Sunday, January 24, 2010

blogs and politics.

Thirty percent of North Carolina voters in the last election received political news from blogs, according to my Citizens and Media professor.

Upon first glance of two political blogs on opposite ends of the spectrum, BlueNC and Civitas Review, I spotted a pretty high profile topic high on the two blogs--global warming.

BlueNC's article focused on the occurrence that some insurance companies are no longer insuring homes on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, because of their high risk of flooding with the ocean rising. This entry was flashy and funny. Adding extra irony was the author's choice of words when he writes "Capitalism is recognizing something you refuse to do, based mostly either on your ignorance or perhaps on your close ties to fossil fuel industry lobbyists." The author made commentary on conservatives' attitudes towards global warming by using one of their typical weapons: Capitalism.

The comparison to England's government was quite interesting, though. It's always interesting to look at the existing examples, but BlueNC's reference wasn't quite fair. It said that the European government was starting to plan a course of action to deal with the rising problem. However, according to the selections the blog cited, the only "action" was private, non-government organizations urging the government to act fast, rather than the government saying it would act fast. The two are not the same.

Civitas Review's article worked almost as a response to BlueNC's, although Civitas Review's did come out first. Pointing out the flaws and scandals among the climate change advocates, the blog did a reasonable job of defending the conservative side: "The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers 'disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high' emerged last week that the prediction was not based on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999."

It’s a convincing example, certainly. I mean, if such a big threat was based on one interview, who would believe that? And the blog continued the example and extended to say that if this particular Nobel prize was based on faulty data, then President Obama's prize might be worth very little, too.

What I did not get on this entry, however, was the time peg. This scandal came out more than a year ago, and the study was not new. The most recent time peg in the article was Obama's Nobel prize...which really is not news at this point, either. Where's the relevance in this blog? There wasn't any prominence value, either. If this issue had anything to do with North Carolina, the author didn't make that clear.

Overall, while Civitas Review was more accurate and fair (though definitely politically biased, both blogs are), it wasn't as entertaining as BlueNC.

Reading the blogs did give me a better understanding of North Carolina politics. After getting past the high profile issue of climate change, I learned about many issues and scandals that I had never read about in the news before. For instance, I never thought that we had corruption within the ABC stores of the state.

No comments:

Post a Comment