The Kyoto Protocol / human striatum enigma
Here’s an interesting one: quoting from an article in Science from October 2007 that I just got round to reading:
neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that the striatum tracks a social partner’s decision to reciprocate or not reciprocate cooperation, appearing to encode abstract rewards such as the positive feeling garnered by mutual cooperation. (600)
The striatum provides a common-reward metric for decisions that offer rewards/outcomes in different modalities. That is, it offers a base equivalent, a converter, to measure the different, abstract, rewards. Particularly for social reciprocity.
Now, from the Kyoto Protocol:
The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts… [etc.]
Now I know this is back of the beer mat theorizing, but all ideas start somewhere. So. The Kyoto Protocol is, if anything, a contract for reciprocity - we will cut emissions if you will. And not only are the different greenhouse gases made into carbon dioxide ‘equivalents’ (e.g. methane, nitrous oxide, all measured up against the CO2 factor), what is fascinating is that the rewards for reciprocity have also been, at some level, turned into their financial equivalent: hence, carbon trading.
I believe that what we do at the global, international, mass multitude level, can be thought through not just the metaphors that neuroscience brings us, but the actual science: that what happens when countries come together to agree the equivalents and reciprocation of an international agreement is no different, or an amplified record, of what is going on in the human brain for the same factors.
There is a way that neuroscience can illiuminate the abstract social processes of not only people but the structures of people: countries, governments, international agreements. It is this which fascinates me so much about the study of neuroscience and its application to the meta-narratives of our society. More on this as I develop the thoughts and do my research.
How journalism works (according to some)
Trying to avoid adding to the blog echo chamber, I have some original articles up my sleeve soon (honest) but some examples of journalism commentary caught my eye today, for a number of reasons.
Commentary One
First, the story that slid across the digital garden, so to speak, of how human sewage, or sludge, was tested as a lead poisoning fix in the homes of nine low wage black American families. This story was then picked up by new UK green reporters Environmental Graffiti who pointed out “it would be funny if it wasn’t dangerous and disgusting”. True. That is, if it is true. A US college graduate, Sarah Werning, dug a bit deeper to examine the original paper and sources of the testing, carried out by one Mark Farfel, and came to the conclusion that it was sensationalist journalism on the part of Associated Press (and Yahoo, who ran the story). The bit that interests me is Werning’s comment on the knowledge of methodological and “scientific specialisation” on the part of the reporter:
The article seems to imply that [Farfel's] reign of lead and toxic waste terror extends further than this study, but to me it makes sense that if he studies the effects of lead poisoning, he would do it more than once, and in areas with high levels of lead. I dismissed this as the reporters’ not understanding [sic] the nature of scientific specialization. The story briefly mentions that the study passed the standards at Johns Hopkins for public health studies involving humans.
Last night I read Kris Wilson’s summary of “Communicating climate change through the media: predictions, politics and perceptions of risk” in Environmental Risks and the Media (Routledge, 2000), who makes exactly the same point about the reporting of climate change: that “the reporters with the most accurate climate change knowledge were found to be full-time environmental specialists who primarily used science sources” (215). As he also points out, science writers use the term ‘greenhouse effect’ whereas “non-science writers preferred the term ‘global warming’.” ‘Global warming’ as a term is scientifically misleading for the range of changes that will occur across our planet due to the rapid anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. As such, it is a simple but effective indicator of how major terms can be incorrectly communicated across the mass media when journalists simply don’t have the scientific knowledge to get it right.
Commentary Two
Just because it’s good to know there are people out there making accurate, irrefutable claims about “how journalism works”. There is nothing that suggests the ability, over a 29 month period, to update your understanding of a particular issue, in this case biofuels, should be regarded as a journalistic disgrace. If this commentator really is “the most amusing non-stop critique of the Labour Government available” (from EU Surf) then no wonder Blair and Brown have gone unchallenged for so long.
‘Water wars’ - it’s China/Tibet, not Spain/France
The New Scientist this week carries the headline ‘Is this the beginning of water wars?’ for its report on the story of Spain importing water from France, via the Port of Marseilles, to help alleviate the pain of drought in the Catalan region around Barcelona.
The article continues to discuss the other global pressure points concerning water, its contribution to tensions, and the potential for stoking ‘wars’ between nations. The article refers quite correctly to the control of water in the Middle East, where Israel controls 90% of the water supply to both Israeli and Palestinian territory:
“People will not fight over water,” says Mark Zeitoun, from the London School of Economics’ Centre for Environmental Policy and Governance in the UK. “But that’s not to say water shortages will not contributing to existing tensions.” This is already happening. Zeitoun advises the Palestinian authorities in their water negotiations with Israel. The latter controls 90% of the two territories’ shared water resources. “The fact that the Palestinians are deprived of their water doesn’t help the situation,” Zeitoun says. Like Spain, the Palestinian authorities are considering their options…
Bit of an understatement, that, “can’t help the situation”. If people can’t drink water… So, two things on this article.
1. If people will not fight over water, are they ‘wars’? Have we not seen the mistaken and propagandist use of this term too much recently (’war on terror’; ‘the long war’). Why not water apartheid, when the situation is one of one country controlling the other’s supply?
2. Is it clear that people and countries are not fighting over resources such as water, or say oil?
Yes, water management is going to be an increasingly important global issue. Which is why we need to be responsible with the rhetoric and use of the term ‘war’. Immediately, this article is about economic and agreed trade between two countries, Spain and France. It is not the start of a ‘war’ but of a means, as the quoted Zeitoun goes on to emphasise, of ‘efficient water management’ through trade. Not that I’m a big fan of turning to trade, but that’s besides the point and I’m wrong here anyway, still thinking of my Marxist ideals.
Anyway, let’s not use ‘war’ where it’s not the correct referent for that particular story, otherwise we muddy the waters, if you’ll pardon the metaphor.
Second, and critically, water ‘is’ the cause of clashes already, ‘water riots’ as Zeitoun’s colleague Elena Lopez-Gunn calls them, and are happening now… in Tibet.
One of the most underreported factors of the China-Tibet debate is the ‘why’ China is in Tibet. There are a number of reports that would seem to suggest or provide evidence that water is one of the key factors. For example, China’s plan to divert water from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to the Yellow River (this from the Chinese Government’s official news source, Xinhua). It is also the cause of clashes (political at the moment) between India and China. Others believe the issue will not remain political for long: that the issue is a ticking time-bomb. And the Tibetans get no say?? For a statement from the Goverment of Tibet in Exile on their environmental issues, this is their white paper on the environment: Tibet is the watershed of Asia.
Well done the Independent for covering the story at the time, back in Nov 2006. But why not now, as part of the background to the Tibetan clashes?
And I can’t help worrying about the ‘nothing here’ message found at www.tibet.net, when Google searches clearly show that the issue of water is debated on the site: ‘Tibet is China’s Saudi Arabia for water’ is one such headline.
Review of Friction.TV
Just reviewed this site for the JournalismEnterprise.com blog, run by Paul Bradshaw over at Birmingham City Uni. You can read the full review over there.
What do they say it is?
“Friction.tv believes that disagreement - or friction - is a vital element for a healthy debate, to reach new insights and to find out what’s really going on in society. We need disagreement before we can start to find some answers… an interesting and stimulating alternative to the sanitised, agenda driven mediocrity of the conventional mass media.” What do I say it is? A formulaic video publishing site that relies too much on the soapbox for its claims to be an alternative media platform
Read the full review on JournalismEnterprise…
Bias against climate change in US textbooks
This story on political viewpoints getting on university reading lists (in the US) is an important one, as it shows how the good ol’ American tradition of inserting bias into education has reached a teaching of the enviro
nment.
As some of the comments on this article say, the textbook in question (’American Government’) is a politics book, not a science textbook. And the point being…? Any publishing on issues of science must get the science right. And there’s a lot of bias around. This is a nice article on the seven types of curricular bias to watch out for.
Restricted to America? Not at all. Some archived articles covering bias in textbooks from Italy, Japan, the Czech Republic, (article from one of my favourite sites, the F-Word). And not one of my favourite sites, those homophobes and xenophobes over at the BNP even think it’s a serious issue.
Good to know Grist has its eyes on this for environmental oversight (as in the US meaning of the word, not the British). Grist editorial is a good example of covering environmental issues. They say their coverage is “gloom and doom with a sense of humour. So laugh now — or the planet gets it.” The idea that people get turned off by negative coverage was covered Futerra’s report on UK media coverage of climate change. You can downoad the report here: Futerra Media Report.
Your views: teaching journalism at degree level
Q. What do you think are the benefits for new magazine journalists of a specific, skills-based vocational degree in journalism? (Add your comment below)
Having worked as a magazine journalist since 1994, both in print and online, and having now taught since 2005, I am passionate about making sure that our students get the best industry-relevant degree available.
There has been a credibility gap between academia and industry regarding the teaching of journalism. This is something that as a journalist, editor, managing editor and now academic, I want to do my best to address.
In September 2008 we are launching two new degree programmes aimed at training the next generation of magazine journalists.
Your feedback will be invaluable in helping ensure our students get the best possible degree. Thanks.
Take a look at the programme information for the undergraduate programme for more info, or get in touch, alex[dot]lockwood[at]sunderland.ac.uk
Yahoo! Shine, WoW should woah…!
‘New media, new women’s media’. So say the launch publishers for Women on the Web (the url www.wowowow.com, as the Guardian writer who brought it to the UK’s attention noted, had to be purchased from a porn provider). The site has some high profile backers and bloggers, and is another sign, according to Viv Groskop writing in The Guardian, that:
women are offering up intelligent online content that stands in stark comparison to the narrow focus of many of the women’s magazines to be found on the news stands.
I’ve been following women’s magazines online for a while (especially the FWord and TheLipster, after I was introduced by some friends who were organising Ladyfest Brighton (ps. yes I’m a bloke)) and the Guardian article piqued my curiosity, so went to have a look. I was excited with the launches of Monocle and (less so) Intelligent Life last year–predominantly for the male market–and thought this might be the year for more on the intellgent women’s title and a freeing up of the magazine space. Of course Nova tried the comeback in 2000, and it fell flat. But we’ve moved on a lot since then.
Of Wowowow, I’ve not been the only one to think what the hell happened? It looks terrible, firstly, but more importantly what you get from the off: horoscopes, fiction about fat women, lying women, timid women…; Question of the day: “what musical comedy from your or your parent’s youth still resonates with you today?” And now Yahoo are getting into the market, which at least looks a hell of a lot better.
Same categories (health, sex etc) because it’s not essentially a new title, but an aggregation of some of the bigger publishing names already existing, e.g. Elle. It is developing its own editorial team, but it’s plugging directly into the mainstream women’s magazine market. I’m going to come back to this, because I fear if I/we don’t, then this new space we’ve found to express our independent interests will itself become owned by and characterised as a mainstream place of publishing.
A degree’s worth…?
I’ve had a couple of conversations with my students regarding the value of degrees.
For example, one student, who runs themusicmagazine.co.uk, a pretty sharp self-made music, err, magazine, was wondering what the value of a degree was when he could easily publish and develop as a journalist without having to attend lectures. Particularly when he and many others were feeling those lectures were not relevant enough to their needs, especially for those on the magazine journalism route. Not now, not paying fees. (Talking to a colleague today, he was the second to mention in the last couple of days the increased disgruntlement of students since fees were introduced. I can’t believe any/many are going as far as prostituion to pay their fees, though, as reported in The Times. Don’t do it, Scott…)
My response seemed a good one, so I thought I’d share it with some others. Read more
BBC website: experiments in convergence
It hasn’t exactly crept up on me. I was aware of the BBC plans, as I was working on a similar design build at my last editorial management job. Ajax technology, the dashboard, coverging media, putting the user in control as the philosophy behind the new careers site, Creative Choices. But now the BBC changes are here, like a number of other people (and not all of us are naturally averse to change) I’m very unsure. No, I’m clear. It’s the turning back of the clock… the ‘room to breathe’…
I’m not talking about summer. As one of the most popular sites in the UK, a large percentage of the online audience will have noticed, and had a reaction to, the BBC’s new design. Reading the Sports Editor’s blog on how the changes have filtered down to BBC Sport the revamp is explained as a need to maintain pace with convergence:
Much of the talk in media and technology circles is around convergence, with the boundaries between radio, TV and new media blurring all the time. Audiences are entitled, and increasingly expect, to get the best mix of words, still images, moving pictures, audio and interactivity in one place, on a single platform. That’s what we need to be able to offer our users, which means updating both the look and feel and the functionality of bbc.co.uk/sport.
This makes sense for a big hitter as the BBC, and you can see the importance to the corporation of adaptation.
The Sports Editor has also done a welcome chronological montage of the major site changes over the last eight years, from yellow back pages and Web1.0 right bang up to date with new technologies such as AJAX for its drag’n'drop homepage dashboard, reminiscent of netvibes.com and iGoogle. The problems as I see them are… Read more
