Every day we are directly affected by issues that are improved by partisan debate. When you surf the Internet, the content you receive is mostly neutral due to Net Neutrality. When you shop at the grocery store, the prices of the foods you eat are determined by legislation that keeps those prices consistent. When a farmer sells his crops, legislation gives him the subsidies to afford his supplies and further legislation controls the prices at which he sells those crops.Some issues, however, are non-debatable. Murder, rape, burglary, perjury, etc. They are all issues whose moral magnitude due to their potential for destruction of lives and society render them non-issues. Bottom line: the idea that these activities would be allowed unchecked in our society is unthinkable, and the consequences completely eclipse the positives. Any person with a concept of morals and ethics would never consider fighting for legislation that would allow these things.
Then why is it that Global Warming, which has the potential, if unchecked, to destroy millions of lives and completely, irreversibly change our eco-system, changing society as we know it and forcing us to spend generations adapting to the environmental damage, is not considered a non-issue? Because of who's connected to it.
Continuously since Al Gore made "An Inconvenient Truth" and the issue of Global Warming made a splash with citizens and policy makers, the rght has done everything in their power to descry the concept. Despite overwhelming evidence that Global Warming is a reality, conservative pundits have done everything from attack the issue on major news affiliates out in the open repeatedly to hiring "experts"to give faux validity to their statements of untruth.
When the Live Earth 2007 concerts amassed one of the largest TV, Internet, and public audiences in history and provided a positive and proactive message towards dealing with the warming crisis, Fox News launched misinformed attacks on the concerts in an effort to undermine their credibility.
Continuously, large media affiliates have provided anti-Global Warming activists with forums on which to speak at Fox News and CNN. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity continuously bring on conservative "scientists" who pump two of the largest radio audiences in the country full of misinformation and distorted, bigoted opinions about the issue which people accept due to their claims as credible news sources.
Is this responsible reporting? Dumping stories full of purposely ignored holes and dismissed facts all for the support of a personal vendetta? That sounds a lot like the way that conservatives treat the issue of Global Warming. Ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence, proclaiming any and all solid counter-arguments as liberal media coverage, and all to take down Al Gore? It's irresponsible and it shouldn't be happening and that's why it's up to college students and up coming politicians to be custodians of the facts in a media climate that is misrepresented in terms of percentage of media coverage to percentage of Americans who share those views.
To quote a friend of mine, Jaybee who regularly posts on MediaMatters.com:
"There isn’t a lot that Progressives can do about talk radio. Contrary to what talk show hosts claim it isn’t really an open market as studies show media companies subsidizing the conservative talk radio industry to the tune of 100 million dollars per year. In that environment it’s no wonder Liberals have turned to blogs for a balancing effect and sharing information in general. Just remember, it’s going to take a lot of blogging to counterbalance almost six years of claiming Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Centers and 30 years of claiming that [the] poor [are so] because they deserve it."
Press on friends.
