Topic: Global Warming
Propaganda 2100 To Woodruff's credit, it takes some moxie to euphemistically refer to this program as "a different kind of journalism." There was a time when we used another term for fear-laced, hypothetical imagery crafted to elicit desired behaviors and emotions: Propaganda.by Matthew Bastian
(conservative)
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Over the past few years the mainstream media have been under fire for abandoning basic journalistic principles and injecting an editorial bias, usually with a leftwing slant, into the news. Unashamed of the accusation, if not emboldened by it, and apparently determined to outdo themselves, the glitterati of the MSM have gone into a bold new frontier for news: the future.
Our first taste of "future news" was ABC’s Earth 2100, billed as a "dramatic ABC news 2-hour broadcast" on their website. Initially airing on June 2nd, the special follows Lucy, a fictional girl born in 2009, and her family as they flee all sorts of climate-induced catastrophes, starting in the year 2015. The program’s message, delivered with all the subtlety of a Liberace concert, is a hypothetical narrative of how the earth might look within a century if global consumption of fossil fuels and other resources continues at its current pace. In addition to cartoon sketches of Lucy and her family, the program mixes in scientific talking heads - all from the Al Gore school of climate catastrophe, of course - with news clips of raging hurricanes, belching smokestacks, long gas lines and civil unrest from plagues and famine.
Dipping in to the "American Idol" formula for success, the show’s producers encouraged an audience participation of sorts. Viewers were asked to take on the roles of time traveling prophets and "report back" on what life might look like at a number of annual checkpoints before the end of the century. These "reports" take the form of home-made video clips that fit the Malthusian theme of the overall broadcast: one submission, for example, shows two men siphoning gasoline from a car as the videographer gasps in horror. Gas is so scarce in Lucy’s dystopian future that desperate citizens must resort to pilfering petrol in broad daylight.
If it sounds like a strange undertaking, it is: the net effect is a curious combination of Mad Max and An Inconvenient Truth, all infused with the DIY spirit of Wikipedia or youtube.com. And this appalling goulash, according to the program’s host, journalist Bob Woodruff, represents a new kind of journalism. "In the past we’ve always looked at those [events] that have already happened in the past, and those happening in the present," said Woodruff, "but what about the future?"
To Woodruff’s credit, it takes some moxie to euphemistically refer to this program as "a different kind of journalism." There was a time when we used another term for fear-laced, hypothetical imagery crafted to elicit desired behaviors and emotions:
Propaganda.
Indeed, the animation from Earth 2100, with images that could have been plucked right out of the Nazi film archives, would have made Joseph Goebbels proud: heavy shadows and somber, grayish tones; a melancholy Lucy in pigtails, her forlorn-looking Teddy Bear slumped against the wall; the family dog on the floor, wide-eyed with fear. Over this, we hear the ominous narration: a Category 5 hurricane of unprecedented size is barreling towards Miami; Lucy’s mom, a nurse, won’t leave the hospital until the sick and injured are evacuated.
Replace the hurricane with a horde of Mongoloid communists done in caricature and one has a poster suitable for the streets of Nuremburg, Germany, circa 1938.
The demagogic undertones aside, if this is just a "different kind" of journalism then Leonard Nemoy’s old "In Search Of…" series is long overdue for a Pulitzer Prize. His exposé on the yeti really set the gold standard for investigative reporting of the unknown.
That show, of course, barely rose to the level of "faction" - equal parts fact and science fiction. Earth 2100 is not much better.
ABC could have given the endeavor some dose of journalistic credibility by offering a few possible outcomes. Instead, the program takes on the role of soothsayer and suggests that we have only two paths: either continue in our current, self-destructive ways or adopt the draconian measures endorsed by the sky-is-falling environmental crowd. There is no middle ground. In Lucy’s world, overpopulation will lead to an energy shortage reminiscent of the OPEC oil embargo of the early 70’s. In response to crisis, the program predicts that we will build more coal-fired plants, which, of course, only accelerate the global warming catastrophe.
Apparently, our hypothetical leaders in 2015 will not bother to consider nuclear power. It’s either fossil fuels or, presumably, wind farms and solar panels. And the decision must be made now if we are to spare young Lucy her fate.
The last point is hammered home relentlessly by the talking heads, all billed as the world’s "greatest minds" by ABC. We are at a tipping point, they insist, and if we don’t take action now everything you see befalling Lucy’s family will come to pass.
A troubling message, indeed. But there is something unsettling about a major news outlet wrapping one side of a debate in fear-mongering imagery and offering it up as journalism. ABC took sides and is pushing an agenda. And at a time when the FDA has claimed regulatory rights over carbon emissions as a matter of public health, and the US Secretary of Energy suggests that all roofs be painted white to combat climate change, ABC has, at least with this program, cast itself as a de facto organ of the state.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Matthew Bastian only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Matthew Bastian is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
