The Biggest News In 2009 Was The State Of Our Environment…Or Was It?

As far back as 1616, England's King James 1 coined the phrase "no news is good news" but he wasn't exactly referencing an absence of noteworthy current events in the paper. In actuality, he was so entirely vexed by the irksome puns continually uttered by one of his merry men that he ordered the offender to be hanged. Prior to his execution, the ill-fated joker managed to comment "no noose is good noose," and the rest as they say is history. Our modern day interpretation of those five little words might suggest that ignorance is bliss - after all, if we follow the major headlines and there is little to no mention of negative environmental issues, then we can easily presume that all is quiet on the global warming front.

Here we are in the year 2010 and there is certainly no shortage of media coverage - from the most compelling stories to the absolutely inane, our society may be in a perpetual state of news overload but we tend to gobble it up with insatiable delight. One might easily imagine that the most commonly referenced topic in 2009 had something to do with the deteriorating condition of our planet, but Good Magazine's latest-greatest infographic depicts an altogether different story. After analyzing the complete topical news summaries of the past 12 months (courtesy of journalism.com) and comparing it to data harvested from the previous two years, they determined that environmental-related news stories secured approximately 1.5% of our overall attention. In fact, the top 5 topics that garnered the most air/press time were the economic crisis at pole position followed by health care reform, President Obama's transition, the state of affairs in Afghanistan and finally America's terrorism policies.

Hmmm, that's weird. The condition of our planet and its ecosystems significantly impacts all of us as well as future generations, so why wouldn't it be given a lot more attention? Does the news media think that the constantly evolving story of our fragile environment isn't nearly as compelling as scandals, misappropriation of funds, celebrity deaths and trigger happy countries? Apparently yes. In a world where the balloon boy and the Super Bowl get more coverage than climate change, it appears that we have a seriously out-of-whack system in desperate need of overhauling. In all fairness, the previously mentioned data acknowledges that very basic yet significant eco-themed events have been covered in the past several years - however, the problem is that once the story has been told, it tends to fade into black. Is it possible that until Mother Nature socks us in the eye with a devastating blow, the media will continue taking a wait-and-see approach before giving Mother Nature the spotlight that she so desperately needs? Are reporters and writers waiting for precisely the right sensationalist angle so their story will get a lot more mileage?

Celebrities, destruction, money, politics, sex, war, murder, drugs, depravity, rock-n-roll, death...these are just a few of the reliable topics that provide the necessary fodder for a steady reader and viewership. If the lack of environmental coverage in our mainstream media all boils down to the absence of a strategic "spin" that will benefit their bottom line, then clearly they're not paying attention. If news outlets don't make it their business to educate the public on a consistent basis regarding the environmental chaos that will unfurl before our eyes if we don't change our lifestyle patterns, they'll end up having more death, destruction and war to report about than they can shake a stick at. One can only hope that they're not crossing their fingers in anticipation of that day.