Bad news sells papers

The intended audience of UK newspapers varies, (would you expect the same person to buy The Sun as The Guardian?), this results in variation between articles being published. The overall aim of articles in UK newspapers is to entertain and meet the needs of their audience. In my opinion it is this need to sell newspapers and entertain the population, which results in the lack of factual evidence or 'stretch of truths' in many articles, reducing their reliability as factual resources. .

fg

There is much variation between articles written in different newspapers; the style, how they relate to a topic. Two articles can be seemingly completely different from the title, but actually be based upon the same topic:

• "Sci-fi to aid earth": The Sun 29/10/2008 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/article1871745.ece
• "Royal Society to research potential of geo-engeneering to limit global warming": The Guardian 30/10/2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/30/climatechange-carbonemissions

Both these articles relate to the researching of the potential use of geo-engenerring techniques (e.g. placing mirrors in the sea to reflect sunlight from the earth), to help limit further impacts of climate change. As you can see both papers take a very different angle in representing the information; The Sun more humorously and The Guardian including more detailed information.

In the majority of articles focused upon climate change the authors adopt either a satire or a 'doom' approach when reporting, helping to grab the attention of the audience. As stated earlier it is this need to 'grab the attention' that results in the lack of factual evidence, and often increased bias (in particular) when reporting about climate change.

When looking through newspapers for articles about climate change, I didn't see much evidence to suggest a link being commonly established between climate change and sustainable development. Recently most articles relating to climate change have been more closely linked with politics, and new government law changes. I think links that are generated in the media are done so to highlight areas already identified on the public's 'hit list', and at the moment sustainable development doesn't seem to feature highly in the public's viewpoint.

Sustainable Development Indicators

The whole idea of Sustainable Development Indicators is a good idea in theory. They would help people to shape a more sustainable lifestyle and increase their knowledge and understanding of what it means to be sustainable. However, as it currently stands this doesn't seem to be happening. Very few of the Indicators themselves have actually improved, and the public doesn't seem very aware of this document for it to have any impact. Through speaking to people I know, none of them are aware that the government has developed Indicators (maybe the next generation aren't the target audience?!), and most hear through the media any advice or guidance about being sustainable (e.g. recycling, and reducing your carbon footprint).

..

The different indicators used are very varied (from Greenhouse emissions to Fish stocks), and do cover a range of aspects related with sustainability. One of these indicators is the use of private cars; it shows how private cars has had an impact upon CO2 emissions (increased by 4%) and road traffic volume (increased by 20%) between 1990 - 2006. This is a good and simple indicator to use, as people are already aware of some of the impacts car driving has upon people and the environment. The majority of people would be able to identify that excessive driving/ownership of private cars will have an impact (e.g. exhaust fumes = increase in CO2 levels), so it is something every one can automatically relate to.

..

Private cars is one of the indicators which hasn't made much progress over the past 15 years. The main reason for this I believe, is the reluctance of society to give up the comfort of owning your own car. Being in control of your own time of departure, deciding a route yourself, being warm and comfortable, there are many personal benefits for having your own car. If we weren't to use our own car, what are the other options we are given? Public transport; time consuming, expensive........I don't think I need to go on. Fair enough, public transport does seem to have developed a slight negative label (probably by car owners), but this is the main reason forcing us back into our cars. What other options are there and what incentives are there for us to switch from our cars? Luckily, the only time i have taken a bus over the past years is whenever my MOT was due. The last time the bus was ten minutes late, I sat next to a coughing man, had the local ASBO glaring at anyone and everyone, and was charged £3 for the privilege, no wonder there is greater traffic and more cars on the road!

.

For this indicator to be reduced by the next assessment (2009), the Government needs to take stronger action. They need to put in place consequences (higher taxing for greater consuming vehicles is a start) or incentives (money back for car sharing schemes?), to help convince people out of their cars. Ultimately though it is down to individual choice, so people need to be encouraged to change their habits.