Pundits argue that the motivation behind this organized chaos, particularly because the artwork themselves have nothing to do with the climate, is “daft” and idiotic. But they couldn’t be more wrong.
It’s ironic considering their attire and the chemicals needed to remove the paint off the glass and frame.
If climate activists focused only on symbols directly related to what is damaging the planet — like a pipeline or an oil refinery — then it may not have gotten quite the same buzz. It would’ve been too predictable.
And outside.
Generating headlines — which these activists are doing in spades — is critical for advancing decarbonization policy at this point in time. This is because of the importance of “agenda setting.” While media coverage of the soup, mashed potato or pastry incidents may not change the minds or behaviors of climate deniers (although, as my research shows, there is some evidence that it can), it does increase the relevance of the issue in the eyes of the public.
It’s the off-season. Why not do it in the summer in front of the rich Chinese tour groups?
For decades, topics concerning the climate crisis were shrouded in obscurity within academic journals and conferences. But recently, we’ve seen a push for more journalists to cover the climate crisis.
“An Inconvenient Truth” was just some little indy doc that didn’t get much notice?
Data from the Media and Climate Change Observatory — an international, multi-university collaboration at the University of Colorado Boulder that monitors coverage of climate change — found that U.S. coverage of the topic reached a historic high last year. At the same time, global coverage was the highest it had been since 2009.
The reading of the Pelosi incident could not be more different. ‘The Republican Party and its mouthpieces now regularly spread hate and deranged conspiracy theories. It is shocking, but not surprising, that violence is the result’, said Hillary Clinton. ‘There were many hands on that hammer’, said CNN’s David Axelrod. Actor Rob Reiner said of the Pelosi attack that ‘Donald Trump is 100 per cent responsible for this’. 100 per cent. Some culture warriors are so determined to indict the right for random acts of violence that they end up absolving the violent person himself of responsibility. There is a deeply censorious urge behind these claims that right-wing rhetoric causes violence. It is a slippery call for controlling what can be said in the public sphere, on the basis that if we don’t then people will die.
Double standards always attend acts of violence now. When then Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords was targeted in a shooting in 2011, the prestige media pointed the finger of blame at Sarah Palin and various right-wing hotheads. Yet when a Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire at a charity baseball game in Virginia in 2017, hitting Republican congressman Steve Scalise, the prestige media acted as if it signified nothing at all, just insanity. They’re blatant about it. After the Pelosi attack, the Huffington Post’s White House correspondent, SV Dáte, said the people ‘bringing up the left-wing nut who tried to kill Steve Scalise… are missing the point’. The ‘former Republican president and current GOP leader [Trump] has been stoking political violence since 2015’, he said: ‘There is no [analogy] among Dems.’ In short, when you speak, there’s bloodshed; when we speak, there isn’t. Your words stoke evil, ours do good.
And this one, that I didn’t read all the way through, because, well, condescending bias is the worst:
a pancake breakfast in the southwest Ohio city of Loveland in late September, I waited through 90 minutes of speeches for J.D. Vance. As the much-discussed Senate candidate finally strode down the hallway to the ballroom where he would be speaking, an old-timer next to me turned his head. “J.D. Vance,” he muttered. “So he does exist.”
The breakfast was in a 1980s-vintage event center off a long country road past farm fields and old churches. The carpet was a mix of swirly beige patterns, and there were fluorescent lights lining the 20-foot drop ceiling. Republicans live here, the surroundings said. The event opened with a presentation of the United States flag by an honor guard, the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, and a blessing.
Or it’s “transitory” or whatever buzz word of the day they have, it’s insulting, everyone puts gas in their car, buys meat and eggs, milk and so on.
She knows, but thinks her are viewers are stupid enough to blindly nod along with whatever she says. These types have nothing but contempt for the people they are supposed to be “informing”.
Given the problems he inherited, Joe Biden’s presidency was always likely to end in tears.
But also stuff like this:
Their woes echo an across-the-board failure by centre-left parties to articulate a persuasive alternative vision to the fearmongering, racism and jingoistic pseudo-patriotism of increasingly extreme and intolerant rightwing forces.
They allude to Lula oddly without mentioning his name. I understand he can’t be described as “center-left”: maybe that’s not favored here.
Like others on the left, Biden’s squabbling, disorganised Democrats urgently need to raise their game, sort out their ideas and hone their message before 2024. For, truth be told, rightwing ranters and ravers tell a better, more compelling, more visceral story – even though it’s mostly lies.
There is a noticeable anti-right slant, ha. But some criticism of the left. I’ve read worse!
Totally agree about the Guardian in general. A lot of stuff is unreadable (Robert Reich’s recurring US politics takes for one) and in some cases so “progressive” it’s plain hard to understand.
I think that’s an anti crazy whacko right wing ranter bias. The MTG and election deniers etc. They are certainly able to talk to their target audience.
