Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 15 2007, 1:39 AM EST (current) | jgatsby87 | 3 words added, 1 word deleted |
| Nov 14 2007, 9:23 AM EST | jgatsby87 | 1 word added, 2 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
By: Jeffery Guillermo
One memorable scene from Brian Singer’s 1995 film “The Usual Suspects” features five criminals in a police lineup. As suspects in a truck hijacking, they are forced to each read a line off an index card in order for the authorities to identify the culprit. What follows is a completely different interpretation of the line by each person, which sets the tone for the rest of the movie.
The topic of global warming is not very different from that scene. Formally defined as “an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change,” it is a subject that has been constantly referred to in the news media, and has skyrocketed into public culture over the last few years. Yet, the phrase “global warming” is often replaced by the term “climate change,” a phrase first advanced by Republican political strategist Frank Luntz, who found in his focus groups that the term sounded more positive to viewers. What is the difference between the two phrases? The following study tracks the usage and frequency of each word in The New York Times, The Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times over the span of three months, September 9, 2007 to November 9, 2007.
The New York Times featured the words “global warming” 88 times, and “climate change” 112 times. While the occurrences of the latter term total 24 more, it does not necessarily mean that the paper leans toward the more conservative term. The context of their respective usage shows that this is not the case.
The connection betweentheusagebetween the usage of “global warming,” liberals, and Democrats is very apparent. Former Vice President and current environmentalist Al Gore is repeatedly linked to the term, notably in an article about his post-White House actions. “The speculation that Mr. Gore would win a Nobel Peace Prize began soon after the success of ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ the documentary on global warming he starred in that won an Oscar.” Even in articles that pertain to topics outside Gore’s climate work, the term is inextricable, “A day after Al Gore learned that he would share the Nobel Peace Prize, he took to the stage at a conference in Phoenix and delivered an impassioned speech. But he never referred to the honor or to his global warming campaign.” Senator Barack Obama is also linked to the term. In the lead paragraph of an article about Obama’s climate plans, the candidate “presented a plan on Monday to decrease the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming by creating an auction system requiring power companies…to pay for their pollution.” Similarly, Hillary Clinton, “a leading Democratic presidential candidate, also committed herself to a space-based climate research project to combat global warming,” is also coupled with the term.
Similar to the pairing of “global warming” and Democrats, The New York Times matches “climate change” to Republican forces. In a article that uses the word “warming” within its title, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rize “acknowledged that climate change was a real global problem.” Yet, the lead paragraph points out “how isolated the Bush administration is on the issue of global warming.” Also, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, chairman of President Bush’s Climate Change Science Program, said that the program constituted “an important initiative that has broadened our knowledge of climate change.”
The newspaper is effective in pairing the two sides with their proper verbiage, and is especially effective in using the respective terms to get a point across. In an article entitled “Artic Melt Unnerves the Experts,” the scientists are convinced “that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.” The lead paragraph of an article titled “Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders” uses both terms with deadly precision. “While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.” Also, in an attempt to unfavorably pair President Bush with the harsher phrase, while “dozens of world leaders are to gather at the United Nations on Monday for a full agenda of talks on how to fight global warming, President Bush is skipping all the day’s events but the dinner.” One story that The New York Times covered was United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s trip to Antarctica to “see firsthand the impact of climate change and the melting of glaciers.” While the term “climate change” was used in the opening paragraph, Ban told “summit delegates that global warming will be a central concern of his term as head of the world body.” Farhan Hak, Associate Spokesman for the Secretary General, said that Ban “has used both terms in the past. Most member seats have been dealing with disagreement with the usage of the terms, and the phenomenon of man made global warming was in dispute.” Benjamin Chang, the press officer for the US mission at the UN, said that the “United States has engaged in the UN on climate change last September, and the Secretary-General has made it a point to recognize climate change as an important issue.” When asked about the usage of the two terms, he was uncertain. “If they want to go to Antarctica and call it observing climate change, that’s what they did. I cannot explain why they used that particular term.”
The Washington Times, a conservative paper, features the complete opposite statistics for the two terms. “Global warming” appeared 67 times, and “climate change” 36 times. While the former tops the latter by 31 appearances, the context can prove again that the statistics are not an accurate barometer of the paper’s leanings.
The liberals and Democrats are linked to both phrases. Yet, their meanings must be taken separately from their respective usage. For example, Al Gore is portrayed as “a favorite to win the Nobel for his work on climate change,” yet he also burns up “thousands of gallons of aviation fuel and sending nobody knows how many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to contribute to global warming, just to stand by while the Nobel committee types up the press release.” Gore is linked to the weaker term “climate change” when the Nobel Prize is concerned. Yet, he is also linked to the stronger term “global warming” as he pollutes the planet by winning the Prize. Other Democrats are linked to the term “global warming,” as Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is “exploring geothermal options as political pressure builds to reduce emissions that many scientists say contribute to global warming.” Also, Democratic Presidental candidate John Edwards was chosen “as the winner of an online forum about global warming.”
The Washington Times also matches “climate change” to Republican forces. The lead paragraph of “Climate change agenda rejected; US to decide its own policies,” reads, “The White House yesterday announced the agenda for a climate change conference next week.” On a front page story about the United Nations, Bush is said to be very busy “before attending a dinner with foreign leaders to discuss climate change.” Eerily similar to the New York Times coverage, Condoleezza Rice says that “the United States takes climate change very seriously,” while the lead paragraph uses the term “global warming.” Also, in a peculiar article featuring “climate change” as a title, but six occurrences of “global warming,” the only other repeat of “climate change” is in a White House statement discussing the “reducing the greenhouse-gas profile.”
The newspaper is particularly effective in using the respective terms to get a particular point across to the reader. And, that particular point is to discredit, or marginalize, both phrases. For example, an article about eco-friendly travel, features the sentence, “reducing the effects of possible global warming.” The lead of another article reporting on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Antarctica trip depicts the trip as having “an impossible-to-pack-for global-warming agenda.” In a sports article, the author is quick to joke about how the World Series is under the threat of snow and Boston Red Sox left fielder Manny Ramirez, “both undoubtedly...a sign of global warming, the secular movement that passes as a religion today.” Another article pokes fun at the recent Democratic Presidential candidates’ YouTube debate in South Carolina, when “an animated snowman asked candidates how they would address global warming.” By turning the phrase “global warming” into a type of joke, the fearsome impact of the phrase is slowly beaten into submission.
The Los Angeles Times is a newspaper with a liberal slant, and it shows just by the statistics for the two terms. “Climate change” appears 81 times, while “global warming” appears an astounding 179 times. The statistics for the two other papers were not nearly as lopsided.
The phrase “global warming” is nearly always paired with liberals and Democrats. In an article about Al Gore and the Nobel Prize, Gore says that “he wants to stay focused on a crusade to persuade the world to take stronger steps against global warming.” In another article on Hillary Clinton's campaign, Clinton fields a question on the “long-term effects of global warming.”
This newspaper is very critical against opponents of global warming, and makes its position very clear. In a major article about Bush’s lack of commitment to the issue, the lead paragraph depicts a hard-to-reach President. “President Bush skipped the United Nations gathering on global warming for 80 world leaders in New York this week, and he had to be coaxed into attending the secretary-general’s more intimate dinner on the subject.” The President “took office skeptical about global warming,” and says that “energy security and climate change are two of the greatest challenges of our time,” paying attention to his usage of words. One major state of California news storm featured Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suing the Bush administration until “California gets permission to impose its own tough standards on automakers to curb global warming.”
“The Usual Suspects” proved that there are different ways of saying the same thing. Ultimately, Frank Luntz’s approach of “taking very traditional, simple, clear-cut words of the English language and figuring out which words, which phrases to apply at which opportunities, which times” is very effective. There is very little that separates climate change from global warming. Yet, the usage of particular words can definitely shape a reader’s perception.
Hak, Farhan. Associate Spokesman for United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Personal Interview. 11-13-07.
Chang, Benjamin. Press officer for the United States Mission, United Nations. Personal Interview. 11-13-07.
One memorable scene from Brian Singer’s 1995 film “The Usual Suspects” features five criminals in a police lineup. As suspects in a truck hijacking, they are forced to each read a line off an index card in order for the authorities to identify the culprit. What follows is a completely different interpretation of the line by each person, which sets the tone for the rest of the movie. The topic of global warming is not very different from that scene. Formally defined as “an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change,” it is a subject that has been constantly referred to in the news media, and has skyrocketed into public culture over the last few years. Yet, the phrase “global warming” is often replaced by the term “climate change,” a phrase first advanced by Republican political strategist Frank Luntz, who found in his focus groups that the term sounded more positive to viewers. What is the difference between the two phrases? The following study tracks the usage and frequency of each word in The New York Times, The Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times over the span of three months, September 9, 2007 to November 9, 2007.
The New York Times featured the words “global warming” 88 times, and “climate change” 112 times. While the occurrences of the latter term total 24 more, it does not necessarily mean that the paper leans toward the more conservative term. The context of their respective usage shows that this is not the case.
The connection betweentheusagebetween the usage of “global warming,” liberals, and Democrats is very apparent. Former Vice President and current environmentalist Al Gore is repeatedly linked to the term, notably in an article about his post-White House actions. “The speculation that Mr. Gore would win a Nobel Peace Prize began soon after the success of ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ the documentary on global warming he starred in that won an Oscar.” Even in articles that pertain to topics outside Gore’s climate work, the term is inextricable, “A day after Al Gore learned that he would share the Nobel Peace Prize, he took to the stage at a conference in Phoenix and delivered an impassioned speech. But he never referred to the honor or to his global warming campaign.” Senator Barack Obama is also linked to the term. In the lead paragraph of an article about Obama’s climate plans, the candidate “presented a plan on Monday to decrease the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming by creating an auction system requiring power companies…to pay for their pollution.” Similarly, Hillary Clinton, “a leading Democratic presidential candidate, also committed herself to a space-based climate research project to combat global warming,” is also coupled with the term.
Similar to the pairing of “global warming” and Democrats, The New York Times matches “climate change” to Republican forces. In a article that uses the word “warming” within its title, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rize “acknowledged that climate change was a real global problem.” Yet, the lead paragraph points out “how isolated the Bush administration is on the issue of global warming.” Also, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, chairman of President Bush’s Climate Change Science Program, said that the program constituted “an important initiative that has broadened our knowledge of climate change.”
The newspaper is effective in pairing the two sides with their proper verbiage, and is especially effective in using the respective terms to get a point across. In an article entitled “Artic Melt Unnerves the Experts,” the scientists are convinced “that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.” The lead paragraph of an article titled “Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders” uses both terms with deadly precision. “While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.” Also, in an attempt to unfavorably pair President Bush with the harsher phrase, while “dozens of world leaders are to gather at the United Nations on Monday for a full agenda of talks on how to fight global warming, President Bush is skipping all the day’s events but the dinner.” One story that The New York Times covered was United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s trip to Antarctica to “see firsthand the impact of climate change and the melting of glaciers.” While the term “climate change” was used in the opening paragraph, Ban told “summit delegates that global warming will be a central concern of his term as head of the world body.” Farhan Hak, Associate Spokesman for the Secretary General, said that Ban “has used both terms in the past. Most member seats have been dealing with disagreement with the usage of the terms, and the phenomenon of man made global warming was in dispute.” Benjamin Chang, the press officer for the US mission at the UN, said that the “United States has engaged in the UN on climate change last September, and the Secretary-General has made it a point to recognize climate change as an important issue.” When asked about the usage of the two terms, he was uncertain. “If they want to go to Antarctica and call it observing climate change, that’s what they did. I cannot explain why they used that particular term.”
The Washington Times, a conservative paper, features the complete opposite statistics for the two terms. “Global warming” appeared 67 times, and “climate change” 36 times. While the former tops the latter by 31 appearances, the context can prove again that the statistics are not an accurate barometer of the paper’s leanings.
The liberals and Democrats are linked to both phrases. Yet, their meanings must be taken separately from their respective usage. For example, Al Gore is portrayed as “a favorite to win the Nobel for his work on climate change,” yet he also burns up “thousands of gallons of aviation fuel and sending nobody knows how many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to contribute to global warming, just to stand by while the Nobel committee types up the press release.” Gore is linked to the weaker term “climate change” when the Nobel Prize is concerned. Yet, he is also linked to the stronger term “global warming” as he pollutes the planet by winning the Prize. Other Democrats are linked to the term “global warming,” as Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is “exploring geothermal options as political pressure builds to reduce emissions that many scientists say contribute to global warming.” Also, Democratic Presidental candidate John Edwards was chosen “as the winner of an online forum about global warming.”
The Washington Times also matches “climate change” to Republican forces. The lead paragraph of “Climate change agenda rejected; US to decide its own policies,” reads, “The White House yesterday announced the agenda for a climate change conference next week.” On a front page story about the United Nations, Bush is said to be very busy “before attending a dinner with foreign leaders to discuss climate change.” Eerily similar to the New York Times coverage, Condoleezza Rice says that “the United States takes climate change very seriously,” while the lead paragraph uses the term “global warming.” Also, in a peculiar article featuring “climate change” as a title, but six occurrences of “global warming,” the only other repeat of “climate change” is in a White House statement discussing the “reducing the greenhouse-gas profile.”
The newspaper is particularly effective in using the respective terms to get a particular point across to the reader. And, that particular point is to discredit, or marginalize, both phrases. For example, an article about eco-friendly travel, features the sentence, “reducing the effects of possible global warming.” The lead of another article reporting on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Antarctica trip depicts the trip as having “an impossible-to-pack-for global-warming agenda.” In a sports article, the author is quick to joke about how the World Series is under the threat of snow and Boston Red Sox left fielder Manny Ramirez, “both undoubtedly...a sign of global warming, the secular movement that passes as a religion today.” Another article pokes fun at the recent Democratic Presidential candidates’ YouTube debate in South Carolina, when “an animated snowman asked candidates how they would address global warming.” By turning the phrase “global warming” into a type of joke, the fearsome impact of the phrase is slowly beaten into submission.
The Los Angeles Times is a newspaper with a liberal slant, and it shows just by the statistics for the two terms. “Climate change” appears 81 times, while “global warming” appears an astounding 179 times. The statistics for the two other papers were not nearly as lopsided.
The phrase “global warming” is nearly always paired with liberals and Democrats. In an article about Al Gore and the Nobel Prize, Gore says that “he wants to stay focused on a crusade to persuade the world to take stronger steps against global warming.” In another article on Hillary Clinton's campaign, Clinton fields a question on the “long-term effects of global warming.”
This newspaper is very critical against opponents of global warming, and makes its position very clear. In a major article about Bush’s lack of commitment to the issue, the lead paragraph depicts a hard-to-reach President. “President Bush skipped the United Nations gathering on global warming for 80 world leaders in New York this week, and he had to be coaxed into attending the secretary-general’s more intimate dinner on the subject.” The President “took office skeptical about global warming,” and says that “energy security and climate change are two of the greatest challenges of our time,” paying attention to his usage of words. One major state of California news storm featured Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suing the Bush administration until “California gets permission to impose its own tough standards on automakers to curb global warming.”
“The Usual Suspects” proved that there are different ways of saying the same thing. Ultimately, Frank Luntz’s approach of “taking very traditional, simple, clear-cut words of the English language and figuring out which words, which phrases to apply at which opportunities, which times” is very effective. There is very little that separates climate change from global warming. Yet, the usage of particular words can definitely shape a reader’s perception.
Works Consulted
Hak, Farhan. Associate Spokesman for United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Personal Interview. 11-13-07.
Chang, Benjamin. Press officer for the United States Mission, United Nations. Personal Interview. 11-13-07.
