In a new regular column over at DesmogBlog, Chris Mooney elaborates on the arguments first offered here. We should applaud Gore, writes Chris, but we also need to draw on data and evidence in order to accurately evaluate his impact and consider what else needs to be done:
However, there's one arena in which we seriously ought to criticize the Gore communications juggernaut--it just isn't the realm of scientific accuracy. Rather, the true issue is the one that Matthew Nisbet has been highlighting, and what I might term the "Gore paradox": Gore is our top mass media communicator on climate change, and yet Gore turns off many audiences that we definitely need to reach. This fact puts anyone who cares about the climate issue in an awkward position: On the one hand, we must applaud Gore for drawing dramatic new attention to the crisis; and yet at the same time, we must lament that too many Americans distrust Gore and simply won't listen to him.
Because while it's funny as hell to talk about "Gore Derangement Syndrome," the truth is that we need the people who currently suffer from this malady to join the climate cause. And Gore, because of his immense political baggage, because of the many preconceptions that persist about him, seems unable to reach them.
The data on this are clear and stark. As Nisbet explains: "Despite Gore's breakthrough success with Inconvenient Truth, public opinion today is little different from what it was in May 2006 when the movie was released." Gore is mobilizing the base, and Gore is generating tremendous media attention, but he doesn't seem to be winning converts. A huge gap still exists between the two parties' rank and file in terms of how seriously they take the global warming threat.
And that should hardly be surprising: As Nisbet further notes, thanks largely to our partisan politics and in particular to the bruising 2000 election and Florida recall, only half of the U.S. public has a favorable opinion of Gore, while only 24 percent of Republicans think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. If you think about it, that makes perfect sense: Millions of conservative Americans spent the 2000 election season bitching about Gore on a daily basis, and then vigorously pulled their levers against him, and then bitched some more about why he wouldn't step down and let Bush be president during the Florida recall.
Fair or unfair, right or wrong, on some level Gore may never be able to overcome that political baggage.
That's the Gore paradox, and it may be the Gore tragedy as well. He is awesome, he is a hero, he should have been president--and yet thanks to our goddamn partisan politics, when it comes to communicating on global warming he still may not be good enough.
- Log in to post comments
I suppose it's pointless to hope that a blog named "Framing Science" could possibly give that subject a rest. As I pointed out in another comment, the problem with the acceptance of Gore's message has exactly nothing to do with how it's framed. It has everything to do with the politics of hate. If George Bush were saying the same thing, the people who reject Gore's message would accept it, and the people who accept Gore's message would all die of heart attacks. If you want to talk about framing the issue of global warming, pick someone else. Gore is not the right example.
Mark's got a good point. While framing as a theory is useful, does it take account of the role of the framing receptacle, i.e. the messenger rather than the message? Sure, it's unfair that Gore has been vilified by the right, but is there anything he could say, or any frame he could use, that could break through to conservative voters?
Sure, it's unfair that Gore has been vilified by the right, but is there anything he could say, or any frame he could use, that could break through to conservative voters?
Indeed, if Gore were to adopt right-wing-friendly frames himself it could very well just backfire as pandering.
For example, if Gore started trying to push the Christian-Stewardship thing that Mr. Nisbet seems to be enamored with, it would probably just come across as mercenary and opportunistic. Gore is who he is, he can't pretend to be someone else...
Coin,
Which of course, is our central point. ;-)
The effect for many people when Gore says GW is important, is "I will do everything possible to oppose the GW is real" message. This opposition is not based upon an examination of the facts, but pure partisan hatred. Now a different spokesman would still only get through to some of these people. What Chris and Matt are trying to say is that other spokesmen who don't automatically cause these people to reflexively turn against the message would be useful. I wouldn't expect spokesman C to very highly effect, but even a small incremental change would be helpful.
So we need a new framer, huh? Like a Mooney to your Nisbet?
The problem with that is that while I like Chris Mooney and don't like you, I easily dismiss Chris' talk about framing, finding much to agree with him on other things. Why would a global warming denier not do the same?
The deniers are going to have to come around themselves, without outside intervention. Otherwise they will just identify the new 'framer' as an apostate. In the mean time, let us just tell the truth, and explain the data.
I don't think the messenger you are hoping for exists. Anyone who comes out passionately against global warming is automatically going to be framed in a partisan light. Both parties are entrenched on this issue. George Bush passionately arguing against global warming would have the same effect on Republicans as Ted Kennedy becoming a rabid climate change denier would have on Democrats, namely no effect.
This same effect can be shown with the Iraq war. Sen. Hagel is a consistently conservative senator, but he was thrown over the bus when he rejected Bush's war. On the same token Joe Lieberman is in most ways pretty liberal, but he was thrown over the bus for pushing Bush's war. The probelm is that your uniting messegenger doesn't exist because he/she can't exist.
As I said on an earlier thread, Gore himself should be applauded for his recognition of this fact. He's been working with the Climate Project as a remedy--inform and train a bunch of other speakers who have very little in common with Gore except agreement on this one issue, and who can target specific audiences which are turned off by him.
It's not a cure-all--plenty of Republicans would assume their climate-change-accepting brethren were simply conned or paid off by the liberals. But it's certainly pushing the envelope on framing science.