There's sure been a lot of hullabaloo over Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. For an interesting perspective, take a gander over at nanopublic where you'll find lots of thought-provoking links to explore.
"Meanwhile, European media are gloating about "a public slap in the face" for President Bush by the Norwegian Nobel Committee and "the inconvenient truth for the current administration" that the prize has "brought to light."
What's interesting, of course (and maybe a bad form of karma), is that George H. W. Bush, father of the current U.S. President, ridiculed Al Gore as "Ozone Man" during the 1992 Presidential race with Bill Clinton."
No doubt Dietram jests, but I think I may like the 'What goes around comes around' theory.
Peace Prize committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes:
"A peace prize is never a criticism of anything. A peace prize is a positive message and support to all those champions of peace in the world."
I'm curious whether readers agree with the way it appears that the European media is framing the Nobel win as Bush vs Gore...
- Log in to post comments
The framing by the press, while certainly satisfying to partisans, may have 2 negative impacts.
1. It lessens the value of the award if the award is seen not as an accomplishment but rather as a spite.
2. It further politicizes the environment. This helps no one.
Climate change will increase the pressure on natural resources and thus prime the world for war. Look at oil.
Oil supplies lie mostly in Russia and the nearby countries, Middle East and South America. The USA has to have some control of these countries. This is done in many ways, such as arming and financing - via the CIA - groups opposing a government - as has happened and been documented in Afghanistan (Mujahadeen) and Iran (Contra Affair). This ensures that the West can have a constant oil supply and US presidents get elected. This is priming the world for war and I believe that the 'War on Terror' is a euphemeism for 'The war to maintain US oil supplies'. By removing Saddam the US now has access to Iraq's oil supplies. Though by removing Saddam Iraq has been de-stabilised and a civil war has begun.
Al Gore and the IPCC deserve the Nobel Peace Prize 2007 because they are warning us that if we do not make better uses of natural resources there will be many wars in the future.
Mike was right on with his comments about framing. In this case, if the European journalists consciously adopted a frame, it's the wrong one.
Persuasive writings, e.g. editorials and commentary, may benefit from framing, but good journalism is about story-telling and communicating (though having a clear point of view is okay with me--no one is free of bias).
I know Sheril wrote this post, but nonetheless my comment is for Chris: Your books are excellent journalism because your point of view is clear but you persuade by telling the stories and enabling readers to go beyond the books.
This admirer of your work (click my name) thinks that if you start writing books with a conscious "frame," you will probably be less successful in the end.
Let's not forget: The framing of Gore's Nobel Peace Prize by US media is possibly worse. After all, many pundits - even those claiming to be liberal - in the 'Liberal media' have forgotten now how they ridiculed Gore well before the 2000 presidential campaign [1], and now deplore that this man is not president; others (certainly those of a conservative bent) now denigrate the Peace Nobel Prizes[2] .
[1] See many entries on Bob Somerby's Daily Howler , e.g. the D.H.of 10/15/2007
[2] See Paul Krugman's NY Times Column of 10/15/2007
If you will excuse the slight derail, the Chronicle of Higher Education has a post (http://chronicle.com/blogs/footnoted/792/nobodys-lukewarm-on-gore) about academic blog reactions to Gore's Nobel. The first reaction? William Gray as quoted on Uncommon Descent!
I left a comment stating the obvious, that UD is hardly a reliable source for science commentary (in a bit stronger language than that). That comment was deleted. I posted another comment asking why, in the absence of any comment guidelines, the first was deleted. I also asked the author to email me if the comment section wasn't the appropriate forum. That comment was deleted and he didn't email me.
I always thought the typical frame was Crichton vs Gore. The scientists are irrelevant.
What's the big deal? The Peace Prize is quaint:
Doesn't everybody know that only Americans can make decisions?
As usual, Al Gore was a sore loser:
I think the reaction from the media on both sides Left: "Peace Prize meant to spite Bush..." and right: "Peace prize means nothing since Arafat got it too..") shows just how out of touch they ALL have become.
The media seem to have this idea that their opinion is the only thing that matters. They are the all knowing and infinitely wise "Oracle" and we (the public) should just shut up and listen to (and do) whatever they say.
I know where they got that idea -- from us (the public). For too long, we have put up with their BS (On Iraqi WMD and all the rest). We have fawned over all the "expert" commentators on the TV and in an print. They have a big head as a result.
Personally, I don't take much stock in much of anything I read/hear in the mainstream media these days. They are usually wrong on the big stories like WMD in Iraq (Not!).