This term it sounds pretty heavy right? It isn’t until recently that this term has become a regular term used by the world media. It isn’t because things within this day age are starting to go wrong, as Cottle (2011 pp78) states that;
Although crises and catastrophes with world-wide impacts are not of course historically unprecedented (consider, for example, the Wall Street crash of 1929, the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, World Wars I and II, the post-war nuclear arms race and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962), proliferating crises across recent decades are increasingly recognized as ‘global’ in origins and outcomes – and variously reported in such terms within the news media.
Cottle 2011 goes on further to define what a Global crises is. He states that it can be classed as a crises whose origins and outcomes cannot be confined to the nation’s borders in which a de-territorializing world that has become largely interconnected, interdependent and in a flux.
With the way in which we generate and consume news and media is has allowed us to share and interact with crises that would have normally been confined behind oceans which I feel is a good thing. Today’s media is helping us become more aware of issues relating to the world in which we live in.
But can to much debate or reporting become a bad thing. Can it start having a detrimental affect on the debated topic at hand. I would have to answer yes. Take for example one of the most heavily reported and debated global issues in the last few years and that is the Climate change debate. Whether you believe in climate change or you don’t, you have got to admit that the whole scenario has become a bit of a farce.
As parodied in the video above, our experience of this global issue is highly mediated. It seems as though the wrong people are the ones in the media, putting forward their own beliefs/opinions.
Where are all the Climate Scientists?