Kaufhold, K., Valenzuela, S., de Zúñiga, HG. (2010). Citizen Journalism and Democracy: How User-Generated News Use Relates to Political Knowledge and Participation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(3/4), 510-529.
Kaufhold, Valenzuela and de Zúñiga collectively compiled a comparative analysis of the contribution of professional journalism to democratic citizenship and whether or not citizen journalism plays a role in the proliferation of online user-generated news. The authors, from the beginning of the piece, question and discuss trust in user-generated news and the amplification of the link between citizen journalism and online participation. In relation to political involvement, both types of journalism seem to have a positive impact on society as a whole. Consuming news through each of the two types of information sources led people to better understand politics and participate in political aspects. Whether the journalist be a paid, trained professional or a writer formerly known as the audience, the authors attribute and anneal the link that both professional journalism and user-generated news shapes and mould into the cultural mainstream to which political journalists belong, and to whom their piece will ultimately appeal to. The substantial use of citations and research methodology throughout the text adds credibility to the hypothesis proposed by the authors. The ideas presented outline and investigate the role of professional and amateur journalistic traits within a society and how consumers absorb the full propensity of speech through each medium.
Sample, I. (2011, October 20). Global warming study finds no grounds for climate skeptics’ concerns. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment /2011/oct/20/ global-warming-study-climate-sceptics
Ian Sample, the author of this piece, brings scientific experience to the topic of climate change, being the science correspondent for The Guardian. Sample investigates the Berkeley Earth Project with an intention to challenge the sceptics of global climate change. Sample uses with great effect the scientific opinion of multiple experts in the fields which will be impacted by the outcome of the Berkeley Earth Project. Disproving the beliefs of sceptics, Sample addresses the issues of the meticulous collection of data since the 1800s and its inability to be ‘tweaked by hand’. Beginning with an overview of the Berkeley Earth Project, Sample initiates the input of several credible sources (NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Met Offices Hadley Centre- UK-) in support of his argument. Sample concludes with the potential for this research to expand and, with the comments of distinguished, committed individuals within the climate change debate, thoroughly adheres to belief among sceptics regarding tampering with data to prove a point. Sample presents an array of facts and data that, in comparison to Dwyer (below), seems irrelevant if the general consensus (public) are cynic to the beliefs of climate change as a whole.
Brigitte Dwyers political approach to the development of humanity and its causation of climate change as ‘the majority’ see it is somewhat ethical and forthright in relation to the contestants between Green and Labour ideology. Dwyer presents fundamental aspects of the initiation of climate change through the use of Henry David Thoreau and his bid to lead a ‘simple life’ free of trade. It is through trade that Thoreau saw the evolution of climate change and discrepancies between countries alike. Historical and contemporary citations and theories envelop the wide bases that the author is striving to capsulate. The author exhibits a dominant scope on her perspective of micro versus macro story telling in order to create a climate change consensus. Dwyer sees the consensus battle as ‘fighting the political world as Australians want to see it, an intelligent proposal to providing a cleaner world’. It seems that in the case of Brigitte Dwyer, advocates of climate change need to reconsider their attempts to create a consensus among populations. In comparison to Bachelards piece below, Dwyers piece focuses on a different sort of belief; where Dwyer portrays the population’s belief in political regime, Bachelard expresses the need to conform excess members of society, outside of Dwyers ‘majority’, into the vast realm of climate change.
Bachelard, M. (2011, October 23). Witches, God, climate change ... it's a matter of belief. The Age. Retrieved from: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/ climate-change/witches-god-climate-change--its-a-matter-of-belief-20111022-1mdpq.html
Having produced numerous other climate change and national interest pieces; Michael Bachelard presents an experienced and innovative perspective to the matter of climate change. Following the string of longwinded articles regarding climate change, Bachelard has adopted an altered perspective to the matter in order to challenge readers and their position of interest. The author expresses his personal objection to the argument on an ideological basis in order to demonstrate that an individual’s ability to have personal belief creates severe challenges for a ‘fruitful scientific debate’ on climate change. The author, unlike previous notable and scientific arguments, elaborates his topic on a basis of superstition and belief, quoting the story of Rohan Johns who believes that ‘people who don’t believe in the carbon tax and climate change are insignificant and counter scientific arguments with irrelevant tangents’. In mentioning Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, the author intensifies the global dispute suggests that regardless of scientific evolvement in the climate change arena, the beliefs of people are not going to alter just because ‘a scientist’ says they should. The substantial use of citations and research methodology throughout the text adds credibility to the hypothesis proposed by Bachelard. Bachelard concludes with comments from various personnel (CSIRO, University of Queensland, Authors on Evolution, Psychologists and Behavioural Scientists) all retaining that it is the loss of trust in institutions of climate change that have led to the disapproval of this overwhelming scheme; it is that trust that needs to be rebuilt in order to successfully incorporate the era of climate change that is on ‘our’ doorstep. In contrast to Sample’s piece regarding sceptic concerns for the future and current debate of climate change, Bachelard expresses a convoluted paradigm of belief and superstition.
No comments:
Post a Comment