CNN on climate change - the good and the bad

This morning, I was impressed to discover CNN.com leading with a story about Al Gore's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Gore spoke about the imperative for the United States to negotiate and agree this year to an international treaty to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

I was also encouraged by the tone in these two paragraphs in the article:

During the hearing, Republican staffers handed out a statement contending that there are "significant objections" to claims about climate change. The document, which did not name Gore, said there is "a continued international outpouring of skeptical scientists" along with research "to refute warming fears."

The idea that the world's climate is being changed by human activities is supported by studies accepted by the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the field. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are among groups that have issued reports backing that position.

I am encouraged here for a couple of reasons. First, the article does not hedge on whether or not climate change is being caused by humans. The second paragraph here is simply strong, direct, factual journalism, which is desperately needed to bring US public opinion on climate change more closely in line with reality.

Second, although the article does describe the actions of the climate skeptics, the claims of those skeptics are presented as claims alone (with quotation marks), not as truths. To me, this is journalistically a step in the right direction. By following the Republicans' "claim" of an "outpouring of skeptical scientists" with a real list of real scientific organizations, the article essentially discredits the claim. (To be fair, a perfect article would have discredited the claim directly, but nonetheless progress is still progress.)

That having been said, though, CNN doesn't deserve all praise today. It is a daily habit of mine to read the CNN International home page followed by the CNN US page. I do this for a variety of reasons, but primarily I am curious about the differing emphasis and priority assigned to different news stories for the two markets.

And sure enough, my elation over a cover story on climate change was immediately quashed when I discovered that the US edition of CNN did not even feature the story at all on the home page:


What's going on here? Gore testifying in front of the Senate on climate change is important enough to make the cover of the international page, but on the US page is usurped by such hard-hitting headlines as "Vegetable ad deemed too hot for TV"?

And so the long struggle to change US public opinion on climate change goes on...

china reacts to US resolution on human rights

Two days ago, the US House passed a broad resolution urging China "to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens, to cease repression of Tibetan and Uighur people, and to end its support for the Governments of Sudan and Burma."

Perhaps surprisingly, this action by the House was reported in the Chinese media. But I think there is a lot to be learned from examining exactly how it was reported. I'll reference this China Daily article as a typical case.

First of all, to understand how the Chinese media reported this event, we have to ignore the actual content of the resolution, because, as one would expect, the content itself was never discussed. What was discussed in the Chinese media, however, was the basic fact that the House said something negative about China in advance of the Olympics.

Some key sentences of the China Daily article that stood out to me:

"The passing of the resolution at this time has fully exposed the attempt of the very few anti-China US lawmakers to politicize the Olympics and their evil intention to disrupt and sabotage the Beijing Olympic Games," said the official.

"Such a deed has violated the Olympic spirit and aim, and also violated the common wish of the world people, including the US people," said the official.

Magically, the resolution now has nothing to do with human rights, and everything to do with "evil" attempts to "sabotage" the peaceful and harmonious Olympics. Who would dare do such a thing? And not only that, these views (supposedly) aren't even shared by the American people!

There are at least two tactics here that probably could be taught in PR classes.

First, the content of the resolution is discredited as being from a fringe group of China-haters who do not represent the majority opinion. (The article conveniently fails to mention that the resolution passed 419-1.) Therefore, the content isn't even worth spending time reviewing.

Second, the dialogue in China has been successfully deflected away from China's human rights record and onto the supposedly unfounded, unfaltering, unfair criticism so often levied by foreigners on China. This, of course, ultimately bolsters nationalism with an "us vs. them" attitude.

Similar tactics were employed by the Chinese media during the Tibet uprising in March of this year, especially with regard to CNN's biased reporting:

Chinese netizens, including students studying overseas, have been angered by biased and sometimes dishonest reports about the recent riots in Tibet by some Western media.

Another article described a "wave of anger and patriotism generated by CNN's recent offensive coverage of China."

Again, the two-fold tactic is to discredit the source and then use supposed foreign bias to fuel nationalism.

I may be getting too far off course here by linking the House resolution to foreign media coverage of China, but I think a common and important theme is that statements and reports by foreigners often have unexpected and/or undesired impacts within China. With regard to the House resolution specifically, I think Americans need to be very clear that actions like this a) have a completely different tone within China than they do outside of these borders; b) probably affect little or no actual change; and c) may ultimately have precisely the wrong impact if they only serve to hinder future trust and communication.