[ad_1]
What do you do after so much litany? It is hardly possible to change, except to lose credibility. It remains to put a higher gear, and now the editor-in-chief has taken over the joystick and directs the train for everything in the fabrics.
But there is in fact, there are more ways of looking at the weather issue than the two editors at Dagens Nyheter do, and for those who want to listen, there are many voices worth listening to. “Listening to science” is not enough. Science is vast, varied, and tasked with constantly testing, tearing down and testing new theories. The results they arrive at provide us with a basis when we reason both about what conclusions can be drawn and what decisions can be the task of politics.
This is where journalism comes in. You are tasked with making both facts and conflicts of interest as unbiased as possible, thereby providing readers with relevant information and decision makers as solid a foundation as possible for the balance that only they can make. and for which they must be held accountable. Politicians must discuss scenarios with climate refugees, alternative costs for the rate of conversion of energy systems, weigh the pros and cons of the tools available in the form of legislation, taxes and repressive measures. But if journalism decides in advance that some of these issues are illegitimate … fake views! – and he will not be monitored, he has become an activist.
Peter Wolodarski writes accusingly that “not even the UN IPCC climate panel, which conservatively conducts assessments of the state of climate change research, has ‘the truth about the climate issue’, according to Svenska Dagbladet. is perfectly understood. It would be useless to claim that an organization has the “truth” of any question, precisely because institutions are influenced by those who currently have them. The IPCC compiles a large body of research covering several areas, but the reports that are most widely They often make it to the public debate are compiled by political officials and should be seen as that, and not as a decree of a higher power.
The climate problem is not underreported. It has also been present in the political debate for many years, and there is no longer any social actor who has not reflected on environmental impact and personal responsibility. A huge industry of climate advisers, debaters and experts has emerged. The research grants have arrived. However, society invests enormous resources in the subject. This is probably justified, and the demand remains high, even for journalism that highlights the area. And all the actors who are leading the way on the matter, of course, have their interests to watch out for.
We will continue to take note of the facts and review the claims made in the climate field, regardless of their origin. At that point, we also seem to differ significantly from Dagens Nyheter’s view of his journalistic mission.
