In one of our earlier class discussion, we talked about the cause of U.S. ineffectiveness towards environmental issues being the fact that we can’t even agree on whether problems exist. This constant disagreement between groups of people is what causes such fierce competition. In the realm of politics, the debate isn’t centered around the most effective progressive solution but rather squabbling between groups to prove their legitimacy. The competition arises so quickly because in our fast-paced world, the goal for these opposing groups is to get their voice the loudest so it is heard by the most people.
I found it difficult to make sense of both the Grist and the Friends of Science (FOS) websites. The homepage of each website is an attempt to bombard the viewer with their individual claims and proof of their integrity. This is, to me, a key problem in the climate change debate. There is a multitude of conflicting information presented to the public. From what I could tell of the websites, all the things being said were “true” facts but were completely opposite. It seems like any author can twist a fact to fit their agenda, but then how can the public decipher for themselves what to believe?
I found the Grist website overall more effective. I appreciated that all of his claims were put up on the homepage with the possibility to explore further. One of my fellow bloggers mentioned that the FOS website appeared too simple. On top of that comment, I would say that the FOS website looked more like an infomercial than an information website. I appreciated the feeling I got that Grist was simply trying to lay out the facts—whether that was reality or his effort to portray that idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment