Newspapers and Serious Issues

Looking at the top five highest selling newspapers in the UK, you can only really say that one of the papers; being the Telegraph, covers stories about serious issues that are effecting our world. It covers political, environmental, social and economical issues in detail. The other four papers being The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and The Daily Star mainly cover stories about the latest reality TV star or gossip about who's dating who in the celebrity world. These are stories that basically have no effect on the reader's lives and yet people still buy these papers. If you look at The Sun's website's homepage which contains stories about celebrity big brother, Jordan and Ndubz, http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/. If you then look at The Telegraph homepage which contains stories about the Haiti earthquake, financial issues and the conservative's latest plan's if they were to win the general election, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.

I believe as because papers like The Sun are being read by three million people on a daily basis then surely they should have a responsibility to be covering serious issues in more detail so people are better informed and educated about issues that could seriously effect them. Because they mainly cover issues about celebrities and so on, people aren't being informed about the serious issues and it means that they probably don't think it's as important as it actually is. Having said that The Sun's main aim is to try and sell papers, and therefore they only put things in the paper that people want to read. This means that if people don't care enough about global issues such as climate change then tabloids won't print as many articles about it.

I do believe that tabloids and low budget entertainment have too much power because it influences a high number of the population. If it's in our papers in the morning and on our tv's in the evening then it's very hard to get away from it. However if these thought un-provoking programmes weren't so popular then our screens wouldn't be filled with them. It might be because they're in the papers so much that they are popular in the first place, either way papers will continue to try and sell papers instead of printing factual information on global topics and issues.

Are We Informed

I believe as a citizen it's very important that I should be informed. If we're all informed we're more educated about serious issues going on in the world around us. As a result of being informed we know what we need to do to try and combat certain issues for example global warming, turning of plugs etc. Also recycling we know it's important to recycle because it tries to prevent the exploitation of resources that are running out. If nobody was informed on these issues then we wouldn't be able to do anything about it which could then have serious detrimental affects on our environment and society. The more people are informed the easier it is to understand why such issues are important to us and the reason why they could or will affect us.

I do feel that I'm pretty well informed however that's probably because I read the newspaper regularly and look at news websites to keep myself updated with what's going on. Some people could easily avoid being informed by not watching television or listening to the radio. I think I'm more informed out of choice than anything. I believe that I have a good understanding of current issues, like global warming for example. This is because I'm being informed about it regularly and being informed of why it's an important issue in today's world.

I feel i get informed mainly through the media, Internet, TV, radio and newspapers. I also get informed through education as well. As I've studied geography for quite a while I've been informed about serious environmental issues, development and poverty. People who don't study a subject which has relevant information about current affairs may feel that they're not as informed as they'd like to be.

I think serious global decisions should be made by the people who have the most knowledge on the subject matter. However I also think that the people who are going to be most affected by the decision should have a say as it will be them who will have to deal with it and they probably know what's best for them.

Al Gore - Nobel Peace Prize

The reason for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded is as follows: "One part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresse." This extract coming from the will of Alfred Nobel.

Looking at the reason as to why the Nobel Peace Prize is given then I don't believe it was right to give it to Al Gore who is an essentially an environmentalist. I do think climate change is very important and the evidence that Al Gore brings up in An Inconvenient Truth has been very important in making global warming more widely recognised as a serious problem with governments and the public. However by definition the Nobel Peace Prize should be given to someone who's bought peace between nations, or someone who's managed to abolish violence in a country. I can't really any peace made after this documentary, which sort of defeats the point of it being called the Nobel Peace Prize.

Having watched the video for the first time, I was definitely impressed with the information and evidence that was bought up throughout the video. I also thought that Al Gore did a very good job at communicating the information across, with a series of graphs and clips which showed how bad the effects of global warming could be for everyone. Having said that however, after the film's release a school Governor appealed for it not to be taught in schools as some of the "facts" were inaccurate. A judge scrutinised it and found 9 Errors in the film. One of which was that sea levels would rise over 20ft in the near future, however it would take over a thousand years. Having read the errors of the film then you begin to think that Al Gore was probably using scare tactics to try and make as much money out of the film as possible.

I think the film was very effective as it set out what it wanted to do, in raising the awareness around the globe about climate change. I think there's been a lot more news about global warming since the video, and there's been more government initiatives on trying to combat climate change for example TV advertising telling us to ride bikes as opposed to cars and switch off appliances by the mains etc. I think it also made people realise that it was more a man made problem as opposed to a natural one, and as a result made more people think they could do something about it and change their lifestyles.

I do believe that the video has the ability to change people's minds about how they view their role in climate change. However if people read about some of the inaccuracies about the video then people may not care so much as a few of the scary points bought up were found to be exaggerated or just a lie. I don't think the video changed my view on climate change. I already knew climate change was happening, and that it's a serious global issue before watching the video. I also still believe that my role as one human being won't make a big difference whatsoever. Having said that I still think the video is definitely worth watching and that it's an very informative video despite having a few bogus facts.

Trying To Be More Sustainable

At this moment in time I do believe I lead a fairly sustainable lifestyle, but this is mainly because i have no other choice as I'm a student and can't exactly afford to do things which may be seen as unsustainable.

For example, I can't afford to drive as running a car when I'm at uni would be way out of my budget. I guess that's a good thing as I'm one less person on the road and I'm not contributing to the increase in CO2 emissions, and as a result not speeding the rate of global warming. Having said that if I could afford to run a car at uni then I definitely would as public transport is unreliable and you don't have as much freedom. So in that case my lifestyle is only sustainable because it has to be.

There are many ways that I can improve my sustainable lifestyle, which are out of choice. I could do more recylcing and as result decreasing the demand of natural resources by reusing materials etc. When I'm making a cup of tea I could boil the exact amount of water needed instead of using up power which I don't actually need. I could also turn the tap off when brushing my teeth instead of letting it run and therefore save water.

I could do all of these things if I really wanted to and potentially make a difference to the world, and to a certain extent I do try to do this as it doesn't take much effort at all. However I still don't really believe that one person can really make any difference what so ever as there are always going to be people who won't try at all. I don't think there are enough people in the world who care about their carbon footprint or their sustainable lifestyle to make a big enough change to stop global warming and stop using up the natural resources.

So therefore I do believe that I lead a fairly sustainable lifestyle, however I think it will only get worse as I get older because I'll choose to drive and have less time to make efforts with other things. I also believe that my efforts won't make any difference in the slightest and I think a lot of other people would look at it the same way. Why bother using public transport if you can drive? Just to stop a bit of CO2 getting in the atmosphere, no one has seen any evidence of it making difference and a lot of people think that it won't affect them directly anyway, so why bother?