A polluter bribes a wildlife group to provide PR cover, then pays a newspaper to treat it as great news.
I read in Wednesday's Metro* that Land Rover built their four millionth vehicle and donated it to the Born Free Foundation (a wildlife nonprofit). This was reported as straight news, right from the teat of the press release, apparently with no other sources, and presented with no other context. The vehicle in question will be used as a "'Rapid Response Rescue' vehicle for deployment across the UK and Europe". Whatever that means – sounds like a lot of driving around.
So allow me to do the "newspaper's"** job by providing additional context. In the fifty-seven years that Land Rover has been producing its four million vehicles, the climate of this planet has changed dramatically, and the ongoing holocene extinction event has eliminated between 20,000 and 2,000,000 species in that same time. The four million vehicles that Land Rover has produced will vent 228 megatonnes (2.28x1011 kg) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (conservatively speaking, as that figure is for average vehicles that run for 240 Mm, and Range Rover sells heavier-than-average vehicles with poorer-than-average fuel efficiency). That single car "donated" will itself vent 57 tonnes of CO2. As any reporter or editor should know, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is demonstrably causing mass extinction. So how can it be that a nonprofit that aims to be a Lorax sells out endangered species... for a free car? And why doesn't the "newspaper" call attention to this screaming contradiction?
It is obvious that Born Free likely has more than a passing interest in the corporate wellbeing of Range Rover. It is also clear that Range Rover wishes to position itself as a supplier of choice to environmentally sensitive gas-guzzler drivers everywhere (tread lightly indeed). So there are lots of troubling aspects to this deal, and the "newspaper" is kind enough to preserve our peace of mind by not questioning them. Even if one were to presume innocence and claim that the "newspaper" is simply incompetent doesn't explain this episode completely.
Which raises the deeper question: why would a "newspaper" present such a piece of bald PR as a news story? Ford (owner of Range Rover) advertises*** in the publication, and the press release was handed to the editor by the PR department of the dealership/manufacturer and told to run it, which the "newspaper" did unquestioningly. Their reasons for printing this press release nearly verbatim are obvious and two-fold: publishers are beholden to advertisers, and publishers are notoriously lazy about producing articles.
So why the outrage? News media is in bed with advertisers – like, wow. But I call attention to this particular case because it exemplifies how the news media, "environmental organizations" and polluters are colluding to the detriment of our living environment and the destruction of the very things they depend upon to survive: paying customers. The results of the supremacy of short-term corporate profit and damn-the-consequences growth, coupled with a compliant and quiescent public and subservient news media, is a hellishly clear path to destruction.
*^Powers, Lindsay. "Four million and counting: Land Rover gives animal welfare a helping hand" Metro News Vancouver, 2007-05-16, p 13.
**^Why am I using "scare quotes" around the word "newspaper"? Because the "newspaper" in question is freely distributed and not taken very seriously, although the circulation is pretty good for these publications. They are an attempt by the failing newspaper industry to maintain some sort of advertising market as they are eaten alive by television and internet news infotainment. The "scare quotes" denote my contempt for this source of "news" as biased and unprofessional, with the article as a case-in-point. But because they have the word "news" in the title, people confuse it with a professional news reporting organ, which plainly it is not since professional news reporting organizations have standards of journalistic professionalism about disclosing conflicts of interest.
***^In this issue there are no actual Ford ads that look like paid advertisements, though there is a Ford vehicle on the cover, and four glowing articles that mention or feature Ford vehicles.
1 comment:
I have worked for newspapers, and I know what goes inside. When there is a small paper, ANYTHING coming to them is gold, why? because there isn't enough money to pay for good reporters. They have hardly news from their own, so a *well* (sneaky) elaborated PR from a recognized brad/company that has an small amount of info will most likely be published. Any press release from a direct source is welcomed. And if editorial is weak, it will happen like the article you read- no facts and actual empty news. Editors get mad many times because they know their reputation is in jeopardy (well, the ones who care and eventually leave media outlets with no editorial content, I mean, the ethical/professional ones).
Those are plain infomartial. You can negotiate with the sales associate to do a couple of infomartials in the *content* of the paper. You will eventually see the ad. In small papers like that the editorial does not have control of it. The newspapers need the money to survive, so yes, they do whatever money makes them to do. If we were communists the manipulation of the news would come from the government. Since we are capitalists the manipulation comes mostly from big corporations (then the government and back and forth). Either way news is manipulated.Whatever the income of the newspaper is coming from, we read their side of their stories. Interpretation of a source, well, it is individual after all. The good thing you have an amazing research talent and knowledge that they can hardly fool you. You not only read a single source but many news outlets. You are able to see the wider scope of things- that is one of your many talents sweetheart ;-)
However seeing if from the other side- if you were the owner of the newspaper and an advertiser will actually pay you 3 months worth of your expenses, what would you do? If you say no, no and no, the doors (income) might be closed, so your newspaper (see, the money issue). Trying to reach a mid point between editorial content and sales is what newspapers have to deal every day even more now that the newspaper industry is declining. As long as the head of businesses & government does not put an example (about what is ethical/ socially responsible), the mass will tend to stuck up.
You talk about pollution, and you do things to contribute to slow down pollution (other things equal). And I proud of you for being different and talking action. But again in a bigger scope, as long as the presidents/prime ministers/world leaders do not lead by example (riding a bike, running, sharing rides,improving public transportation, etc) by showing social careness for the mass(the followers), It will do very little to change the way of living. Climate change appears not to be much of a concern for now. It makes a great news though. Allowing to build houses far away, creating more roads, less bike/walk paths,etc. the result is that Mother Nature is getting moody...would it be worthy a environmental revolution?
Post a Comment