Hey, welcome back! Recently, in Dr Coleman’slecture about marine impacts, she polled the class on the specific pollutant that came to our mind and asked us what we thought the main pollutant in the ocean was. The majority of the class chose plastic, me included. Turns out, our answers were wrong, sewage discharge is the most common waste! Plastic pollution seems to be overrepresented in the media. Considering that images of deformed sea life due to plastic pollution are so apparent and common around the internet, we might have been misled to have a stronger perception that plastic waste made up the bulk of ocean pollution. This made me wonder, does the media over-report certain aspects of air pollution then?
Public perception of the causes of air pollution seems to be slightly skewed in South-East Asia (SEA). According to this study, the frequency of vehicular exhaust mentioned as the main source of air pollution in social media does not correspond to the actual data. Vehicle emission seemed to be overrepresented by the media as the leading cause of air pollution. In reality, other factors, such as power plants and usage of fossil fuel are the main contributors to air pollution for countries in SEA.
This problem of skewed perspective seems to be present locally as well. According to the NEA, the main sources of air pollution in Singapore are actually from industries and vehicular exhausts. Transboundary haze only occurs for a few months and does not happen annually. Yet, it has made such a lasting impression on the masses and receives news report whenever it occurs.
While I am not downplaying the detrimental effects of haze, I feel that normal air pollution from other sources receives less coverage. As I search for news articles regarding “bad air quality”, the majority of the suggested articles are the haze incidents.
Concerns regarding air quality seem to dip around periods without haze. Google search history for the term “air quality” by Singaporeans correspond strongly to the haze periods. Does the media under-report other sources of air pollution? Should we be more concerned? After all, Singapore did not manage to hit its target for reducing air pollution in 2019 and only had moderate air quality (Singapore’s 2019 PM2.5 level was 19.0, which is more than the WHO’s recommendation of 10.0).
The ultimate goal of news media is to generate view counts by sensationalising the story. Without a shocking headline or something relatable being written, people would not be as enticed to read the article. Mundane everyday stuff does not qualify for news. Sometimes, media companies may also have certain agendas in news reporting. Careless consumption of bias or misrepresented information may lead to incorrect views on certain issues.
Thats all for this week, stay tune for next weeks topic!
This is fantastic stuff, Jian Xi !
It makes me think about how ripe this topic is for a UROPES or FYP. I mean, investigating the influence of media on people’s perceptions of environmental issues in SG, using a combination of big data (Google analytics, for example) and surveys or qualitative interviews.
IMO, your blog is getting better and better every week.
All that said, could you pls explain the image you used here ? Like, it looks like how the # of searches changes over time, but in your text, you’re talking about how haze is at the forefront of ppl’s minds. For instance, where’s the epic haze of 2015 on this graph ?
Thanks !
jc
Hi Dr Coleman,
thanks for the feedback! I should have elaborated more on the relationship between the google search history and people’s perception on air quality. I wanted to highlight how people only care about air quality during the haze, which is why the search history for the term “air quality” peak during those periods. Other than during the haze, the search history for the term is noticeably lesser. It isn’t visible on the image I put up but the three peaks on the image corresponded to June 2013, Sep 2015 and Sep 2019. These are all periods with very prominent haze that received huge media coverage.
-Jian Xi
Hi Jian Xi,
I agree with your post in that some news outlets publish misleading articles to increase readership. However, I would like to approach the issue from another direction namely the political leanings of such outlets. It is because left-leaning newspapers (Buzzfeed, New York Times, Guardian) are more likely to report on environmental issues, whereas right-leaning newspapers (Fox News, Telegraph, Daily Mail) tend to under-report them. It stems from the need to cater to liberal and conservative audiences and maintain their respective readership. Hence, do you think that newspapers or audiences play a bigger role in bias reporting? Or are both parties equally culpable?
Cheers,
Yu Xun
Hi Yu Xun,
thanks for the question! I feel that the newspaper outlets definitely play a bigger role in the bias reporting. Due to different experiences and beliefs, people definitely will form their own opinions towards certain issues. Sometimes they may fall prey to confirmation bias , whereby they only seek out information that support or reinforce their own beliefs and ignore or reject the opposing views. Newspaper outlets have the responsibility to report unbias, factual news and should not bring in their own opinions or agenda. Otherwise, wouldn’t they just be promoting propoganda? By catering to their audiences, they are potentially reinforcing the bias of its readers, preventing them from making more informed opinions.
I believe that our perception of the world is influenced by the content we are exposed to. Those not perceptive enough might be influenced to form biased views due to exposure to biased paper. Therefore, due to the influence that news outlet holds, they hold more responsibility and should be held accountable for the type of content they publish.
-Jian Xi
Hi Yu Xun & Jian Xi,
Let’s not forget something. News agencies, no matter their biases (or lack thereof) survive by recruiting advertisers. So when you say “they should be held accountable” for their content, my question is : accountable to whom ? The readers ? The advertisers ? Because I see tension between both parties.
jc