Naturally two left-of-centre papers compete for readership to some extent; most relevant to us is how they divide over environmental issues. Whilst I would be very wary of saying the Guardian is becoming 'less green', the Independent does appear to be getting more so. Which becomes an issue of competition. When a paper backs a campaign as wholeheartedly as it did CCC's for the past few weeks, I would say it has a knock-on effect on the rival paper's outlook.
Without inflating the importance of this, let's quickly examine the scale of the Indy's coverage:
- 4 out of 7 days’ front pages were on green issues (rainforests, Nuclear power, Europe's ecological impact, the Climate March coverage on Saturday).
- Sunday’s coverage of the marches and editorial, completely unmatched by any other paper, including the Guardian /Observer.
- The willingness to publish large amounts of correspondence related to these articles on the environment.
- The banners it provided for the march.
Of course, the Guardian has been consistently attentive on green issues too, and can sport better writers and bigger names – George Monbiot, John Vidal; it also has the Environment section to its Society supplement every Wednesday. So there is, one hopes, no question of it becoming less supportive in the long term. But if we are to find a reason for the relative lack of recent coverage for CCC specifically, and particularly the puzzling anti-march article by Catherine Bennett (printed 01/12/05), we might look to inter-paper rivalry for an explanation.
The lessons to be drawn from this? Whilst we very much appreciated the Indy’s coverage, it’s just possible that less attention from it could have spread the overall coverage wider.
As for other papers – is there any chance we might spread green concerns to other sections of the media? I see an opening coming up. David Cameron, set to become Tory leader tomorrow, is predicted by some to realign areas of political debate – to “talk about the issues the [Tory] party is not associated with, such as the environment, and reject traditional Tory tunes such as immigration and Europe†(Andrew Grice, the Independent, 03/12/2005). This could be more wishful thinking from the green Independent. But if it proves accurate, other papers might yet be turning to environmental matters – if only to rally behind Cameron and batter Blair.
Catherine Bennett's article
With reference to this article in the Guardian, I spoke to several people on the march who'd only heard about it because of that article, and were undeterred by it's negative opinions. So perhaps, as they say "there's no such thing as bad press coverage".
David
The Bennett article
Yes I agree. She stated the objective of the march, that there was transport from all over the country - "coaches from Bangor, Barnstable", that it was safe for families - "write your mobile number on [your child's] arm" and that it was happening on Dec 3. What more could we ask for?
Tories to Push Environmental Issues to the Fore
I think the speculation about the Tories leaning towards an environmentally-friendly public image was started at the last party conference when Zac Goldsmith gave a speech and said he would be standing as a parliamentary candidate at the next election.
I doubt I'm alone in my scepticism in the long term, but some pressure on the government will obviously be highly beneficial.
...The Times goeth green?
Thought I'd just revive this thread I started back after the Dec 3rd demo. Is it too obvious to say that, in the wake of Cameron's 'greening' of the Tories (however shallow you may think that to be), the Times has taken a fresh interest in environmental matters? In last Saturday's Times (18/02/2006), a large front-page banner proudly advertised a free Green Guide to be found inside. Underneath it was an ostensibly environmental article - about a (medical) radioactive leak; p.7, a full-page article on the amount of CO2 released by importing bottled spring water. Underneath that was a short piece quoting Zac Goldsmith on how the Conservatives wouldn't introduce a 'green tax' to tackle environmental problems - basically a dig at Chris Huhne, see below. Finally there was an editorial on Being Green.
Though nothing that was said in the paper would have been new to a Guardian or Independent reader, I thought it rather green for the Times. Can anyone who reads the Times more regularly comment on this? Is there a discernible trend? If there is, it must, I would have thought, be entirely down to Cameron.
Lastly, Chris Huhne, who is - at present - the front-runner in the Lib Dems' leadership contest, and a proponent of 'radical green taxes': http://www.chris2win.org. Yet more good news? I hope so. I can't quite work out at present, though, whether the environment is becoming a voting issue or one which just has to be paid homage to by all parties. But I think the level of debate is getting more interesting, since politicians are now arguing publicly over the methodology of carbon reduction, not simply saying 'something must be done'. We shall see. Will 2006 be the year green issues really become mainstream? (Just like they said about 1970, 1974, 1989, yadder yadder... ;))
The Media Subgroup
We need to convene this subgroup urgently. Please anyone with skills and interest in this area get in touch with Duncan Law at dl@duncanlaw.co.uk who for the moment is trying to convene a first meeting. There is lots to do, initiallly finalising our remit and putting a Media Strategy in place with time-lines for Nov 4th and the other events before that.
Hope to hear from you.
Quote in the Independent
The Independent had an article bashing Prince Charles' aviation record today - interestingly we had a quote at the very end:
"A spokesman for the Campaign Against Climate Change said: "It's a symbolic thing, setting an example to other people which Prince Charles is not doing when he could do it." "
Well done on that, whoever it was! We're seemingly having some success building a relationship with the media :)