Better to cancel the end of the world

How should we report on the climate crisis? The horror reports come thick and fast. Media people keep telling people that droughts, storms and famines are just around the corner, that the rising sea will flood the coasts and that more and more areas of the world will become uninhabitable. They want to shake up the readers, viewers and listeners so that they fly less, consume less, drive less and buy less meat from factory farming. 

And what happens: most of them continue as before. Either they shift the responsibility onto others or the state according to the motto: "I alone can't change anything anyway". Others deny the climate crisis and choose Despite Donald Trump, the FPÖ or the AfD. And many give up completely. Her conclusion: “If the world is going to end anyway, then I want to really“ let it rip ”. None of this will get us anywhere.

Encouragement instead of just horror

The internet portal earth rise about takes a different approach: Instead of scientific figures and graphics, it focuses on people who are doing something about the climate crisis and who are committed to keeping our planet habitable. They go similar ways Herb reporter, the Reef reporter and in business journalism Let's flip it. Every Friday, the portal's journalists present people and companies that are making the economy more sustainable. They tell the story of a young man who repairs broken sneakers, although it is (supposedly economically) not worth it. Another episode of the newsletter reports on the start-up Recover from Munich, which is building a nationwide distribution of reusable coffee mugs, another reports on the citizens' movement Financial turnaround, which deals, among other things, with sustainable investments.

The weekly podcast Horny Monday introduces social entrepreneurs every week who earn their money by making the world a little better. For example there I have from Africa Greentec Experienced. The young company exports mobile solar systems to Mali and Niger, where they are producing electricity for the first time in remote villages. The effect, known as Impact, is enormous. People who have electricity can start small businesses, earn a living with it, and improve living conditions in the village. You can even go there to invest money - good interest, but of course risky. 

Media consumers want more good news, but mostly click on the bad

In a Experiment For example, McGill University in Canada found that readers were more likely to read negative news than positive ones. Words like "cancer", "bomb" or "war" are more easily understood by most people than friendly terms like "fun", "smile" or "baby". Scientists suspect that, over centuries of evolution, our brain was primarily trained to react to dangers. The result: the vast majority of people assess the state of the world to be significantly worse than it is. Psychologists call this effect the negativity bias. Much has gotten better in the last few decades. You can find some examples here (English).  

constructive journalism: Name grievances AND show possible solutions

In order to get people out of their negative attitude and the resulting resignation, more and more media professionals are committed to the "Constructive journalism“In Germany there is now an online magazine that follows this concept: Perspective Daily. It not only wants to report on what is going wrong, but also to point out alternatives and document suggestions for improvement. Norddeutsche Rundfunk organized a day of discussions and talks on constructive journalism in October 2020. You can watch the recording here listen. 

Objectivity is a myth

The concept is controversial among German-speaking journalists. Many believe that as a reporter you shouldn't have anything in common with anything, not even with a good one. Among other things, they refer to the former moderator of the day's topics, Jans-Joachim (HaJo) Friedrichs, to whom the quote is attributed. At the German journalism schools, too, prospective reporters learn that they have to report objectively and are not allowed to take sides. But this claim is unrealistic. Even the selection of the stories that are printed or that go through the station is subjectively colored. Then isn't it more honest than a reporter to say what you think about the matter at hand? Objectivity reaches its limits when the media report in detail on minority opinions even if they have no factual basis. This is how corona deniers, conspiracy tellers and people who deny the climate crisis come into the media, although almost all scientists have long been convinced of the opposite and also substantiate this assessment. 

People have meanwhile got used to the climate crisis. The consequences are hardly reported any more, because we supposedly all already know what is in store for us. An article by Miriam Petzold in, for example, shows how dangerous that is and why journalists should get involved against the climate crisis enormous magazine.