There you have it. I’ve done my part. Now it’s your turn.

Educating the Obvious (N.Y.Times)

31/08/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Cultura, Economia, Educação, Enquadramento, Humor, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Previsão, Visualidaderenzotaddei

By BRIAN McFADDEN. Published: August 27, 2011

O partido anticiência (JC, O Globo)

30/08/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Economia, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4333, de 30 de Agosto de 2011.

Artigo de Paul Krugman publicado no O Globo de hoje (30).

John Huntsman Jr., ex-governador de Utah e embaixador na China, não é um forte pré-candidato à indicação do Partido Republicano para concorrer à Presidência. E isto é muito ruim porque o desejo de Huntsman é dizer o indizível sobre o partido – especialmente que ele está se tornando o “partido anticiência”. Isto é algo enormemente importante. E deveria nos aterrorizar.

Para entender o que Huntsman defende, considere declarações recentes dos dois mais fortes pretendentes à indicação republicana: Rick Perry e Mitt Romney.

Perry, governador do Texas, fez manchetes recentemente ao fazer pouco da evolução humana como uma “simples teoria”, que tem “algumas lacunas” – uma observação que soaria como novidade para a vasta maioria dos biólogos. Mas o que mais chamou a atenção foi o que ele disse sobre mudança climática: “Penso que há um número substancial de cientistas que manipulou dados para obter dólares para seus projetos. E penso que estamos vendo, quase toda semana, ou todo dia, cientistas questionando a ideia original de que o aquecimento global provocado pelo homem é a causa da mudança climática.” É uma declaração extraordinária – ou talvez o adjetivo correto seja “vil”.

A segunda parte da declaração de Perry é falsa: o consenso científico sobre a interferência humana no aquecimento global – que inclui 97% a 98% dos pesquisadores de campo, segundo a Academia Nacional de Ciências – está se tornando mais forte à medida que aumentam as evidências sobre a mudança do clima.

De fato, se você acompanha a ciência climática sabe que o principal aspecto nos últimos anos tem sido a preocupação crescente de que as projeções sobre o futuro do clima estejam subestimando o provável aumento da temperatura. Advertências de que poderemos enfrentar mudanças cimáticas capazes de ameaçar a civilização no fim do século, antes consideradas estranhas, partem agora dos principais grupos de pesquisa.

Mas não se preocupe, sugere Perry; os cientistas estão apenas atrás de dinheiro, “manipulando dados” para criar uma falsa ameaça. Em seu livro “Fed Up”, ele despreza a ciência do clima como “uma bagunça falsa e artificial que está se desmanchando”.

Eu poderia dizer que Perry está tirando isso de uma teoria conspiratória verdadeiramente louca, que afirma que milhares de cientistas de todo o mundo estão levando dinheiro, sem que nenhum deseje quebrar o código de silêncio. Poderia apontar que múltiplas investigações em acusações de falsidade intelectual da parte dos cientistas climáticos acabaram com a absolvição dos pesquisadores de todas as acusações. Mas não se preocupe: Perry e os que pensam como ele sabem em que desejam acreditar e sua resposta a qualquer um que os contradiga é iniciar uma caça às bruxas.

Então de que modo Romney, o outro forte concorrente à indicação republicana, respondeu ao desafio de Perry? Correndo dele. No passado, Romney, ex-governador de Massachusetts, endossou fortemente a noção de que a mudança climática provocada pelo homem é uma real preocupação. Mas, na semana passada, ele suavizou isso e disse pensar que o mundo está realmente esquentando, mas “eu não conheço isto” e “não sei se isso é causado principalmente pelo homem”. Que coragem moral!

É claro, sabemos o que está motivando a súbita falta de convicção de Romney. Segundo o Public Policy Polling, somente 21% dos eleitores republicanos de Iowa acreditam no Aquecimento Global (e somente 35% creem na evolução). Dentro do Partido Republicano, ignorância deliberada tornou-se um teste decisivo para os candidatos, no qual Romney está determinado a passar a qualquer custo.

Então, é agora altamente provável que o candidato presidencial de um de nossos dois grandes partidos políticos será ou um homem que acredita no que quer acreditar, ou um homem que finge acreditar em qualquer coisa que ele ache que a base do partido quer que ele acredite.

E o caráter crescentemente anti-intelectual da direita, tanto dentro do Partido Republicano como fora dele, se estende além da questão da mudança climática.

Ultimamente, por exemplo, a seção editorial do “Wall Street Journal” passou da antiga preferência pelas ideias econômicas de “charlatães e maníacos” — pela definição famosa de um dos principais conselheiros econômicos do ex-presidente George W. Bush – para um descrédito geral do pensamento árduo sobre questões econômicas. Não prestem atenção a “teorias fantasiosas” que conflitam com o “senso comum”, diz-nos o “Journal”. Por que deveria alguém imaginar que se precisa mais do que estômago para analisar coisas como crises financeiras e recessões?

Agora, não se sabe quem ganhará a eleição presidencial do próximo ano. Mas há chances de que, mais dia menos dia, a maior nação do mundo será dirigida por um partido que é agressivamente anticiência, mesmo anticonhecimento. E, numa era de grandes desafios – ambiental, econômico e outros – é uma terrível perspectiva.

Paul Krugman é colunista do “New York Times”.

New York Times Publishes a Searing Drought Story, But Completely Misses the Climate Change Angle (Climate Central)

20/07/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Economia, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Previsão, Secarenzotaddei

Published: July 12th, 2011, Last Updated: July 13th, 2011
By Andrew Freedman

In Monday’s New York Times, Kim Severson and Kirk Johnson wrote an eloquent story on the intense drought that is maintaining a tight grip on a broad swath of America’s southern tier, from Arizona to Florida. Reporting from Georgia, Severson and Johnson detailed the plight of farmers struggling to make ends meet as the parched soil makes it nearly impossible for them to grow crops and feed livestock.

Monday’s story from the New York Times on drought.

The piece is a great example of how emotionally moving storytelling from a local perspective can convey the consequences of broad issues and trends, in this case, a major drought that has enveloped 14 states. In that sense, it served Times readers extraordinarily well.

However, when it came to providing readers with a thorough understanding of the drought’s causes and aggravating factors, Severson and Johnson left out any mention of the elephant in the room — global climate change, and pinned the entire drought on one factor, La Niña. For this, it was overly simplistic, and even just downright inaccurate.

Here’s how the story framed the drought’s causes:

From a meteorological standpoint, the answer is fairly simple. “A strong La Niña shut off the southern pipeline of moisture,” said David Miskus, who monitors drought for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The La Niña “lone gunman” theory is problematic from a scientific standpoint. Just last week, Marty Hoerling, the federal government’s top researcher tasked with examining how climate change may be influencing extreme weather and climate events, told reporters that “we cannot reconcile it [the drought] with just the La Niña impact alone, at least not at this time.”

Instead, the causal factors are more nuanced than that, and they do include global warming, since it is changing the background conditions in which such extreme events occur.

During a press conference last week from a drought management meeting in the parched city of Austin, Texas, Hoerling made clear that climate change is already increasing average temperatures across the drought region, and is expected to lead to more frequent and intense droughts in the Southwest. Other research indicates the trend towards a drier Southwest is already taking place. “There are recent regional tendencies toward more severe droughts in the southwestern United States, parts of Canada and Alaska, and Mexico,” stated a 2008 report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

As is the case with any extreme weather or climate event now, one cannot truly separate climate change from the mix, considering that droughts, floods, and other extreme events now occur in an environment that has been profoundly altered by human emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. This doesn’t mean that climate change is causing all of these extreme events, but it does mean that climate change may be increasing the likelihood that some types of events will occur, and may be changing the characteristics of some extreme events, such as by making heat waves more intense.

The fact that the Times story detailed both the drought and the record heat accompanying it, yet left out any mention of climate change, was a particularly puzzling error of omission. Hoerling, for one, pointed to the extreme heat seen during this drought as a possible sign of things to come, as climate change helps produce dangerous combinations of heat and drought.

“We haven’t necessarily dealt with drought and heat at the same time in such a persistent way, and that’s a new condition,” Hoerling said, noting that higher temperatures only hasten the drying of soils.

Many ponds in Texas, such as this one in Rusk County, were nearly dry by late June 2011. Credit: agrilifetoday/flickr.

Texas had its warmest June on record, for example, and on June 26th, Amarillo, Texas recorded its warmest temperature on record for any month, at 111°F. According to the Weather Channel, parts of Oklahoma and Texas have already exceeded their yearly average number of days at or above 100 degrees, including Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Austin. The heat is related to the drought, because when soil moisture is so low, more of the sun’s energy goes towards heating the air directly.

It’s unfortunate that the Times story, which was a searing portrayal of how a drought can impact communities that are already down on their luck due to economic troubles, did not include at least some discussion on climate change. As I’ve shown here, and climate blogger Joe Romm has also pointed out, there was sufficient evidence to justify raising the climate change topic in that story, and many others like it. After all, if the media doesn’t make an effort to evaluate the evidence on the links between extreme weather and climate change, then how can we expect the public to understand how global warming may affect their lives?

At Climate Central, our scientists are working to better understand whether and how climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain extreme weather events, such as heat waves, while at the same time, our journalists are covering the Southern drought and wildfire situation with the goal of making sure our readers understand what scientific studies show about global warming and extreme events.

This is not an easy task, but it need not be such a lonely one.

Update, July 13: The Times published an editorial on the drought today, which also blames the drought squarely on La Niña-related weather patterns, and makes no mention of climate change impacts or projections.

* * *

EDITORIAL (New York Times)
Suffering in the Parched South
Published: July 12, 2011

Right now, the official drought map of the United States looks as if it has been set on fire and scorched at the bottom edge. Scorched is how much of the Southeast and Southwest feel, in the midst of a drought that is the most extreme since the 1950s and possibly since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. The government has classified much of this drought as D4, which means exceptional. The outlook through late September shows possible improvement in some places, but in most of Texas, Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, and northern Louisiana and Mississippi the drought is expected to worsen.

Dry conditions began last year and have only intensified as temperatures rose above 100 in many areas. Rain gauges have been empty for months, causing a region-wide search for new underground sources of water as streams and lakes dry up. The drought is produced by a pattern of cooling in the Pacific called La Niña. A cooler ocean means less moisture in the atmosphere, which shuts down the storms shuttling east across the region.

Droughts are measured in dollars as well as degrees. The prospects for cattle and wheat, corn and cotton crops across the South are dire. There is no way yet to estimate the ultimate cost of this drought because there is no realistic estimate of when it will end. Farmers have been using crop insurance payments, and federal relief is available in disaster areas, including much of Texas. But the only real relief will be the end of the dry, hot winds and the beginning of long, settled rains.

* * *

Drought Spreads Pain From Florida to Arizona

Grant Blankenship for The New York Times. Buster Haddock, an agricultural scientist at the University of Georgia, in a field where cotton never had the chance to grow.

By KIM SEVERSON and KIRK JOHNSON
Published: July 11, 2011

COLQUITT, Ga. — The heat and the drought are so bad in this southwest corner of Georgia that hogs can barely eat. Corn, a lucrative crop with a notorious thirst, is burning up in fields. Cotton plants are too weak to punch through soil so dry it might as well be pavement.

Waiting for Rain

Dangerously Dry – Nearly a fifth of the contiguous United States has been faced with the worst drought in recent years.

The Dry Season

OKLAHOMA A simple, if plaintive, message from the residents of Hough, in the panhandle, late last month. Shawn Yorks/The Guymon Daily Herald, via Associated Press

Farmers with the money and equipment to irrigate are running wells dry in the unseasonably early and particularly brutal national drought that some say could rival the Dust Bowl days.

“It’s horrible so far,” said Mike Newberry, a Georgia farmer who is trying grow cotton, corn and peanuts on a thousand acres. “There is no description for what we’ve been through since we started planting corn in March.”

The pain has spread across 14 states, from Florida, where severe water restrictions are in place, to Arizona, where ranchers could be forced to sell off entire herds of cattle because they simply cannot feed them.

In Texas, where the drought is the worst, virtually no part of the state has been untouched. City dwellers and ranchers have been tormented by excessive heat and high winds. In the Southwest, wildfires are chewing through millions of acres.

Last month, the United States Department of Agriculture designated all 254 counties in Texas natural disaster areas, qualifying them for varying levels of federal relief. More than 30 percent of the state’s wheat fields might be lost, adding pressure to a crop in short supply globally.

Even if weather patterns shift and relief-giving rain comes, losses will surely head past $3 billion in Texas alone, state agricultural officials said.

Most troubling is that the drought, which could go down as one of the nation’s worst, has come on extra hot and extra early. It has its roots in 2010 and continued through the winter. The five months from this February to June, for example, were so dry that they shattered a Texas record set in 1917, said Don Conlee, the acting state climatologist.

Oklahoma has had only 28 percent of its normal summer rainfall, and the heat has blasted past 90 degrees for a month.

“We’ve had a two- or three-week start on what is likely to be a disastrous summer,” said Kevin Kloesel, director of the Oklahoma Climatological Survey.

The question, of course, becomes why. In a spring and summer in which weather news has been dominated by epic floods and tornadoes, it is hard to imagine that more than a quarter of the country is facing an equally daunting but very different kind of natural disaster.

The weather pattern called La Niña is an abnormal cooling of Pacific waters. It usually follows El Niño, which is an abnormal warming of those same waters.

Although a new forecast from the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center suggests that this dangerous weather pattern could revive in the fall, many in the parched regions find themselves in the unlikely position of hoping for a season of heavy tropical storms in the Southeast and drenching monsoons in the Southwest.

Climatologists say the great drought of 2011 is starting to look a lot like the one that hit the nation in the early to mid-1950s. That, too, dried a broad part of the southern tier of states into leather and remains a record breaker.

But this time, things are different in the drought belt. With states and towns short on cash and unemployment still high, the stress on the land and the people who rely on it for a living is being amplified by political and economic forces, state and local officials say. As a result, this drought is likely to have the cultural impact of the great 1930s drought, which hammered an already weakened nation.

“In the ’30s, you had the Depression and everything that happened with that, and drought on top,” said Donald A. Wilhite, director of the school of natural resources at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln and former director of the National Drought Mitigation Center. “The combination of those two things was devastating.”

Although today’s economy is not as bad, many Americans ground down by prolonged economic insecurity have little wiggle room to handle the effects of a prolonged drought. Government agencies are in the same boat.

“Because we overspent, the Legislature overspent, we’ve been cut back and then the drought comes along and we don’t have the resources and federal government doesn’t, and so we just tighten our belt and go on,” said Donald Butler, the director of the Arizona Department of Agriculture.

The drought is having some odd effects, economically and otherwise.

“One of the biggest impacts of the drought is going to be the shrinking of the cattle herd in the United States,” said Bruce A. Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University in Ames. And that will have a paradoxical but profound impact on the price of a steak.

Ranchers whose grass was killed by drought cannot afford to sustain cattle with hay or other feed, which is also climbing in price. Their response will most likely be to send animals to slaughter early. That glut of beef would lower prices temporarily.

But America’s cattle supply will ultimately be lower at a time when the global supply is already low, potentially resulting in much higher prices in the future.

There are other problems. Fishing tournaments have been canceled in Florida and Mississippi, just two of the states where low water levels have kept recreational users from lakes and rivers. In Texas, some cities are experiencing blackouts because airborne deposits of salt and chemicals are building up on power lines, triggering surges that shut down the system. In times of normal weather, rain usually washes away the environmental buildup. Instead, power company crews in cities like Houston are being dispatched to spray electrical lines.

In this corner of Georgia, where temperatures have been over 100 and rainfall has been off by more than half, fish and wildlife officials are worried over the health of the shinyrayed pocketbook and the oval pigtoe mussels, both freshwater species on the endangered species list.

The mussels live in Spring Creek, which is dangerously low and borders Terry Pickle’s 2,000-acre farm here. He pulls his irrigation from wells that tie into the water system of which Spring Creek is a part.

Whether nature or agriculture is to blame remains a debate in a state that for 20 years has been embroiled in a water war with Alabama and Florida. Meanwhile, Colquitt has allowed the state to drill a special well to pump water back into the creek to save the mussels from extinction.

Most farmers here are much more worried about the crops than the mussels. With cotton and corn prices high, they had high hopes for the season. But many have had to replant fields several times to get even one crop to survive. Others, like Mr. Pickle, have relied on irrigation so expensive that it threatens to eat into any profits.

The water is free, but the system used to get it from the ground runs on diesel fuel. His bill for May and June was an unheard of $88,442.

Thousands of small stories like that will all contribute to the ultimate financial impact of the drought, which will not be known until it is over. And no one knows when that will be.

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency has already provided over $75 million in assistance to ranchers nationwide, with most of it going to Florida, New Mexico and Texas. An additional $62 million in crop insurance indemnities have already been provided to help other producers.

Economists say that adding up the effects of drought is far more complicated than, say, those of a hurricane or tornado, which destroy structures that have set values. With drought, a shattered wheat or corn crop is a loss to one farmer, and it has a specific price tag. But all those individual losses punch a hole in the food supply and drive prices up. That is good news for a farmer who manages to get a crop in. The final net costs down the line are thus dispersed, and mostly passed along.

That means grocery shoppers will feel the effects of the drought at the dinner table, where the cost of staples like meat and bread will most likely rise, said Michael J. Roberts, an associate professor of agricultural and resource economics at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C. “The biggest losers are consumers,” he said.

Kim Severson reported from Colquitt, Ga., and Kirk Johnson from Denver. Dan Frosch contributed reporting from Denver.

Our Extreme Future: Predicting and Coping with the Effects of a Changing Climate (Scientific American)

20/07/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, discurso ambiental, Enquadramento, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Previsãorenzotaddei

Adapting to extreme weather calls for a combination of restoring wetland and building drains and sewers that can handle the water. But leaders and the public are slow to catch on. Final part of a three-part series

By John Carey | Thursday, June 30, 2011 | 97

Image: Fikret Onal/Flickr

Editor’s note: This article is the last of a three-part series by John Carey. Part 1, “Storm Warning: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change,” was posted on June 28. Part 2, “Global Warming and the Science of Extreme Weather,” was posted on June 29.

Extreme weather events have become both more common and more intense. And increasingly, scientists have been able to pin at least part of the blame on humankind’s alteration of the climate. What’s more, the growing success of this nascent science of climate attribution (finding the telltale fingerprints of climate change in extreme events) means that researchers have more confidence in their climate models—which predict that the future will be even more extreme.

Are we prepared for this future? Not yet. Indeed, the trend is in the other direction, especially in Washington, D.C., where a number of members of Congress even argue that climate change itself is a hoax.

Scientists hope that rigorously identifying climate change’s contribution to individual extreme events can indeed wake people up to the threat. As the research advances, it should be possible to say that two extra inches (five centimeters) of rain poured down in a Midwestern storm because of greenhouse gases, or that a California heat wave was 10 times more likely to occur thanks to humans’ impacts on climate. So researchers have set up rapid response teams to assess climate change’s contribution to extreme events while the events are still fresh in people’s minds. In addition, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing a special report on extreme events and disasters, due out by the end of 2011. “It is important for us emphasize that climate change and its impacts are not off in the future, but are here and now,” explained Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, during a briefing at United Nations climate talks in Cancún last December.

The message is beginning to sink in. The Russian government, for instance, used to doubt the existence of climate change, or argue that it might be beneficial for Russia. But now, government officials have realized that global warming will not bring a gradual and benign increase in temperatures. Instead, they’re likely to see more crippling heat waves. As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told the Security Council of the Russian Federation last summer: “Everyone is talking about climate change now. Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions.”

Doubts persist despite evidence

Among the U.S. public, the feeling is different. Opinion pollsand anecdotal reports show that most Americans do not perceive a threat from climate change. And a sizable number of Americans, including many newly elected members of Congress, do not even believe that climate change exists. Extreme weather? Just part of nature, they say. After all, disastrous floods and droughts go back to the days of Noah and Moses. Why should today’s disasters be any different? Was the July 23, 2010, storm that spawned Les Scott’s record hailstone evidence of a changing climate, for instance? “Not really,” Scott says. “It was just another thunderstorm. We get awful bad blizzards that are a lot worse.”

And yes, 22 of Maryland’s 23 counties were declared natural disaster areas after record-setting heat and drought in 2010. “It was the worst corn crop I ever had,” says fourth-generation farmer Earl “Buddy” Hance. But was it a harbinger of a more worrisome future? Probably not, says Hance, the state’s secretary of agriculture. “As farmers we are skeptical, and we need to see a little more. And if it does turn out to be climate change, farmers would adapt.” By then, adaptation could be really difficult, frets Minnesota organic farmer Jack Hedin, whose efforts to raise the alarm are “falling on deaf ears,” he laments.

Many scientists share Hedin’s worry. “The real honest message is that while there is debate about how much extreme weather climate change is inducing now, there is very little debate about its effect in the future,” says Michael Wehner, staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and member of the lead author teams of the interagency U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis and Assessment reports on climate extremes. For instance, climate models predict that by 2050 Russia will have warmed up so much that every summer will be as warm as the disastrous heat wave it just experienced, says Richard Seager of Columbia University’s Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory. In other words, many of today’s extremes will become tomorrow’s everyday reality. “Climate change will throw some significant hardballs at us,” says Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. “There will be a lot of surprises that we are not adapted to.”

A dusty future

One of the clearest pictures of this future is emerging for the U.S. Southwest and a similar meteorological zone that stretches across Italy, Greece and Turkey. Work by Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Seager and others predicts that these regions will get hotter and drier—and, perhaps more important, shows that the change has already begun. “The signal of a human influence on climate pops up in 1985, then marches on getting strong and stronger,” Barnett says. By the middle of the 21st century, the models predict, the climate will be as dry as the seven-year long Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s or the damaging 1950s drought centered in California and Mexico, Seager says: “In the future the drought won’t last just seven years. It will be the new norm.”

That spells trouble. In the Southwest the main worry is water—water that makes cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas possible and that irrigates the enormously productive farms of California’s Central Valley. Supplies are already tight. During the current 11-year dry spell, the demand for water from the vast Colorado River system, which provides water to 30 million people and irrigates four million acres (1.6 million hectares) of cropland, has exceeded the supply. The result: water levels in the giant Lake Mead reservoir dropped to a record low in October (before climbing one foot, or 30 centimeters, after torrential winter rains in California reduced the demand for Colorado River water). Climate change will just make the problem worse. “The challenge will be great,” says Terry Fulp, deputy regional director of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region. “I rank climate change as probably my largest concern. When I’m out on my boat on Lake Mead, it’s on my mind all the time.”

The Southwest is just a snapshot of the challenges ahead. Imagine the potential peril to regions around the world, scientists say. “Our civilization is based on a stable base climate—it doesn’t take very much change to raise hell,” Scripps’s Barnett says. And given the lag in the planet’s response to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, many of these changes are coming whether we like them or not. “It’s sort of like that Kung Fu guy who said, ‘I’m going to kick your head off now, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it,'” Barnett says.

Grassroots action

Although efforts to fight climate change are now stalled in Washington, many regions do see the threat and are taking action both to adapt to the future changes and to try to limit the amount of global warming itself. The Bureau of Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region office, for instance, has developed a plan to make “manageable” cuts in the amounts of water that the river system supplies, which Fulp hopes will be enough to get the region through the next 15 years. In Canada, after experiencing eight extreme storms (of more than one-in-25-year intensity) between 1986 and 2006, Toronto has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade its sewer and storm water system for handling deluges. “Improved storm drains are the cornerstone of our climate adaptation policy,” explains Michael D’Andrea, Toronto’s director of water infrastructure management.

In Iowa, even without admitting that climate change is real, farmers are acting as if it is, spending millions of dollars to alter their practices. They are adding tile drainage to their fields to cope with increased floods, buying bigger machinery to move more quickly because their planting window has become shorter, planting a month earlier than they did 50 years ago, and sowing twice as many corn plants per acre to exploit the additional moisture, says Gene Takle, professor of meteorology at Iowa State University in Ames. “Iowa’s floods are in your face—and in your basement—evidence that the climate has changed, and the farmers are adapting,” he says.

Local officials have seen the connection, too. After the huge floods of 2008, the Iowa town of Cedar Falls passed an ordinance requiring that anyone who lives in the 500-year flood plain must have flood insurance—up from the previous 200-year flood requirement. State Sen. Robert Hogg wants to make the policy statewide. He also is pushing to restore wetlands that can help soak up floodwaters before they devastate cities. “Wetland restoration costs money, but it’s cheaper than rebuilding Cedar Rapids,” he says. “I like to say that dealing with climate change is not going to require the greatest sacrifices, but it is going to require the greatest foresight Americans have ever had.”

Right now, that foresight is more myopia, many scientists worry. So when and how will people finally understand that far more is needed? It may require more flooded basements, more searing heat waves, more water shortages or crop failures, more devastating hurricanes or other examples of the increases in extreme weather that climate change will bring. “I don’t want to root for bad things to happen, but that’s what it will take,” says one government scientist who asked not to be identified. Or as Nashville resident Rich Hays says about his own experience with the May 2010 deluge: “The flood was definitely a wake-up call. The question is: How many wake-up calls do we need?”

Reporting for this story was funded by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Reviewing the Nisbet ‘Climate Shift’ Report and Controversial Claims of Media Progress (Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media)

20/07/2011UncategorizedClima, comunicação científica, Enquadramento, Incerteza, jornalismo, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Previsãorenzotaddei

by John Wihbey | July 11, 2011

Matt Nisbet’s ‘Climate Shift’ research report raised headline-grabbing points on fundraising successes by those advocating action on climate change. But it’s what lies behind those headlines — and relating specifically to media coverage — that also warrants further review and analysis.

Few pieces of recent academic research on climate change have stirred up as much controversy as American University professor Matthew Nisbet’s April 2011 report “Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate.”

The report’s biggest headline-grabbing finding — that the environmental lobby is now holding its own in the money race with industry groups opposing carbon regulations — doubtless will generate further analysis, and one can imagine more such annual scorecards assessing this power struggle. And the questions “Climate Shift” raises about the relative political wisdom — or lack of same — in pushing the failed cap-and-trade bill in Congress may well be debated by historians for years to come.

Perhaps the most underappreciated facet of the scholarship that Nisbet put forth, however, involves his analysis of media coverage in the years 2009-2010, contained in his provocatively titled chapter 3, “The Death of a Norm: Evaluating False Balance in News Coverage.”

According to Nisbet’s story-by-story analysis that covers the vertiginous period involving Copenhagen, the so-called “climategate” hacked e-mails, and federal cap-and-trade, the mainstream media — represented in his analysis by The New York Times, CNN.com, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, and The Washington Post — basically moved past the oft-criticized journalistic mode of “he said, she said,” or “false balance.” In its place, those media generally reflected the “consensus science” as backed by organizations such as the U.N.’s IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences and most of its international counterparts. (The opinion pages of the Journal are bracketed as an exception, and Nisbet’s analysis shows that its editorials do indeed continue to cast doubt on climate science.)

Nisbet’s assertion is a profound one, with significant implications. His stated goal with “Climate Shift” is to help reorient the priorities of groups trying to combat global change through the promotion of science and smart messaging to the public. (See companion posting based on author’s extensive e-mail interview with Nisbet.)
“[I]f trend-setting national media have overwhelmingly portrayed the consensus views on the fundamentals of climate science (as the report’s findings indicate),” Nisbet wrote in a recent e-mail interview with The Yale Forum, “then we should be turning to other types of media organizations in our engagement efforts and focusing on other dimensions of coverage, including … subsidizing the ability of local and regional media to cover climate change and energy insecurity as these challenges relate to their region and communities.” These are ideas Nisbet has raised also in previous reports.

Lines of Criticism

Bloggers at Media Matters do criticize how Nisbet interprets his data around the “climategate” period — one of the few on-the-numbers critiques. Nisbet responds that changes in coverage since then are either not “statistically significant” or “not meaningful.”

Other than that, few have questioned the particulars of Nisbet’s labor-intensive analysis of how those five outlets performed. Their selection — and the exclusion of others — though, is the subject of debate.

Nisbet says he chose those specific news outlets because they set the news agenda and have high-volume traffic, as reflected in Nielsen-tabulated figures. CNN.com, the Post and the Times ranked numbers 4, 5 and 9, respectively, in terms of web traffic in 2009. But given that news aggregators such as Yahoo, AOL, and Google ranked 1, 3, and 6, respectively, one might think that Nisbet’s universe of analysis did not capture the true flow of public news information.

The combined traffic of the aggregators is nearly twice that of the news sites Nisbet focused on. Admittedly, though, these aggregators would be a moving target — and an empirical analysis of the quality of news linked to would be difficult — but that’s where some huge portion of the public gets its news and information, and therefore its impressions and opinions.

(One other quibble, about the selection of Politico: Nisbet calls it “the paper ‘the White House wakes up to,’ as memorably headlined in a profile at The New York Times.” In fact, the article he cites is really just a profile of Politico reporter Mike Allen and his important day calendar “Playbook” blog. Though Politico is powerful and prolific, what constitutes “the paper of record for members of Congress,” as Nisbet puts it, may be an issue of reasonable disagreement among media watchers.)

Climate communications expert and University of Colorado-Boulder professor Max Boykoff was one of the formal reviewers for the “Climate Shift” report. He told The Yale Forum in an e-mail interview, “Overall, I found [Nisbet’s] work in Chapter 3 to be good. As he assembled it I spoke with Matt multiple times. (Chapter 3 was the part of the report I most focused on). We discussed how to replicate the methods and approaches that I undertook in my work on empirically testing the accuracy of coverage about human contributions to climate change (aka, the ‘balance as bias’ thesis). His methods and findings (re: WSJ op-ed divergence etc.) appeared valid and reliable.”

Still, Boykoff stated a potentially striking limitation of this type of analysis in his reviewer comments submitted back to Nisbet: Such analysis “still isn’t equipped to gauge how one particular carefully/prominently/well- or ill-timed article or commentary could have a much greater influence on public perceptions and views than consistently inaccurate treatment. In other words, the sometimes haphazard nature of media consumption — from skimming articles to just hearing/watching portions of a segment — isn’t accounted for through this approach. At the end of the day, these studies … struggle to account for ‘selective listening’ or ‘selective reading’ that we actually engage in during our daily lives.”

Boykoff also said he told Nisbet that his (Nisbet’s) research had not provided sufficient support for the “Climate Shift” report’s contention that “even in a world of blogs and fragmented audiences, the coverage appearing at these outlets strongly shapes the news decisions made at the broadcast and cable networks and informs the decisions of policymakers.”

The Fox News Question

Other notable criticisms of Nisbet’s approach in Chapter 3 of his report have focused on his exclusion of television sources, particularly Fox News. Prolific blogger and energy/climate expert Joseph Romm, who leveled ferocious criticism of Nisbet on his “Climate Progress” blog, makes much of this point. This dispute is a tricky one, resting on a difficult-to-resolve social science debate about how “persuade-able” the Fox News audience is, and just how best to measure the impacts of its huge ratings and online readership as part of American political consciousness.

In his comments to The Yale Forum, Nisbet replied, “As I discuss in the report, the audience for Fox News and political talk radio tend to be strongly self-selecting with consumption of these media tending to reinforce the views of those already doubtful or dismissive of climate change (approximately 25 percent of Americans).” Moreover, he says it “is not clear how these unsurprising findings would help us to move forward since any level of engagement with Fox News producers or talk radio hosts is unlikely to lead to changes in their coverage patterns. We can complain about and criticize these outlets, but much of the criticism and anger, I would argue, often ends up distracting us from initiatives where we can make a difference with journalists, editors, and with different publics.”

This latter point, of course, highlights an important facet of Nisbet’s project, namely that it has a particular goal, an “agenda” even, that puts an emphasis on both utility, or making a “difference,” and on truth as criteria for inquiry. (It’s possible this is where he opens the door for controversy, as it leaves him open to criticisms that he is downplaying conservative media and thereby painting an unduly positive picture of the U.S. media as a whole on climate issues.)

Columbia Journalism Review science editor Curtis Brainard told The Yale Forum recently that he thinks the spirit of Nisbet’s report is basically right in Chapter 3, at least as it relates to “news reporters and news articles.” For Nisbet and Brainard both, broad accusations that public ignorance is the media’s “fault” are no longer well-founded.

“There is this conventional wisdom floating around out there that journalists are inept, rarely able to get their facts straight or explain or deliver an accurate account of events,” Brainard wrote in an e-mail. “They’re not. But it’s much easier for activists and other policy or program stakeholders to blame the media when things don’t go their way than to analyze the much more complicated interplay of multiple factors.”

(As an aside, Brainard notes that he wrote about precisely this dynamic in his recent article, “Tornadoes and Climate Change,” which pushes back against such charges leveled by environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben. Brainard says McKibben is too quick to condemn the media as a whole for not making connections between various extreme weather events.)

We’re past those earlier days, Brainard told The Yale Forum, when the basic questions about climate science are portrayed in most mainstream news media as being unsettled: “The coverage has become so much more sophisticated since then, delving into the specific consequences of climate change, from sea level rise, to changing precipitation and drought patterns, to consequences for flora and fauna. Many reporters struggle to accurately explain the highly uncertain and nuanced science underlying these phenomena, but the flaws in the coverage are quite different from the false balance that was on exhibit before, say, 2006. First of all, there is nowhere near as much scientific consensus about these finer points of climate science as there is about the fundamentals (i.e., the Earth is warming, and humans are most likely to blame), so today’s stories are really apples compared with yesterday’s oranges.”

Work Ahead for Media, Scholars

If Nisbet’s report has an underlying flaw, perhaps, it may be in its packaging, particularly in its “Move On”-style message and ambition to deliver a definitive verdict. Its real virtue is that it has just very effectively — whether or not one buys it all — started a different kind of conversation. And given that just five outlets were analyzed in the report, there is certainly much more conversation to be had.

As mentioned, Nisbet has said he is already carrying out new research and further study on local and regional media. (See his latest thoughts on this issue as they relate to Chicago.) It’s a cause on which all academics and media professionals and critics might agree, as the business model for such outlets continues to erode. Local information ecosystems are changing, shifting, and in many cases decaying. But many observers point out how essential they remain.

“It would also be good to look at the practically countless number of local TV network affiliates across the country since, collectively, they are where most Americans still get their news,” Brainard also noted.

“Local newspapers, as Pew has documented, remain at the center of the local media ecosystem, with the overwhelming number of regional/local issues covered by local TV news and at local blogs originating from local newspaper coverage,” Nisbet said. “In this sense, on climate change and energy, we should think about local and regional newspapers as being part of the central communication infrastructure that regions and communities need to learn, connect, plan and make collective choices on the issue.”

Perhaps, through further studies by Nisbet and others, this important work on local and regional media — their shortcomings and needs — can shed additional light.

John Wihbey is a regular contributor to the Yale Forum. He is a journalist and researcher, and he can be reached at jpwihb@yahoo.com.

A Amazônia da grande mídia (Mercado Ético)

17/06/2011UncategorizedÍndios, Enquadramento, jornalismo, Mídia, Opinião públicarenzotaddei

16/06/2011 19:04:42 – http://mercadoetico.terra.com.br/arquivo/a-amazonia-da-grande-midia/

André Alves*

O programa Observatório da Imprensa da última terça-feira (14/06) transmitido pela TV Brasil e conduzido pelo jornalista Alberto Dines fez uma discussão sobre o estranhamento da grande mídia sobre a Amazônia. Participaram como convidados o cientista político Sérgio Abranches, o antropólogo Alfredo Wagner Almeida e a repórter de meio ambiente Afra Balazina, do Estado de S.Paulo. A tese do programa era a de mostrar as limitações da grande mídia (leia-se os veículos do sudeste) em cobrir o país em sua totalidade, sobretudo a Amazônia.

Os convidados deram uma grande contribuição à discussão mostrando que os problemas da região são muito mais complexos do que a mídia pressupõe. Wagner, coordenador do importantíssimo Projeto Nova Cartografia Social da Amazônia fez um paralelo sobre o aumento da violência no campo e a revisão no Congresso Nacional do Código Florestal. Abranches falou do enfraquecimento do interesse da mídia pelo tema e a jornalista do Estadão mostrou a dificuldade de se cobrir à distância assuntos delicados e urgentes.

No entanto, algumas abordagens sobre a Amazônia não foram consideradas como se deveria. Apesar do esforço do antropólogo em mostrar esses debates, Alberto Dines sempre voltava a questão da necessidade de mais profissionais dos maiores jornais distribuídos pelo país e em vários momentos criticou a cobertura dos veículos locais. Ainda que grande parte dos veículos pequenos mereça críticas e que o jornalista é um grande pensador brasileiro, seu enviesamento no programa deixou muitas abordagens interessantes sem serem discutidas.

Uma questão muito importante se refere ao fato de que a imprensa brasileira não conhece a Amazônia. Trata a região que abriga nove estados e mais de 60% do território brasileiro como se fosse uma coisa só, desconsiderando suas diferenças geográficas, econômicas, de biodiversidade, cultural, potencialidades e problemas. Essa limitação é ancorada num outro fator muito preponderante: o mito sobre a Amazônia. É do senso comum conceber a Amazônia como sendo uma grande floresta em que mesmo em capitais como Manaus, Belém ou Cuiabá é possível ver índios andando semi-nus nas ruas e não raro se deparar com uma onça pintada na esquina ou um jacaré saindo da beira do rio.

Mais do que isso, cria-se um imaginário quase onírico ou saído das páginas de José de Alencar sobre os povos que habitam a região. Já faz alguns anos que parei de contar as vezes que algum amigo, familiar ou jornalista fez considerações etnocêntricas sobre comunidades indígenas quando constatam, por exemplo, que em muitas (talvez a maioria das aldeias em Mato Grosso) existem escolas, telefone, televisão e seus moradores andem vestidos. “Nossa, eles deixaram de serem índios”, é o que mais escuto. Não necessariamente por maldade e sim por ignorância, mesmo. No sentido literal do termo.

É claro que a Amazônia tem que sair na mídia por conta do desmatamento que voltou a aumentar e a violência no campo que explodiu na mídia, embora aconteça sistematicamente desde antes da morte de Chico Mendes e Irmã Dorothy, em várias regiões. Mas também tem uma riqueza social, cultural, econômica e ambiental que tem que ser valorizada e discutida na mídia com intensidade parecida.

É muito fácil os jornalistas do sudeste criticarem as mídias do norte por não repercutirem tanto os descasos de sua região, embora sofram muito mais de carência de pessoal e infra-estrutura. E sim, e é claro que quase a totalidade das mídias locais pertence ou sofre severas influências de políticos locais que impedem a divulgação de determinados temas. Mas essa censura (às vezes velada, às vezes às claras) não é privilégio dos pequenos grupos.

As grandes corporações de comunicação também evitam assuntos ao máximo ou deturpam de tal maneira temas como Terras Indígenas, comunidades tradicionais e grandes obras de infra-estrutura que reforçam estereótipos e preconceitos de tal maneira que dificulta ainda mais que as vozes dos que precisam gritar sejam ouvidas. A grande mídia precisa descer do pedestal e de suas torres de marfins e ir mais a campo, contar com jornalistas locais e ouvir fontes mais diversas. Existe um mundo de organizações não-governamentais, associações de assentados, comunidades tradicionais e indígenas que sistematicamente divulgam suas lutas por sites, blogs e emails, que ajudam a diminuir a distância entre os fatos da Amazônia e os jornalistas do sudeste.

A mídia quando quer faz boa cobertura sobre qualquer assunto. E talvez seja esse o verbo que falte às redações!

* André Alves é jornalista em Mato Grosso e especialista em Antropologia

Remember Climate Change? (Huffington Post)

18/05/2011Uncategorizedambientalismo, Clima, Enquadramento, jornalismo, Mídia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião públicarenzotaddei

Posted: 05/09/11
By Peter Neill – The Huffington Post

Remember climate change? Remember Copenhagen, the climate summit, and half a million people in the streets? Remember the scientific reports? Remember the predictions? Remember the headlines? The campaign promises? The strategies to offset and mitigate the impact of CO2 emissions on human health, the atmosphere, and the ocean? How long ago was it? Six months? A year? More? It might never have been.

How can we meet challenges if we can’t remember what they are? As far as the news media is concerned, the story is archived behind any new urgency no matter what the data. The subject of climate is no more. The deniers have prevailed through shrill contradictions, corporate funded public relations, personal attacks on scientists, and indifference to reports and continuing data that still and again raise critical questions to fall on deaf ears.

In the US Congress, any bill or suggested appropriation that contains the keyword climate is eliminated, most probably without being read. There is no global warming; therefore there is no need for the pitiful American financial support of $2.3 million for the International Panel on Climate Change. There is no problem with greenhouse gases, so there is no need for legislation that enables the Environmental Protection Agency to measure further such impact on animal habitat or human health. There is no need for support for the research and development of alternative renewable energy technologies. There is no need to protect the marine environment from oil spill disaster. There is no need to protect watersheds and drinking water from industrial and mining pollution. There is no need to fund tsunami-warning systems off the American coast. There is no need to support any part of a World Bank program to prevent deforestation in the developing world. There is no need to maintain NOAA’s study of climate change implication for extreme weather. There is no need to fund further climate research sponsored by the National Science Foundation. There is no need to maintain EPA regulation of clean water; oh, and by the way, there is no need for the Environmental Protection Agency. Put it to vote today in the US House of Representatives, and they would blandly and blindly legislate that there is no need for the environment at all.

What do we need? Jobs, jobs, jobs, it is said. To that end, we can start by eliminating jobs that don’t advance our political agenda, by ignoring scientific demonstrations and measurable conditions that foreshadow future job destruction, by promoting and further subsidizing old technologies that make us sick and unable to work successfully in our present jobs, by building the unemployment roles so that the ranks of the jobless will reach levels unheard of since the Great Depression, and by compromising the educational system that is the only hope for those seeking training or re-training for whatever few new jobs may actually exist.

What does this have to do with the ocean?

The health of the ocean is a direct reflection of the health of the land. A nuclear accident in Japan allows radioactive material to seep into the sea. A collapse of shoreside fishery regulation enables the final depletion of species for everyone everywhere. Indifference to watershed protection, industrial pollution, waste control, and agricultural run-off poisons the streams and rivers and coasts and deep ocean and corrupts the food chain all along the way. Lack of understanding of changing weather compromises our response to storms and droughts that inundate our coastal communities and destroy our sustenance.

There is a reason for knowledge. It informs constructive behavior; it promotes employment and economic development; it makes for wise governance; it improves our lives. Are we drowning in debt? Or are we drowning in ignorance? I can’t remember.

Climate, Communication and the ‘Nerd Loop’ (N.Y. Times, Dot Earth)

19/04/2011Uncategorizedcomunicação científica, jornalismo, Mudanças climáticas, Políticarenzotaddei

April 14, 2011, 9:46 AM – By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Randy Olson, the marine biologist turned filmmaker and author who’s about as far from the label “nerd” as can be, had his Howard Beale “mad as hell” moment over climate miscommunication last week on his blog, The Benshi.

The piece, “The Nerd Loop: Why I’m Losing Interest in Communicating Climate Change,” is a long disquisition on why there’s too much thumb sucking and circular analysis and not enough experimentation among institutions concerned about public indifference to risks posed by human-driven global warming. He particularly criticizes scientific groups, universities, environmental groups and foundations and other sources of funding. Randy summarized his points in a short “index card” presentation (in lieu of a Powerpoint) and followup interview on Skype (above). [Stephen McIntyre of Climateaudit has posted a response, entitled “The Smug Loop.“]

In our chat I admitted freely that I’ve stepped aboard the “nerd loop” on occasion on this blog, exploring humanity’s “blah, blah, blah, bang” habit when it comes to confronting certain kinds of risks. This goes for financial bubbles and tsunamis as well as long-term, long-lasting changes in the climate.

I agree with Olson, utterly, that there’s not enough experimentation, too much fear of failure and also far too much fear and misunderstanding at scientific institutions, from America’s universities to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, about the obligation and responsibility to engage the public in a sustained way. As I’ve put it here and elsewhere many times, it’s particularly important as traditional science journalism becomes a shrinking wedge of a growing pie of communication portals.

I encourage you to watch the video and/or read Olson’s provocative essay. You won’t agree with all of what he says. I don’t, and in fact I think that research revealing the human habit of embracing or ignoring information based on predispositions and emotion, not the information, is vitally important to convey (and needs to be conveyed more creatively, too!).

But I hope you’ll recognize the merits in Olson’s argument. Here’s the summary of the “Nerd Loop” essay:

Mass communication is not a science. How many times do I have to say this? The more you think it is — or even let yourself talk about the science side of it without allocating EQUAL energy to the art side of it, the more you are doomed to take it deeper into the hole of boredom and irrelevance. Such is the state of climate science communication by the large science and environmental organizations who have bought into the magic bullet of metrics and messaging.

AND FURTHERMORE … eh, hem (a colleague at NASA just pointed this out to me) … look at this quote: “Recent advances in behavioral and decision science also tell us that emotion is an integral part of our thinking, perceptions, and behavior, and can be essential for making well-judged decisions.”

“RECENT ADVANCES”??? Social scientists think this is some sort of recent breakthrough — that humans are not robots? The quote comes from a paper in the first volume of the new Nature Climate journal. As my colleague said, “What rock did these guys crawl out from under? Give me a break all you social scientists and quit living up to your stereotype.”

Honestly.

Here are some relevant posts and links. Beware, you’re about to enter “the nerd loop” (which I, personally, see as important, even as everyone loosens up and starts experimenting):

“The Psychology of Climate Change Communication” (The Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia University)

“Climate, Mind and Behavior” (a series of symposiums at the Garrison Institute)

“Communicating Climate Change” (The Pew Center on Global Climate Change)

“Knowledge of Climate Change Across Global Warming’s Six Americas” (Yale Project on Climate Change Communication)

[Original link: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/climate-communication-and-the-nerd-loop/]

Imprensa versus governo (Fapesp)

07/04/2011UncategorizedCidadania, jornalismo, Mídia, Política, Violênciarenzotaddei

Imprensa versus governo

Rede da Democracia, formada por três grandes jornais, teve papel na queda de Jango

Carla Rodrigues

Edição Impressa 181 – Março 2011

Tropas no comício da Central do Brasil

No jargão da imprensa escrita, “retranca” é a classificação do assunto contido em uma página, editoria ou em um conjunto de textos jornalísticos. Sob a retranca “Na Rede da Democracia”, entre outubro de 1963 e março de 1964, os três mais importantes jornais do país – O Jornal, dos Diários Associados, Jornal do Brasil, da família Nascimento Brito, e O Globo, da família Marinho – se uniram em torno de uma pauta em comum: a defesa do nacionalismo contra o comunismo, a crítica à ineficiência do Congresso, a falta de legitimidade do presidente João Goulart, o perigo de o governo ceder às pressões das manifestações de massa e dos movimentos populares. Diariamente publicada nos três diários e veiculada à noite nas suas respectivas emissoras de rádio, a Rede da Democracia ajudou a enfraquecer e derrubar o governo de Jango, deposto pelos militares que tomaram o poder em 1964.

Os acontecimentos políticos posteriores a esse momento da história brasileira têm sido muito registrados e debatidos. Mas sobre o consórcio formalizado pelos jornais sob a denominação de Rede da Democracia pouco se estudou. Foi nesse vazio que trabalhou o historiador Aloysio Castelo de Carvalho em sua pesquisa de pós-doutorado em história social na Universidade de São Paulo (USP), cujo resultado está sendo lançado no livro A Rede da Democracia: O Globo, O Jornal e Jornal do Brasil na queda do governo Goulart (1961-1964), coedição entre a NitPress e a Editora da UFF (Universidade Federal Fluminense), onde Carvalho também é professor.

“A Rede da Democracia está incluída num debate sobre a relação entre os jornais e o governo de João Goulart”, diz o pesquisador. Relação que evoluiu de maneira peculiar: em agosto de 1961, quando Jânio Quadros renunciou, os três jornais defenderam uma posição antigolpe, afirmando a legalidade da posse do vice João Goulart. Dois anos depois, a Rede da Democracia cerrava fileiras contra o presidente.

Em 1961 coube ao então governador do Rio Grande do Sul, Leonel Brizola, montar a chamada Rede da Legalidade, que transmitia, a partir do porão do Palácio Piratini, discursos do aliado de Jango reproduzidos em ondas curtas por dezenas de emissoras do interior e de outros estados. O modelo de resistência brizolista inspiraria, anos depois, o empresário Assis Chateaubriand, dono dos Diários Associados. As rádios Tupi, Globo e Jornal do Brasil passaram a transmitir em conjunto, a partir de 1963, pronunciamentos que no dia seguinte eram publicados nos jornais com a mesma retranca. Alguns títulos ilustram o conteúdo editorial da Rede: “União Nacional dos Estudantes é um antro de delinquentes políticos”, “O dispositivo chamado sindical é na realidade dispositivo comunista”, “Dias graves se aproximam se não for repelida a invasão marxista”, “Ministério do Trabalho comanda as greves que agitam nosso país”, “Nosso país não está só ameaçado, mas comprometido com o comunismo” são exemplos da tomada de posição da imprensa diante do governo de Jango. Entre os signatários estavam parlamentares da oposição e donos de jornais que, na visão de Carvalho, se arvoraram na pretensão de se tornarem atores políticos.

Tanques do Exército no Rio no dia do golpe militar

Padrão – Foi em busca de compreender qual foi o papel da imprensa na queda de Jango e na emergência do governo militar que Carvalho acabou encontrando um padrão discursivo formado por quatro principais eixos: uma concepção valorativa da própria imprensa, que se atribui o papel de porta-voz da opinião pública; o temor de que o ingresso das massas no sistema político seria um risco para o país; a falta de confiança no presidente da República quando ele conta com apoio popular; a falta de confiança nas instituições políticas, inclusive no Congresso e no Senado, contribuindo para reforçar a percepção do papel da imprensa como fiscal dessas mesmas instituições e afirmando a importância da liberdade de imprensa.

No período Jango, os três jornais unificados sob a Rede da Democracia viam a sociedade brasileira como uma emergente sociedade de massas, mas resistiam ao ingresso dessa massa na participação política, que passou a se dar pela via dos movimentos sociais e das manifestações populares. “Os jornais reagiram de forma conservadora, afirmando que a única participação política legítima era pelas formas institucionais”, lembra Carvalho.
No entanto, essas formas institucionais estavam fechadas à massa de trabalhadores que, no processo de urbanização e industrialização, chegava à vida política. O voto não era permitido aos analfabetos, por exemplo, e em 1963 metade da população brasileira não sabia ler nem escrever. Daí a grande importância da Rede da Democracia em veicular suas ideias no rádio, a fim de ganhar adesões também entre as massas como parte de um processo que, para Carvalho, faz parte da competição da imprensa para representar a opinião pública. “É uma visão publicista de opinião pública, que desvaloriza a expressão pela via do voto ou das instituições”, explica o professor.

Embora reconheça que há períodos muito negativos, Eugênio Bucci, professor de jornalismo da Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM), considera que generalizações sobre a relação entre governo e imprensa enfrentam dois problemas: o primeiro, a dificuldade de caracterizar a imprensa como uma entidade de condutas unificadas. Há, lembra ele, pluralidade e diversidade. Que poderia ser maior, reconhece, mas que já avançou muito em relação aos anos 1960. No cenário atual, não apenas jornais, mas rádios, TVs, sites de internet formam um mosaico de veículos de comunicação com expressão de pontos de vista muito distintos entre si.

“Apesar do comportamento de certos veículos da chamada grande imprensa, há mais diversidade, mais pluralidade. Sobrevive entre nós uma mentalidade que tem repercussão na imprensa e rejeita tudo aquilo que emerge do povo iletrado, essa mistura de raça e cor considerada ruim”, argumenta Bucci. Para ele, é preciso ter muito cuidado para não cair num modelo linear, segundo o qual se pode classificar a imprensa de boa ou ruim.

Lua de mel – O que leva Bucci a discutir o segundo problema: como se tem visto no noticiário após a posse da presidente Dilma Rousseff, há períodos de verdadeira lua de mel entre jornais e governo. Foi assim, por exemplo, no início do primeiro mandato de Lula, lembra Bucci. Segundo ele, o tratamento que o governo Lula recebeu varia muito entre os períodos e entre os veículos. “A TV Record, por exemplo, compete com a TV Globo na cobertura crítica do governo”, exemplifica, lembrando que blogs e sites, como o IG, exercem papel importante em contrapontos ao discurso dos grandes jornais e também formam opinião.

Goulart fala com multidão na Central do Brasil

O fato de a internet ainda não ser uma mídia de massa faz com que o cientista político Paulo Baía, professor da Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), discorde da capacidade desses novos meios de comunicação de democratizar a informação e se constituir numa via alternativa à grande imprensa. Para ele, o mecanismo fundamental que mantém a relação umbilical entre poder e imprensa é a lei das concessões de rádio e TV. Por isso, acredita que a única forma de alterar o que chama de “relação bilateral” entre Estado e meios de comunicação é uma revisão na lei das concessões. “É preciso assegurar que qualquer grupo social possa se expressar com autonomia”, defende Baía.

A autonomia da imprensa sempre esteve em debate em tempos de crise. Foi assim nos anos 1960, quando a Rede da Democracia pregava seu direito à liberdade de imprensa como forma de garantir a expressão de um determinado ponto de vista em relação ao governo Jango e compartilhado pelos três jornais que integravam o consórcio. O debate sobre liberdade de imprensa esteve novamente em pauta durante os dois mandatos do governo Lula, e com ele veio a discussão sobre mecanismos de controle social da informação. “A liberdade de imprensa é um eixo discursivo dos jornais quando eles querem se valorizar como único canal de expressão da opinião pública”, alega Carvalho. “Lula é um produto da liberdade de imprensa”, contrapõe Bucci, lembrando que foi a abertura política e, com ela, o fim da censura à imprensa que permitiram o contato entre o Partido dos Trabalhadores e o eleitorado.

Carvalho conclui que, quando se sentem ameaçados, os jornais formam alianças formais, como a Rede da Democracia, para fazer ecoar o discurso liberal e conservador. “Vai chegar o momento em que a imprensa será objeto de crítica das outras instituições. E os jornais não poderão mais ser irresponsáveis e manipuladores”, aposta Carvalho.

Desafios para a democratização da informação ambiental no Brasil (REBIA)

14/02/2011Uncategorizedambientalismo, Cidadania, Internet, jornalismo, Mídia, sociedade civilrenzotaddei

Por Vilmar Sidnei Demamam Berna*

Informação ambiental para que, e por quê? Estas parecem ser as primeiras questões a serem respondidas por quem tem interesse no assunto da democratização da informação ambiental no Brasil. Numa sociedade que se diz e se espera democrática e sustentável, o acesso à informação ambiental é fundamental para assegurar o fortalecimento da democracia. Para fazer escolhas no rumo da sustentabilidade, a sociedade precisa de informações para a sustentabilidade, diferentes das atuais. Se a população não recebe informações ambientais em quantidade e qualidade adequadas, tenderá a reproduzir as mesmas escolhas que trouxeram a humanidade à beira de um colapso ambiental.

Então, surge uma segunda questão, afinal, existe ou não falta de democratização da informação ambiental no Brasil? A questão é relevante e a resposta fundamental para se definir o tipo de esforço necessário e a direção deste esforço. O problema da resposta é que ela não é única, mas diferente em função do observador.

Existe uma diferença entre a informação que se busca, proativamente, e a informação que se recebe, passivamente. Para quem busca a informação ambiental e dispõe dos meios necessários, encontrá-la pode ser relativamente fácil. Entretanto, mesmo para esta parcela de público, que é incluída digitalmente, lê jornais e revistas, e tem um mínimo de conhecimentos de direitos e deveres ambientais, nem sempre a informação que se encontra é a que se quer. Como qualquer outra informação, a ambiental também não está livre da meia verdade, da mentira, da manipulação tendenciosa, da especulação, do exagero, da falta de base científica, do emocionalismo, etc.

Por exemplo, existem leis que asseguram o acesso da sociedade a informações ambientais legais, entretanto, conseguir tais informações não é nada fácil. Só querer e ter as condições e o acesso à internet não bastam. Se a intenção for obter informações, por exemplo, sobre licenças ambientais, TACs (Termo de Ajuste de Conduta), compensação ambiental, a dificuldade será enorme, e se quiser ir mais além, e obter informações sobre as condicionantes – onde estão listados os projetos e obrigações -, então a informação ambiental pode se tornar quase inacessível, sem algum QI (quem indica) bem posicionado, coisa para poucos iniciados. Existem licenças que chegam a ter mais de 100 condicionantes, e se a imprensa e a sociedade não conseguem acesso a esta informação, muito menos tem como saber o que foi ou não cumprido, e daí não tem como divulgar ou cobrar responsabilidades. Para quem tiver alguma dúvida, faca um teste, escolha uma única empresa e tente obter estas informações ambientais, e então compreenderá o quanto a democratização da informação ambiental no Brasil ainda é uma promessa. E se conseguir, tente descobrir, do que foi comprometido, o que foi efetivamente realizado, e descobrirá que a falta da democratização da informação ambiental não se dá por um acaso.

Veja os fatos. Segundo o Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU), entre janeiro de 2005 e outubro 2009, o IBAMA deixou de receber 99,4% do valor total das multas aplicadas contra crimes ambientais. Em quase cinco anos, foram R$ 14,6 bilhões não pagos por pessoas e empresas autuadas. Vivemos uma espécie de conto de fadas ambiental. O IBAMA finge que é capaz de exercer o Poder de Polícia, que tem estrutura e competência para isso, e todo mundo acredita. O que o TCU mostra é que, na prática, a verdade é outra. Falta estrutura e competência. Se acontece em relação a dinheiro vivo que o Governo Federal poderia estar recebendo, imagine o que acontece com as centenas de exigências condicionantes de licenças ambientais, ou dos Termos de Ajuste, ou de medidas compensatórias que deveriam se traduzir em projetos ambientais! Se acontece no nível federal, imagine o que acontece nos níveis estaduais e municipais!

Diante de um quadro como este, e preciso ter claro que a falta de falta de recursos ou prioridade para a democratização da informação ambiental não é fruto do acaso ou de alguma incompetência, mas trata-se de uma escolha deliberada pelo ´nada a declarar´ambiental. O desgaste que pode haver para infratores e órgãos ambientais ineptos na não informação é amplamente recompensado pelos benefícios da falta de transparência na informação ambiental, por que se a sociedade não sabe, então também não cobra. Já diz o ditado, o que os olhos não vêem o coração não sente! Manter a imprensa longe é uma maneira de se proteger e ganhar tempo. A falta de informação ambiental é o biombo onde algumas empresas e órgãos de governos se escondem da sociedade para fazer de conta que está tudo bem.

Outro exemplo está nos relatórios de sustentabilidade das empresas. Mesmo nos melhores casos, não existe empresa cem por cento correta, nem se espera isso de ninguém, pois a perfeição é utopia presente apenas nos sonhos, nos ideais, nas promessas. O problema é que os relatórios tenderão a divulgar o que acontece de bom e mascarar ou ocultar o que ainda não vai bem, e ainda tende a demonstrar como mérito próprio resultados ambientais que na verdade são obrigações em função de licenciamento ou termos de ajuste. A relação entre o que as empresas lucram retirando da natureza e o que devolvem na forma de projetos ambientais é absolutamente desproporcional. Alguém poderá dizer que isso é da natureza humana, e que mostrar o que vai mal é papel dos críticos. Entretanto, abre uma brecha enorme para a ficção literária, para palavras e promessas até bonitinhas, em papel reciclado, mas vazios de conteúdo e credibilidade. Quando uma empresa divulga, por exemplo, que reduziu em 30 por cento sua poluição, desperdício ou embalagens, na verdade confessa que repassa 70 por cento dos seus custos ambientais para a sociedade, enquanto segue capitalizando lucros. Informação depende de credibilidade, e isso se torna um problema para empresas responsáveis que fazem um trabalho sério, pois tenderão a ser niveladas com as demais, tornando seus relatórios no mínimo suspeitos. Não é à toa que as tiragens são limitadas, mais para o público interno e acionistas, e as empresas não convidem a mídia ambiental para seus lançamentos, muito menos a incluam em seus planos de mídia, para não correrem o risco de perguntinhas inoportunas e desagradáveis nessas horas quando tudo o que se espera é brilho e festa.

Quanto ao acesso da grande maioria da população brasileira à informação ambiental, este se limita ao interesse da mídia de massa pelo assunto que, importante que se diga, com o agravamento das mudanças climáticas, tem se dedicado bastante aos temas ambientais. Entretanto, existe uma tendência – sempre com as raras exceções -, de abordar o assunto mais pelo viés do paraíso perdido do qual fomos expulsos, ou da natureza exótica, violenta, e distante de nós, reforçando a idéia de como é bom estarmos separados da natureza, vivendo em cidades, pois assim também não temos de sentir culpa nem nos sentir ameaçados pelo que fizermos a ela. Ou então quando ocorre algum acidente ambiental. A prática demonstra que, assim que o problema deixa de ser visível, também tende a desaparecer das pautas. O mercado trata a comunicação como um negócio que só vale a pena se der lucro, então a informação ambiental estará presente na pauta enquanto der audiência ou vender jornais e revistas.

É preciso compreender a diferença entre a informação que o público quer – e que se dispõe a pagar por ela – da informação que ele precisa, e que nem sempre se dispõe a pagar para ter. A informação ambiental nem sempre é uma informação que o público se dispõe a pagar para ter. Uma rápida visita a qualquer banca mostrará a realidade. Existem publicações diversas sobre todos os assuntos, menos sobre meio ambiente, excetuando-se uma ou outra publicação sobre turismo e paisagismo. E, para o mercado, a solução é muito simples, se a sociedade não se dispõe a pagar pela informação ambiental, então ela não deve existir. Por outro lado, a falta de interesse do publico pela informação ambiental é compreensível, primeiro por que temos um leque de interesses muito mais amplo que só o ambiental, por que a vida é naturalmente complexa. Segundo, por que a informação ambiental nem sempre serve para entreter e mais incomoda que outra coisa, ao mostrar os abusos contra a natureza, denuncia a poluição e a agressão ambiental, questiona valores consumistas e desperdiçadores, e incomoda até mesmo quando mostra alternativas de tecnologias e atitudes, pois os que optaram por tecnologias e atitudes poluidoras e predatórias não poderão mais argumentar desconhecimento.

Para assegurar a existência e o acesso do público à informação ambiental, os governos deveriam assegurar políticas públicas e recursos, como, aliás, já fazem com a mídia de massa, através de mecanismos de repasse de verbas de publicidade. Mas os governos não são neutros e ainda estão muito mais comprometidos com um modelo de desenvolvimento comprometido com o gigantismo das escalas, com a exportação para gerar excedentes que equilibrem as contas, onde tradicionalmente a natureza teve e tem de ceder. A não ser no campo das idéias e das utopias, a sociedade brasileira ainda está longe de um modelo ambientalmente sustentável e socialmente justo de desenvolvimento, e naturalmente a informação ambiental reflete isso. Quanto mais crítica ela for, quanto mais apontar as contradições entre as práticas e as promessas, menos recursos e audiência terá de quem recebem as críticas. Entretanto, este é o seu papel, e por mais que não gostem de críticas, precisam delas para avançar e aumentar a velocidade das mudanças entre um modelo predatório e injusto de desenvolvimento e outro mais justo e sustentável.

Outra fonte de recursos deveria vir das empresas, entretanto, em vez de ajudar a financiar a informação ambiental, quando querem divulgar alguma coisa, preferem investir no envio de releases em massa na esperança de obter mídia ambiental espontânea. Mais ou menos como acreditar em almoço grátis ou em Papai Noel. Divulgação custa caro, é verdade, mais uma razão para não imaginar que uma mídia ambiental empobrecida vá dar de graça o que tem para vender! As empresas preferem editar folhetos ou publicações próprias, em ambiente controlado, onde não correm o risco de ser alvo de alguma crítica. E, para não se verem expostas a perguntinhas inoportunas sobre outros assuntos, contratam serviços de comunicação de terceiros e ocultam seus telefones e e-mails dos releases.

O tendão de Aquiles dos que negam recursos para a informação ambiental são os voluntários que conseguem manter a democratização da informação ambiental mesmo sem recurso algum, por que não se subordinam às regras do mercado, e teimam em oferecer a informação ambiental como uma espécie de apostolado ideológico, até mesmo para quem não quer pagar por ela. Claro que este trabalho voluntário tem limitações, sejam técnicas ou financeiras, mas ainda assim, presta um importante serviço de interesse público, onde o estado e a iniciativa privada estão falhando.

Como diz o ditado popular, sem povo não se cria nada de novo, por isso, o desafio pela democratização da informação ambiental continua mais desafiador do que nunca, tanto no sentido de falarmos uma linguagem que o povo entenda quanto encontrar os meios que assegurem que a informação ambiental possa ir além dos atuais nichos de publico especializado.

* Vilmar Sidnei Demamam Berna é escritor e jornalista, fundou a REBIA – Rede Brasileira de Informação Ambiental (www.rebia.org.br ) e edita deste janeiro de 1996 a Revista do Meio Ambiente (que substituiu o Jornal do Meio Ambiente) e o Portal do Meio Ambiente (www.portaldomeioambiente.org.br). Em 1999, recebeu no Japão o Prêmio Global 500 da ONU Para o Meio Ambiente e, em 2003, o Prêmio Verde das Américas – http://www.escritorvilmarberna.com.br

A RIO+20, o IV CBJA e a democratização da informação ambiental (REBIA)

11/02/2011Uncategorizedambientalismo, discurso ambiental, jornalismo, Mídia, participatividade, sociedade civilrenzotaddei

Por Vilmar Sidnei Demamam Berna*

Durante a ECO 92, os países se comprometeram a encontrar alternativas para a democratização da informação ambiental sempre que existissem obstáculos como os que existem para a mídia ambiental no Brasil, e até assinaram o capitulo 40.18 da Agenda 21, com este compromisso. Entretanto, vinte anos depois, a promessa ainda esta no papel.

Em 2012, o Brasil estará sediando a RIO+20, de novo na Cidade do Rio de Janeiro, um novo encontro global para avaliar o que avançou das promessas feitas a 20 anos. Pode ser um momento oportuno para a união de forcas dos que estão conscientes sobre a importância estratégica da democratização da informação ambiental para que a sociedade possa fazer escolhas melhores no rumo da sustentabilidade.

Os jornalistas ambientais já saíram na frente e anteciparam seu congresso para outubro desde ano, entre os dias 12 e 15, na Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. O IV Congresso Brasileiro de Jornalismo Ambiental estará sendo realizado em paralelo a outros três eventos, o encontro da RedCalc – Rede Latino-Americana de Periodismo Ambiental, o Iº Encontro Nacional da REBIA – Rede Brasileira de Informação Ambiental e o Iº Encontro da ECOMIDIAS – Associação Brasileira de Mídias Ambientais, uma tentativa ao mesmo tempo de economizar esforços e recursos, e também uma estratégia para facilitar a aglutinação de forcas entre movimentos e organizações com objetivos comuns.

A organização do IV CBJA estará, ainda, identificando e convidando parceiros estratégicos como a FBOMS – Fórum Brasileiro de ONGs e Movimentos Sociais para o Meio Ambiente e o Desenvolvimento, a FENAJ – Federação Nacional dos Jornalistas, a ABI – Associação Brasileira de Imprensa, entre outros cuja missão inclua o compromisso com a democratização e a formação e fortalecimento da cidadania, para reforçar esta luta.

Detalhe: os eventos serão carbono negativo, ou seja, a OSCIP PRIMA estará plantando mais árvores que o necessário para a neutralização das emissões de carbono, além de adotar práticas ecoeficientes, pois os congressistas querem ser o exemplo que esperam ver na sociedade.

Entre os desafios a enfrentar, está o de formar uma Coalizão de organizações pela democratização da informação, com representação permanente em Brasília, capaz de ir além das promessas e reclamações, e pressionar de forma efetiva e constante por políticas publicas e financiamento público para a informação ambiental, por que existe uma diferença entre a informação que o público quer – e se dispõe a pagar por ela – e a informação que ele precisa. O mercado consegue ser uma solução no primeiro caso, pois para ele a comunicação é vista como um negócio qualquer, precisa dar lucros, ou não terá razão para existir. Para o segundo caso, o país requer políticas públicas inclusive para o financiamento da informação ambiental que o público precisa. No verão, por exemplo, o público dá audiência aos assuntos das catástrofes provocadas pelas chuvas, mas com o passar dos dias, o interesse vai diminuindo junto com as chuvas, até virar desinteresse e então o assunto some da mídia, como se o problema tivesse sido resolvido, para retornar com as catástrofes do verão seguinte. O mesmo acontece diante de algum acidente ambiental. Enquanto o problema permanecer visível ao interesse público estará na pauta da mídia de massa, mas assim que deixar de ser visível, desaparecerá também da mídia. Quem já acompanhou graves acidentes de vazamentos de petróleo ou de produtos químicos em rios e oceanos sabe bem disso. A informação ambiental precisa ir além apenas da dor. O quanto pior, melhor, é pior para todo mundo, ainda que assegure o interesse do público, e, portanto, da mídia em geral, por alguns breves momentos.

Uma rápida olhada nos títulos das revistas expostas nas bancas mostra a falta de oferta de informação ambiental, para este público, que freqüenta as bancas, em torno de 20% da população. Enquanto existem diversos títulos diferentes sobre a vida dos ricos e famosos, ou de mulheres nuas, ou sobre moda e beleza, automóveis, culinária, arquitetura, não existe nenhuma mídia específica sobre meio ambiente, educação e cidadania ambiental, consumo responsável, sustentabilidade, excetuando-se um ou outro título com viés mais para turismo ou paisagismo. O que não significa que a mídia ambiental não exista. Existe, só não consegue chegar ao Grande Publico, permanecendo como uma mídia marginal, mal conseguindo atender direito a uns poucos segmentos de interesse especializado.

O Governo Federal já dispõe de mecanismos para o repasse de dinheiro público para a iniciativa privada, através das verbas de publicidade, mas não existe uma política pública que priorize a informação que o público precisa, mas não se dispõe a pagar por ela. A maior parte desses recursos é destinada à mídia de massa – inclusive para os veículos de comunicação ligados à base aliada do Governo -, e acaba ajudando a financiar `realyts shows´e outras informações que o público quer. A mídia ambiental costuma ser contemplada com algumas poucas migalhas dessas verbas, mas o suficiente para não deixá-la morrer de inanição, e não o bastante para que chegue a incomodar nem ao próprio governo nem às empresas com suas críticas ao modelo predatório de desenvolvimento.

A mídia ambiental é uma mídia de resistência, e incomoda aos poderosos ao criticar o modelo predatório e injusto que avança sobre os limites e a capacidade de suporte da natureza. E incomoda até quando aponta soluções e caminhos que poderiam ajudar a nos tirar do rumo de um colapso ambiental cada vez mais visível, pois deixa claro que as escolhas pelas tecnologias sujas e predatórias não resultam do acaso ou da falta de opção. E incomoda e desagrada também ao próprio público em geral, ao criticar seus hábitos e atitudes consumistas e ambientalmente irresponsáveis. Então, não é de se estranhar que as pessoas não queiram a informação ambiental, embora precisem dela.

* Vilmar Sidnei Demamam Berna é escritor e jornalista, fundou a REBIA – Rede Brasileira de Informação Ambiental (www.rebia.org.br ) e edita deste janeiro de 1996 a Revista do Meio Ambiente (que substituiu o Jornal do Meio Ambiente) e o Portal do Meio Ambiente (www.portaldomeioambiente.org.br ). Em 1999, recebeu no Japão o Prêmio Global 500 da ONU Para o Meio Ambiente e, em 2003, o Prêmio Verde das Américas – www.escritorvilmarberna.com.br.

Uma (in)certa antropologia

An (un)certain anthropology

Arquivo da tag: jornalismo

II Fórum Mundial de Mídia Livre fará parte da Cúpula dos Povos, durante a Rio +20 (Revista Fórum)

No campo acadêmico, o futebol é titular (Faperj)

How Bad Is It? (The New Inquiry)

Relação entre cientistas e jornalistas é debatida em seminário (FAPESP)

18/04/2012

Cresce valorização da divulgação científica (FAPESP)

Community Media: A Good Practice Handbook (UNESCO)

The Inside Story on Climate Scientists Under Siege (Wired/The Guardian)

Arjun Appadurai: A Nation of Business Junkies (Anthropology News)

Where Did Global Warming Go? (N.Y. Times)

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: October 15, 2011

The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate (Washington Post)

A Map of Organized Climate Change Denial (Dot Earth, N.Y. Times)

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Nigerian car thief turns into goat! (The Christian Science Monitor)

We Need To Do More When It Comes To Having Brief, Panicked Thoughts About Climate Change (The Onion)

Educating the Obvious (N.Y.Times)

O partido anticiência (JC, O Globo)

New York Times Publishes a Searing Drought Story, But Completely Misses the Climate Change Angle (Climate Central)

Our Extreme Future: Predicting and Coping with the Effects of a Changing Climate (Scientific American)

Reviewing the Nisbet ‘Climate Shift’ Report and Controversial Claims of Media Progress (Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media)

A Amazônia da grande mídia (Mercado Ético)

Remember Climate Change? (Huffington Post)

Climate, Communication and the ‘Nerd Loop’ (N.Y. Times, Dot Earth)

Imprensa versus governo (Fapesp)

Desafios para a democratização da informação ambiental no Brasil (REBIA)

A RIO+20, o IV CBJA e a democratização da informação ambiental (REBIA)