Posts Tagged ‘propaganda modeling’

21.June.2010

90,000 barrels is roughly one third of the Exxon Valdez

If the rate of flow in the gulf of Mexico is 90,000 barrels a day, then we’ve had ourselves an Exxon Valdez every three days. Recent estimates, put the rate of flow between 50,000 and 150,000 barrels a day (BPD). In EVUs (Exxon Valdez Units), this is between .2 and .6 EVUs per day. That puts the carnage at between an Exxon Valdez every five days, or an Exxon Valdez every two days (even less). Over 60 days, that’s between 12 EVUs and 36 EVUs. 1

  1. Of course, BP’s liability is directly proportional to the amount of oil that has polluted the Gulf. This explains why they are on record for trying to claim that the the rate of flow was only 1000 BPD. Over 60 days, this is only .2 EVUs in total.
10.May.2010

Advertisers make good advocates

The Age of Persuasion is a CBC radio show that I’ve always enjoyed.1 Terry O’Reilly is the host and has worked in advertising for thirty some years. He has recently published a book with Mike Tennant, who co-authored the book and who probably co-writes the radio show. They’re ad men. So ultimately they’re apologists for the advertising industry. But they’re also interesting and have some good insights and are, well, almost honest about the impact of the ad industry on our culture.

For ad men, that’s pretty good.

The book is called The Age of Persuasion, How Marketing Ate Our Culture. I’m totally enjoying it. But here’s what I’m talking about. In the preface, he reflects on the radio show he launched in 1995:

In the summer of 1995, I launched a twenty-five radio series, O’Reilly on Advertising, on CBC’s Radio One, eager to fill what I saw as a huge information void. Of the thousands of books, films, courses, and programs about advertising and marketing, few, if any, were created by people within the industry for people outside the industry.

Then turning to his more recent radio show, he adds:

This program has allowed me to fill another curious void: the thousands of works critical of the impact of advertising and marketing on modern life and culture are created, almost without exception, by people who have never worked within the advertising business.

Wow. If true, that is totally significant. it means that people who work in the advertising business don’t criticize themselves, the techniques of their trade or the affects they have on our communities. Ever. Wow. That is a huge criticism that O’Reilly almost, but not quite, made of advertisers. 2

The point I’m trying to angle towards is this. There is no one better suited to sell us on sales, than a salesperson. And advertising is sales. So there is no one better suited to sell us on advertising, than an advertiser. Well… maybe a salesperson. But do you get my point? Advertisers everywhere are advocates for their various clients now and then and once in a while. But advertisers everywhere are advocates for their jobs, their careers, and their industry, all of the time.

The question is, what are we buying?

  1. Here’s a link to a live stream of an episode on the branding and rebranding of sharks and other things.
  2. So while O’Reilly is positioning himself here as a unique kind of advertiser (something I also could be accused of doing) he fails to grapple with the importance of his claim. He almost gets it in the next sentence by acknowledging that “few in the ad business ever seemed to reflect on the many ways their profession is shaping and changing the world.” But this is rather understated and the point is lost as he steam rolls on.
06.April.2010

The Olympics versus Tiger Woods

Ages ago I wrote about how the brand of the Olympics is a safer investment than investing in a single athlete or even an entire team. Since I wrote that, a particularly high profile athlete has had a massive brand crash. So it seems like a good time to underline the relative brand security of an entire team of teams.

In order to draw out this comparison, first consider that as of December 10th, reporters and opinion makers were still largely guessing that Tiger Woods wouldn’t lose any sponsors. Well he did. Many of them, I think. Companies became afraid of being associated with Tiger Woods. Wow. Now some didn’t drop him, they just suspended him, I believe. Probably, and I’m totally making this up, some of his sponsors just pretended to drop him and made him sign carefully crafted legal agreements and then forced him to adopt a 9-step process to rebuild his public image.

It is notable that sponsors dropped or suspended Woods in such a short period of time. If you do a site search for “Tiger Woods” on the Calgary Herald website you get a list of 165 articles. Now these articles are listed chronologically. And 12 of those articles occur before they reported on the infamous car crash on November 27th with this article: Woods’ wife rescues golfer from smashed up car. By December 3rd, the Herald published: Sponsors willing to give troubled woods a mulligan. By the 1oth of December the Herald had written: Sponsors begin to shun woods. By February 22nd there had been roughly 150 articles including: Dalai Lama weighs in on Tiger Woods. 1

Some might argue that this is evidence that the Calgary Herald wastes time and resources writing about socially insignificant issues. Some would argue that the energy that the Herald puts towards this issue is evidence that they lack journalistic integrity. But these issues are not mine today. Perhaps I will quickly note, however, that since these articles are about Tiger Woods, they are actually affecting, even constructing, the public opinion about Tiger Woods. They report the news and they make the news all at once. But this is a digression.

The point, and the point of comparison, is that an individual’s billion dollar brand was tarnished so much that in the span of a couple of weeks, his sponsors had to either drop him, suspend him, pretend to drop him, or at the very least, hold tense stakeholder meetings and press conferences. Wow. Now try to imagine what could possibly happen to the Olympics in order for that to happen. It’s almost impossible to imagine. The brand is too diversified. It’s too secure. And partly, I would argue, the public opinion shapers, like the Calgary Herald, have too much invested in the Olympics and the Olympic machine. When the Woods scandal came out, the companies involved with Woods pulled their ads featuring him. But if there was Olympic scandal involving individuals or teams, they would just switch individuals and teams. There is nothing that could happen that could cause the Olympic brand, in toto, to crash that hard, that fast. Even if some athletes became embroiled in some kind of publicity disaster, there would still be thousands of others. And even if some entire teams, or a few countries of teams became publicly toxic, there would still be entire other countries of teams to cushion the brand.

Of course, knowing this, it’s no wonder that the IOC carefully developed, and then enclosed, and then protected that brand within a vast legal framework in order to sell it to the highest bidders. How better to support the cause of amateur sport and international peace & cooperation?

  1. The number is approximate because some, not many, of the listings in the search were of comments, not complete articles. Actually, the number of articles might be more than that, since I did a search for “tiger woods” not “t. woods” or simply “tiger” or “woods”, etc.
03.April.2010

Fair trade, fairly traded

I drink a lot of coffee. And sometimes I like to have a well made coffee. And sometimes I’ll drink any ole’ gas station coffee. But generally speaking, it matters to me if coffee is grown organically. Even more so, it matters to me if coffee is certified as Fair Trade coffee.

And it’s not just me. Fair Trade is an important part of coffee culture in Victoria, and beyond. Of course, there are many people who don’t care about these things. There are even those that think that the price controls of Fair Trade coffee is a ruthless attack on market capitalism.

But the vast majority of people that think about Fair Trade coffee, think it’s cool. On my view, you have to understand the coffee trade in the context of four hundred years of colonization to really see why it’s so important. Coffee grown in South America, for example, is grown as a cash crop by regions that have suffered centuries of invasion, debt incurred by corrupt regimes imposed by colonial interests, civil war caused by the resultant political instability, disease, genocide, religious persecution, and human rights atrocities that still continue to this day. So desperate communities will grow coffee beans at great social and environmental cost and sell them for very little. Four centuries of colonial abuse has taken away the ability of many communities to negotiate a better price.

Years ago, some clever do-gooders thought they might be able to help some coffee growing communities to negotiate a better price for their coffee.1 These do-gooders wanted to get a price for these communities that allowed them to save and build and to do more than live in abject poverty. They reasoned that if some coffee buyers shared the same values they did, that they would pay a little more so that others could live a better life. But how would customers know whether they could trust that the extra money was actually going to the farmers?

The solution was to create an arm’s length third party to assess and approve trade scenarios to certify that communities were actually getting a fair price. Now the term, “fair price,” is an interesting one. Free market purists will scoff at the term, arguing that a price is set by demand and supply and the willingness of individuals to pay. Free market purists will argue that there is no such thing as a “fair price.” But pretty much every other sane human will agree intuitively about the fairness of pricing, and this is all that counted.

So here we are in Victoria, years later, and there are many coffee shops that will serve only certified Fair Trade coffee. The certifications come from Transfair or, I think, a variety of twenty other international certifying bodies. And most coffee drinkers have heard of fair trade coffee. And this idea, “fair trade,” has become a valuable part of the brand of any company doing business in coffee.

And here’s where it gets interesting. It gets interesting because every coffee shop wants to be thought of as community oriented, and socially responsible and a good global citizen.

Starbucks, for example, will take out one page ads in the Globe and Mail telling readers about the way they serve Fair Trade coffee. And when I find myself at a Starbuck’s and the barista asks me whether I want dark or medium, I say, “oh, just give me the Fair Trade one.” The barista will inevitably say that they’re both Fair Trade. Now, inwardly, I’m smiling when this happens. Because I know that Starbucks only brews certified Fair Trade coffee one day a month.2 So then I say ask them to show me the label and what certifying body says its actually Fair Trade. And the poor embarrassed, and someone surprised, barista has to admit that it’s just Starbucks that says it’s fairly traded.

And that’s the difference between certified Fair Trade and fair trade or fairly traded. See, any free market capitalist can say the price they pay to cash crop exporters is fair. Anyone can say they serve fairly traded coffee. Yup, we bought this stuff from a family who couldn’t make the mortgage payments and were going bankrupt from medical costs and whose child was born deformed from the pesticides and fertilizers they are required to use, in order to pay the militia that was trained by the CIA – but don’t worry, we payed them a fair price.

This is why the third body certification process is so important. This is why I ask the barista to look for the TransFair logo. See Starbucks may very well pay all of their suppliers a good price. But unless they get certified, I don’t trust it. And I think they’re creating an illusion when their ad has the TransFair logo on it because they brew the certified Fair Trade coffee one day a month. This is pretty effective branding because most consumers don’t pay enough attention to see through this. This is also effective internal branding, since most of their employees even believe that all of their coffee is FairTrade. It’s a very convenient omission.

Now, in their defense, it’s not just Starbucks that does this. Actually that’s not a defense. But it is a dispersal of guilt. Well whatever. The point is that lots of coffee shops serve fairly traded coffee. When pressed on this issue, many coffee shops train their employees to say that they don’t serve certified Fair Trade coffee in order to pay the farmer more. The reasoning goes like this: since the certification body has infrastructure costs to pay, the certification process is more expensive, and that cost takes money away from the farmer.

I think this is unfortunate. I think it’s a fancy way to undermine people’s confidence in the certification process, while getting the benefits of the brand value that the very same certification process created. It sounds to me like the very same argument put forward by companies that claim governments shouldn’t regulate, because it costs the consumer.

  1. More than just a fair price, there are several criteria for Fair Trade including directness of trade and others. You read more here.
  2. I should add that even serving Fair Trade coffee one day a month is better than nothing. And because Starbucks is so large, this amounts to a lot of coffee. So at least this much is good.
29.January.2010

Challenges for the modern journalist

Okay. I’ve been very critical of journalists and newspapers that are getting it wrong on climate change: here and here and here. But you should know that I have moments of being more, well, sympathetic with the modern journalist. I also believe that healthy journalistic institutions are essential for a healthy democracy. But our democracy is not healthy. And, like Noam Chomsky, I believe we live in one of the most extraordinary propaganda states of all time. But we also have some of the most freedoms of all time. So how is that even possible?

Well the answer to that question is too long 1 for this post. So instead what I’ve tried to do here is outline a few of the challenges facing the modern journalist by summarizing six challenges of publishing in this modern context.

Six challenges

First of all, newspapers are a businesses. They have clients. And their clients are businesses that want to advertise. But they lose these clients when the newspaper promotes views and says things that don’t align with the bottom line interests of said clients. So an oil company based out of Calgary, for example, has a fiduciary duty to be opposed to policies that limit their profitability. That in turn means that they can’t spend money on advertising with broadcasters or publishers that promote policies that hurt their profitability. And that means that journalists have to write in ways that don’t make their editors choke on their ties.2 I call this the challenge of compliance.

Second, this is happening in an internationalized context where newspapers are losing market share and profitability because of “the google”, or the “interweb”. So the pressure on journalists to say something of more interest and value than say, a blogger, is immense. I call this the challenge of attention.

Third, issues are complicated. Climate science is complicated. Social policy is complicated. Police brutality is complicated. Did so-and-so “die”? Or were they “killed”? This is sometimes a very tricky business. And given the possibility that someone with money or an agenda might sue you for libel, it’s easier to just write about the sports. In a complicated world it can be very hard to find out the truth or reasonable approximations of it. I call this difficulty, the challenge of integrity.

If finding the truth and understanding complex situations is difficult, try doing it on a timeline. And that’s the kicker: publishing for a newspaper means saying something on time. The traditional newspaper has a press that runs on a rigid schedule for economic reasons and reasons of scale. And because newspapers, and the old people that read them, hate trees and don’t understand the interweb-thingy, they still produce content on this rigid schedule. This is the challenge of production.

Fifthly, the pressure for journalists to understand a situation, produce some engaging copy, say something non-threatening for their advertisers, not get sued by a person in the story, get it to print on time all the while bearing the weight of the future of the newspaper, is intense. The financial future of all the staff is on their shoulders and the weight must be spine-crushing. After all, if Canwest fails to avert their bankruptcy and the whole empire tanks, the Aspers won’t lose their retirement savings or their house. Contra a common capitalist myth, it’s actually the employees that bear most of the real risk of the Canwest empire crumbling. Employees that have moved their families and invested in mortgages or are carrying the debt of their journalism degrees can’t afford for Canwest to go broke. So all of the myriad staff that it takes to design and print a newspaper, distribute it and find advertisers all rely on the content produced by the reporters. That’s a lot of pressure. The reporters are accountable to their fellow employees in a major way. I call this the challenge of positive-thinking-will-hopefully-keep-this-boat-floating-until-we-all-pay-our-mortgages.

And finally and perhaps most significantly, journalists need to worry about their own jobs. I actually don’t know this for certain. But this is the word on the street. Journalists, apparently, are losing there jobs. And, apparently, it’s not just Canwest that has been losing employees. So it turns out that reporters need to keep their editors very very happy. So, in deference to the first challenge, I also call this the challenge of compliance.

In Summary

  1. The challenge of compliance (for editors)
  2. The challenge of attention
  3. The challenge of integrity
  4. The challenge of production
  5. The challenge of positive-thinking-will-hopefully-keep-this-boat-floating-until-we-all-pay-our-mortgages.
  6. The challenge of compliance (for reporters)

This guy knows things about the future of journalism. Actually, he also has some good tips on just writing a blog. 3

  1. This answer is also unknown to me.
  2. I was going to use the phrase “pee their pants” here but, in the end, I decided that “choke on their ties” was a less insulting phrase.
  3. Given the length of time since my last post, it’s clear I could use some help.
17.December.2009

Making Tim Ball

This is a story about one of my moments of glory. Some of you know that some  years ago I was fundraising for Greenpeace. One particularly cold winter day, I engaged a passerby in a conversation about global warming. The man who stopped to talk was quite charming but he clearly had no sympathy for the claims I was making. Wow was I startled when he said that he was Canada’s first climatologist!

Of course, that wasn’t enough to convince me of his points of view and eventually he said, “Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, how can scientists claim to predict global warming?” Now when he said this, some kind of alarm bell starting to ring deep down in my brain stem. Maybe he was just a little too slick. Or maybe, since I was so often speaking from a script, I was in a heightened state of script awareness. So at that point, I fell out of my own script and stuck out my hand and introduced myself. And he introduced himself. His name was Tim Ball.

We had an animated conversation about peer reviewed publishing, the dimensions of relative objectivity in science, global cooling, and socialism. Actually he accused me of being a socialist. And that was when my moment of glory came to pass in the form of a question I would ask in return. See, when he accused me of being a socialist I was provoked first to a moment of confusion – it just struck me as a non sequitur. But after the confusion, came clarity. And I asked him, “Do you work for the Fraser Institute?”

I still remember that moment and I remember exactly where we were standing – corner of Government and Yates in front of Eddi Bauer.

His eyes widened a little and he stepped back. Pointedly, he said no. I told him that equating concern for global warming with socialism sounded like something the Fraser Institute or the Heritage Foundation might do. He mumbled something and walked away. I quickly made some notes about the exchange, including writing down his name and went on with my day.

But that night I did a name search online for ‘Tim Ball’. Then I did a name search for ‘Tim Ball’ on the Fraser Institute website. And maybe he wasn’t an employee but I did find his name on lot’s of their communications. I was so excited! I met an important person who was clearly a hired gun for climate change denial and made his cover on one try! It was easy.

But unfortunately, many reporters and journalists have found him convincing over the years. Unfortunately, many so-called journalists continue to find him interesting. As of today, he’s still listed on the Fraser Institute website:

This is how his bio reads on the Fraser Institute website:

Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, wrote his doctoral thesis at the University of London (England) using the remarkable records of the Hudson’s Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714 – 1952. He has published numerous articles on climate change and its impact on the human condition. Dr. Ball has served on numerous committees at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on climate, water resources, and environmental issues. He was a professor in the geography department at the University of Winnipeg before retiring. He has written a regular column on weather in the agricultural magazine. Country Guide, for 14 years. He is currently working as an environmental consultant and public speaker based in Victoria and has written, with Dr. Stuart Houston, 18th Century Naturalists on Hudson Bay, a book on the science and climate of the fur trade (McGill-Queens University Press, 2003).

But this is how he’s described in James Hoggan’s recent book, Climate Cover Up, The Crusade to Deny Global Warming:

There are few “skeptical scientists” with as little actual expertise and as much ambition as the Canadian geography professor Dr. Timothy Ball. Never a climate scientist per se, Dr. Ball quit his position as an associate professor at the University of Winnipeg in 1995, apparently ending an academic career that featured a lifetime output of just four peer-reviewed journal articles, none of which addressed atmospheric science. Yet ten years later, Ball-the-climate-expert seemed to be everywhere – on the radio, in the newspapers, on the lecture circuit, even testifying before a committee in the Canadian parliament.

Turns out that Tim Ball is paid by the Friends of Science that is funded through the University of Calgary Science Education Fund, set up by Barry Cooper who is friends with Stephen Harper, which is funded by the Oil patch. He’s also connected to the National Resources Stewardship Program, Tom Harris with APCO Public Relations, High Park Advocacy Group, Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association. He’s effectively a paid mouthpiece with fewer credentials than he and the Fraser Institute claims he has. But I met him and he’s quasi famous and so I guess I met an almost famous guy! And I made him. That was my moment of glory.

12.December.2009

Bumper stickers

Bumper stickers and car magnets are an interesting window into human identities and human values. Generally people aren’t paid to put these kinds of things on their vehicles so we know they’re authentic. And in our culture, a car or truck is a serious reflection of who we are. We’re generally very careful about what kind of vehicle we own, much like we’re very careful about what kind of clothes we put on to be seen in. Given these factors, bumper stickers are powerful indicators of a vehicle owner’s values. From rainbows to Darwin fishes, there’s a surprising amount of background knowledge needed to really get the iconography. And sometimes it’s just really straightforward.

01.December.2009

Hey, Calgary Herald, you suck on climate change

Here’s a fun thing that you can try at home. It’s a simple form of media analysis. The result of this particular analysis leads me to think bad thoughts about Canwest. But that’s just me. Here’s what I did. First I went to the Calgary Herald website. But you can pick any online media outlet that you want. I then picked a topic and typed it into their website search function. I chose “climate change” but you can pick a topic that is of interest to you. I kept track of the time and date to make it more scientific!1 I then read the first ten articles that the search function brought up, discounting duplicates. By using their search function, and setting this plan out in advance, my analysis is more impartial and I can’t be accused of cherry picking bad articles. Here’s what I got.

1. Feds warned over climate change protectionism

November 28, 2009
Ottawa must act to ensure proposed U.S. climate-change policy does not lead to “adverse affects,” such as carbon tariffs, on Canadian industry, a Conference Board of Canada report advised Friday.
Christmas came early this year for Diane Katz and other Canadians at the forefront of the most polarized political fight on the planet. For many years Katz–the director of environment policy at the Fraser Institute, the free market Vancouver think-tank –has argued alongside her allies that global warming is neither a man-made phenomenon nor the doomsday crisis it is widely considered to be, and that the scientists who fuel such fears have in fact hoodwinked us.
U .S. President Barack Obama’s commitment to attend Copenhagen and put emission targets on the table is like a gust of wind power under the flopping sails of the climate change summit. But unless his ambitious targets are passed through Congress –and that will be a challenge –the proposal will amount to nothing more than hot air.
Softening permafrost and rising temperatures will mean pipelines, roads and buildings in Canada’s north are at grave risk as the world’s climate changes in the decades ahead, according to a federal report to be released today.
Premier Ed Stelmach went on the offensive Tuesday to rebuff environmental salvos toward Alberta from Ontario’s premier and a former U.S. vice-president.
Leading climate scientists issued a grim diagnosis for the planet Tuesday, along with a stern warning for world leaders. The upcoming round of climate talks will have “profound”…
More than $200 billion worth of Canadian assets are at risk from global warming, says an international report released Monday. The report, released jointly by a major insurance firm and an…

8. Chumps on climate change

November 23, 2009
Last week, Stephen Harper decided it’s not a good time for Canada to save the world from climate destruction. He will not make us a shiny green example for the rest of the world to follow. We will not be leading lagging, dirty countries out of the abyss.

I’m relieved. I like my life.

With statements made by U.S. President Barack Obama on the weekend that there would be no legally binding agreement among the 192 countries attending the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, the summit is now set up to be a nonevent.

10. Good climate news, bad news for climate alarmists

November 24, 2009
This had been a disappointing fall for climate alarmists, even before Friday’s revelation that, for years, some of the world’s top climate scientists may have been doctoring the evidence for global warming

Then I scored the articles, on a scale of -10 to +10, on the following criteria:

How many soundbites are from libertarian, big-business think tanks? How many soundbites are from published scientists who work in the field of climatology? How many soundbites challenged the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by humans? How many soundbites encouraged or supported the notion that Canada ought to meet it’s carbon emission reduction goals? How many soundbites create confusion about the fact of climate change? What is the educational and informational value of this article? Is it evidence based?

ARTICLE 1. Feds warned over climate-change protectionism

SUBTEXT: doing something about climate change is bad for business.
WORDCOUNT: 117
SUMMARY: The Conference Board of Canada2 is quoted in the lead paragraph. Climate change policy is linked to U.S. protectionism. The rather loaded phrase, “carbon tarriffs slapped on Canadian goods” is then used to make people worried about climate change. Then Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jisun Kim from Washington’s Peterson Institute for International Economics, another right wing think tank with significant connections to the oil industry and international markets, are quoted in the final paragraph.
SCORE: -5 *

ARTICLE 2. Hacked e-mails allude to rigged warming tests

SUBTEXT: There is no scientific consensus on climate change science: scientists are corrupt.
WORDCOUNT: 1055
SUMMARY: The Fraser Institute3 is mentioned in lead paragraphs. The Fraser Institute representative is quoted at length. Some of the Fraser Institute soundbites are taken as fact as a way of showing how reasonable their claims are. Mann is quoted and Bennett, from the Sierra Club of Canada is quoted. Stephen McIntyre is called a Canadian climate researcher and his website is given, even though he is a major climate change denier. The article’s final assessment and opinion is against Mann’s reputation. Finally, “climategate” is linked to Copenhagen, and Copenhagen is indicted as being hopeless, and another anti-global warming think tank, Energy Probe, is brought up and the representative from Energy Probe is quoted.
SCORE: -7 *

ARTICLE 3. Good climate for positive change

SUBTEXT: Doing something about climate change is bad for the economy.
WORDCOUNT: 512
SUMMARY: Harper and Obama are going to Copenhagen and are aligned in their response to climate change. The Liberals did not meet their Kyoto targets. Hopefully the Conservatives can be more practical. Contra the report by TD Bank Financial, doing anything about climate change will have economic costs. The Canada West Foundation “will issue a report next week refuting TD Bank Financial’s claim the targets could be met without a great deal of economic damage.” So there will be economic damage. Alberta’s economy cannot be damaged or it will be bad for the entire nation.
SCORE: -3 *

ARTICLE 4. Climate report warns $5 trillion in infrastructure at risk

SUBTEXT: Climate change can be managed, money will be spent on the North.
WORDCOUNT: 468
SUMMARY: A federal report says that infrastructure in the North will require maintenance and reconstruction from climate change. Ottawa is mentioned. The federal government is mentioned. Billions of dollars, and trillions of dollars in spending are mentioned. Dr. Andrew Weaver is mentioned and quoted.
SCORE: +4

ARTICLE 5. Stelmach fights climate criticism

SUBTEXT: Spending money on climate change is wasteful and politically dangerous.
WORDCOUNT: 780
SUMMARY: The premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach, is drawing fire from political quarters over climate change. Al Gore is a “climate-change crusader”. Alberta is working to with carbon capture and storage technology to mitigate the tar sands carbon emissions. Ed Stelmach is also criticized for this expense because they are currently running a healthcare deficit. Paul Hinman is quoted as saying that Alberta should not be investing in “unproven science”. Stelmach is not going to Copenhagen – he is going instead to World Future Energy Summit.
SCORE: -4

ARTICLE 6. Climate scientists offer bleak outlook for planet

SUBTEXT: Climate change is set to destroy our world if emissions trajectory continues.
WORDCOUNT: 338
SUMMARY: This article presents an earnest and dire, if somewhat dark, summary of our situation and how it’s progressed since Kyoto. Dr. Weaver and Environment Canada are mentioned. The UN and Copenhagen are mentioned. The German Advisory Council is mentioned.
SCORE: +8

ARTICLE 7. $200B in Canadian assets at risk from climate change: report

SUBTEXT: Insurance premiums might go up from property damage from climate change
WORDCOUNT: 138
SUMMARY: An international report was published on behalf of WWF Germany and Allianz Group (identified as insurance group) by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the U.K. (identified as environmental group). But quotes are placed around “tipping point” and the report is clearly identified as being produced by climate scientists and environmentalists.
SCORE: +6

ARTICLE 8. Chumps on climate change

SUBTEXT: Only wackos believe in climate change; don’t wreck my life.
WORDCOUNT: 699
SUMMARY: Stephen Harper is doing the right thing by stalling on doing anything about climate change. That’s because climate change is bunk. The scientists are in disagreement about everything and the debate is very evenly balanced. Plus, even if there were any truth behind climate change, we couldn’t do anything about it anyway. China and the US are the real players, not us. Kyoto is complicated. Too complicated. Meeting Kyoto will decrease the author’s quality of life.
SCORE: -9

ARTICLE 9.Continental approach to climate change is critical

SUBTEXT: The US should set the agenda on climate change; Harper, and Canada, are not responsible.
WORDCOUNT: 820
SUMMARY: Obama and the US are more important economically than we are so we should wait and see what they do before committing to anything. Luckily for the “oil sands”, it looks as though there will be no binding agreement at Copenhagen. It’s business as usual and it’s not our fault. The University of Calgary is mentioned, as is Jim Prentice and Jason Grumet for the Washington based think-tank, Bipartisan Policy Centre.
SCORE: -1

ARTICLE 10. Good climate news, bad news for climate alarmists

SUBTEXT: Climate change scientists are corrupt and ideologically driven; climate change is bunk.
WORDCOUNT: 848
SUMMARY: This article argues that there has been no warming since 1998 and that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. The emails that were stolen are quoted from numerous times in ways that are meant for the reader to conclude that the senders are corrupt and conspired to hide data from the public. While the author lamely admits that the emails “may amount nothing” in the last paragraph, the damage is done and confusion about the issue has been struck in the minds of readers.
SCORE: -9

Conclusions

All scores range from -10 to +10, where a positive score is a good article and a negative score is a bad article. This score is than multiplied by the word count to factor in the relative volume of the article. The scores are then added. If the sum total is a positive score than the Calgary Herald has been publishing good and informative articles. If the sum is negative, than the Herald has been publishing bad articles.4

Only three article scored in the positive end of the spectrum. Interestingly, the articles that were better in terms of their content were generally the shortest articles. There is one exception to this: the first article (and the shortest at only 117 words) scored a minus five. The average article length was 578 words. After factoring for the article length, the final average value of the articles from the Calgary Herald on the topic of climate change, on a scale of -10 to +10, is -4. Which sucks.5

The total negative points by the seven bad articles came to: -27369
The total positive points by the three good articles came to: 5404
The grand total is: -21965
The average value of each article is: -2197
The average article length: 578 words
The average value of each article: -4

  1. That’s a joke. But I did do this search at 3:45 Pacific on Sunday, November 29, 2009.
  2. The Conference Board of Canada is one of Canada’s leading right-wing think tanks that has long been part of the denial and confusion industry
  3. The Fraser Institute is a prominent Canadian, right-wing, economic think tank that claims to be independent and not politically motivated although most of their policy work is anti-taxation and anti-regulation.
  4. I think that I would argue that they are misinforming the public and are possibly committing a crime on behalf of their big business and Big Oil clients.
  5. There were a number of organizations that were relied on for expert advice: 1) Conference Board of Canada, 2) Peterson Intsitute of International Economics, 3) Fraser Institute, 4) Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia 5) UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 6) Sierra Club of Canada, 7) ClimateAudit, 8) Energy Probe, 9) the Canada West Foundation, 10) TD Bank Financial, 11) National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 12) Canadian Federal Government, 13) American Federal Government, 14) University of Victoria, 15) Provincial Government, Alberta, 16) Provincial Government, Ontario, 17) German Advisory Council on Global Change, 18) Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, 19) Bipartisan Policy Centre, 20) Government of India, 21) Leibniz Institute, 22) Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
29.November.2009

Random ideas about Rex Murphy

The thing about Rex Murphy that troubles me is the way he calls his show “Cross-Country Checkup” but whenever I find myself listening I hear a representative from The Conference Board of Canada or the Fraser Institute. These guys (they seem to be men mostly) are payed to pretend they’re experts on any topic of consideration and then bridge to their key messages. The key messages they bridge too, work towards predictable and simple goals: 1) lets make sure that big business pay less tax, 2) lets make sure that big business is less regulated. That’s about it: let’s protect the profit margins of big business. But the discipline and innovation that they bring to the key messages is totally amazing. They will drape these goals in any garment du jour, from “it’s better for everyone” to “this is the cost of freedom” to “the only way to protect society is through conservative values” to “those guys are idiots, don’t listen to them if you want to keep your house.”

Take climate change for example. The fact of climate change, by itself, is not perceived as a threat by Big Oil and their bottom line. But public opinion and the subsequent possibility of government taxation and regulation is a perceived threat by Big Oil and their profit margin. So organizations like the Conference Board of Canada, C.D. Howe and the Fraser Institute step forward to disrupt public opinion.

The first step is to get air time. To do this they call up their media buddies with the National Post or Cross-Country Checkup. Either by getting quoted directly or by influencing the analysis of the overworked, job-threatened and under-educated reporter, the underlying message and the framework for that message gets public exposure.

The second key ingredient is to pretend to be trustable. This happens through the use of expert titles and heavy reference to the number of researchers and academics employed by the think-tank. Crucially, they’re usually economists or communications people, but they never say this. The representative will generally pretend, and Rex Murphy will pretend along with him, that they are all experts in climate change science. Add to this the years of branding by the National Post and Cross-Country Checkup that they’re impartial and authoritative news sources serving our democracy and you get a potent recipe for believability. And this brings me back to why I think Rex Murphy is a jackass. He creates a call in show, branded for everyday Canadians, but brings in well paid representatives from right-wing think tanks to represent the wealthiest and biggest businesses in the country. He poses as a show for the people. But it’s not.

With this access to a trusting public ear the key message has propogated: climate change and it’s causes are uncertain. The underlying message has been confusion. The result is a public opinion that we shouldn’t jeopardize our mortgages and our jobs and our habits of consumption. This brings me to the December edition of FOCUS and a great article by Gene Miller. Rex Murphy has perhaps too eagerly defended Big Oil and too eagerly added his voice of dissent to the environmental movement. Rex calls the movement Big Green. Miller says:

“Big Green?” Those the ones associated with Big Feminism, Big Peace, Big Anti-Land Mines, Big Racial Equality and Big Anti-Child Slavery?

…you sound like the South before Lincoln, or the British before Gandhi. You sound like the flatearthers in Calgary. You sound like some gaseous table-pounder bellowing about how good-paying jobs in the oil-patch now are worth more than some speculative issues that maybe our great grandkids will have to deal with—woo-woo stuff like the bankrupting relocation of coastal infrastructure around the globe, global loss of freshwater, global loss of arable land, global desertification, the migration north of a couple of billion people, and the end of national boundaries and the nation-state. Deal or no deal, Rex?

Actually, we won’t be getting our energy from Alberta within 25 years anyway (my guess); and red deer will wander through the silent, empty office canyons of downtown Calgary. (Take oil out of the Calgary economic equation and the city folds like a suit from Kresge’s.) The world by then will be operating on a mixed-source energy regime that conspicuously excludes oil.

Miller is great. Partly what makes his article such a great example of a solid communications strategy is that he first focuses on the environmental and moral considerations of ignoring global warming. He then reconsiders his argument from an economic perspective for the sake of those that only understand these issues through the lens of economy. Stephen Harper and Rex Murphy seem to think that the economy has greater reality than our environment or climate. Miller, acknowledging their psychological impediments, attempts to parse his message in a way that they will understand.