Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumSTUDY: Kardashians Get 40 Times More News Coverage Than Ocean Acidification
Carbon dioxide emissions are not just warming up our atmosphere, they're also changing the chemistry of our oceans. This phenomenon is known as ocean acidification, or sometimes as global warming's "evil twin" or the "osteoporosis of the sea." Scientists have warned that it poses a serious threat to ocean life. Yet major American news outlets covered the Kardashians over 40 times more often than ocean acidification over the past year and a half.
Rising carbon dioxide emissions have caused the oceans to become around 30 percent more acidic since the Industrial Revolution, and if we do not lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the ocean surface could be up to 150 percent more acidic by 2100. At that level, the shells of some plankton would dissolve, large parts of the ocean would become inhospitable to coral reef growth, and the rapidity of the change could threaten much of the marine food web. According to the National Research Council, the chemical changes are taking place "at an unprecedented rate and magnitude" and are "practically irreversible on a time scale of centuries."
Despite a boom of recent scientific research documenting this threat, there has been a blackout on the topic at most media outlets. Since the end of 2010, ABC, NBC and Fox News have completely ignored ocean acidification, and the Los Angeles Times, USA TODAY, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN and CBS have barely mentioned it at all.
While most coverage described the basic scientific phenomenon or listed ocean acidification as a serious environmental challenge, the Wall Street Journal dismissed the problem. All three mentions of ocean acidification from the Journal were from columns that downplayed the threatthere was not a single straight news article interviewing scientists. One of those columns was a full article devoted to distorting and cherry-picking the science on ocean acidification. The Journal also published a letter to the editor (not counted in this study) from the Competitive Enterprise Institutes Chris Horner who summarily dismissed ocean acidification as the latest nominee to supplant troubled CO2-warming theory. But the threat is nothing to shake off.
...
more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206270006
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
10 replies, 2624 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
STUDY: Kardashians Get 40 Times More News Coverage Than Ocean Acidification (Original Post)
limpyhobbler
Jun 2012
OP
So throw the Kardashians into the ocean and watch them slowly dissolve... nt
LiberalEsto
Jun 2012
#2
cyberpj
(10,794 posts)1. Just exactly the way today's corporate media wants it. n/t
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)2. So throw the Kardashians into the ocean and watch them slowly dissolve... nt
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)5. DUzy, + one googol zillion, AND a gold star!
Fucking righteous, Sirs!
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)3. Porn vs Problems
demosincebirth
(12,718 posts)4. Maybe they have talent?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)6. New rule:
Using the word "Kardashian" will get you banned from E/E.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)7. what exactly are they famous for?
Newton Norman Minow was right.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)8. Dunno, but I used to think they were enemy aliens from Star Trek
You know, like the Cardassians, Ferengi, Borg, Klingons...
It's a pity the Kardashians don't have a permanent, one-way Cloaking Device.
NickB79
(19,507 posts)9. One has an ass so big the others live inside it like hobbits
That's my best guess, anyway.
Bosso 63
(992 posts)10. So like the Ocean is tripping on acid? That is like so far out!
OMG!
XOXO
Kim