Spinning Gore

[suffragette]

It's been fascinating to follow the nearly concurrent stories about the recent court case in the UK on airing "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The initial headlines about the court case - and there were many of them - all seemed focused on making the case that Gore's film was found to be wrong in some way.

These included:
"UK judge rules Gore film 'exaggerated'"
"Judge in Britain rules Gore's climate film has 9 errors"
"Britian Judge Cites Errors in Gore Documentary"
"Judge rules Gore's film an inconvenient catalogue of errors"

And on and on.

Headlines are supposed to encapsulate the article and they certainly point our minds in a particular direction while reading an article. These headlines all shined a tight, focused light on emphasizing the part of the case which purportedly found the film to be in "error." A reader just skimming headlines and these articles would certainly have the impression that there are major problems with the accuracy of Gore's film.

Now let's take a look at a couple of paragraphs I found part way through an article that reported on both the Noble prize win from http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/World/Politics/Al_Gore_IPCC_Nobel_Peace_Prize_Controversy__4889.asp:

"Meanwhile, in the lead up to the announcement of Mr Gore’s award, a UK high court rejected an attempt by political activist Stuart Dimmock to legally ban the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in British schools.

In his judgement, Justice Burton said that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.” However, he said the science remained unclear on nine points made in the film, and decided the film could be shown to students only if they were given notes addressing these points."

Hmm, how different all those headlines would appear if they had focused in this direction instead, the headline being something like "UK high court rejects attempt to ban showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in British schools." The content of the articles would still remain the same, but the emphasis in the headline and the reader's mind would be on the fact that the judge ruled the film could be shown in schools, which is the case, and the vindication of the overall accuracy of the film, also the case, in fact. Fascinating how much of a difference the title makes, isn't it?

Since the judgment, articles have come out that counter even the few items the judge addressed, from New Scientist and Science Blogs Deltoid. And some of the headlines about the case are now shifting emphasis: "U.K. Judge OKs Gore Film For Schools" at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/eveningnews/main3364834.shtml

And it is starting to be reported that the person who brought the case received his funding from fuel and mining industries, industries that have a clear interest in undermining (couldn't resist) environmental efforts: "Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film" http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html



What I wonder is what interests were behind the formulating of the headlines to spin the story in the first place?