alexlockwood.net

Yesterday I wrote about protests by publishers and car manufacturers against plans by the EU to introduce compulsory rules governing pollution info on car advertising. In last night’s 7pm Channel Four flagship news programme, the producers covered the story (good) but relegated it to the ‘And Finally…’ slot (bad) generally reserved for the more lighthearted story of the day.

I want to pick up on this, because news media play an important role in developing the public’s broader understanding of political and health issues.

Is Climate Change a serious issue or not?
Serious political and health issues are well covered, in general, by C4. And, just like smoking (the example C4 used as a parallel), climate change is both a political and health issue. So why the almost clownish approach? Watch it for yourself:

By relegating the story to the lighter-hearted final slot, through its ordering of scenes and interviews, by its very headline (’Driven to Distraction by Brussels’) and therefore by its emphasis on certain aspects of the story, the importance of the issue was downplayed. If this health threat concerned fire hazards in toys or flooding in the home counties, would it have be covered in the same way?

Media’s blind eye to advertising
No. And the reason is, I feel, the fact that advertising came into the mix. This report provides what I see as an example of the ‘institutional blind eye’ from which media suffers in relation to advertising. Generally this comes, in relation to climate change, in the form of charges of hypocrisy levelled at writing articles criticising government and business, but accepting advertising money from polluting products (airlines, car manufacturers etc). MediaLens picked up on this. For the Guardian, Monbiot and the readers’ editor responded.

But last night was interesting in that the turn of this blind eye became in many ways more subtle, challenging and, I feel, dangerous. The relationship moved beyond one of reliance, to one of defense: that is, this report, this news piece, made advertising the hero, in exactly the same way the car is made the hero by advertising.

When it comes to advertising, the source of most media’s survival, deeply embedded institutional senses and defences kick into play. The interview with Rob Lawrence, Advertising Director at Avenue-A Razorfish, was exemplary of this. Interviewed on the top of a building and looking up into the camera (techniques to make the subject engaging, respected, clear), Rob reflected on how the smoking advertising restrictions ushered in one of the most creative periods of narrative advertising in its history. Depsite the warnings on packets. His view seemed to be that advertising would rise again to the challenge.

Note that what we saw of his view was not that this was a correct move in helping to try and change consumer behaviour to influence car makers to become less polluting or people to take public transport. He saw it simply as a creative challenge. Whether or not Rob said these things but they were not broadcast is another question. Avenue-A Razorfish clients include DaimlerChrysler, Mercedes-AMG, Toyota, Alaska Airlines, Singapore Airlines, NYTimes CO, CondeNast…

Channel 4’s framing of advertising
C4’s framing of this perspective seemed to emphasise this as the accepted view. Their coverage was colourful (it asked an ‘artist’ to create its own traffic light system of warnings for ads, as being considered by the EU) but also heavily nostalgic for exactly this revolutionary creativity (and increasing ad spend). This was a fairly easy and obvious route to take: quickfire shots of Minis and Austins from the 1950s/1960s invested the report with a sense of golden/good times (car = part of our history; nostalgia a longing/sickness for home, for the car), and cartoon examples of what new EU laws would mean for the art of sublime car adverts.

Fair to C4, the report was balanced in that the first interviewee was Sian Berry from the Alliance Against Urban 4×4s; it then went on to show how hybrid cars were the biggest selling London models. Not, however, because of emissions, but because of avoiding the congestion charge. (The report was London-centric, a charge also made against the nostalgic piece written by Martin Jacques in the Guardian about the end of the Hummer and the car in general.) And the final interview was given to Paul Everitt, of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

John Snow looked as if he had enjoyed the report, and the ‘trip down memory lane’ it created through its black and white shots of Minis and MGs. There was nothing to remind us that this was all about people and environments dying because of pollution. Because they are already (e.g. the 2003 heat waves across India and Europe, especially Paris), and will continue to do so.”Climate change will have wide-ranging and mostly damaging impacts on human health,” warns Dr Paul Epstein in a recent study entitled Human Health and Climate Change (2005):

we may be underestimating the breadth of biologic responses to changes in climate. Treating climate-related ills will require preparation, and early-warning systems forecasting extreme weather can help to reduce casualties and curtail the spread of disease. But primary prevention would require halting the extraction, mining, transport, refining, and combustion of fossil fuels — a transformation that many experts believe would have innumerable health and environmental benefits and would help to stabilize the climate.

Turn the other cheek
It seems to be a weekend of the car. Yesterday both the Guardian and Channel 4 picked up on General Motors’ decline and the potential demise of the symbol of neo-con aggressive overconsumption, the Hummer. In an example of heightened sensitivity, I was picking up on cars in the media all over: the Channel 4 news programme was framed by cars. The two diplomatic convoys attacked and detained in Zimbabwe, where the cars were also the victims (tyres slashed). The ZIM 1-plated Jaguar of the Zimbabwean Ambassador as s/he left the Home Office after being summoned to explain the incident. Even my best mate is off to pick up his new BMW 1 Series Coupe this weekend (one of the most energy efficient on the road, he tells me).

And on Monday, National Car Sharing day, an initiative to try and cut down on the congestion and pollution made by Britain’s 33m cars.

The car may not go away any time soon, but maybe if their true costs were both in the purchase price and on the ads, consumer demand may drive even larger technological improvements. We can’t afford to turn a blind eye to car manufacture or its advertising. Examples of great creativity or not, they’re not all as benign as this cheeky fellow.