The stupid things people say
According to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), some newspapers, environmental groups and the government have been a tad irresponsible in their rather apocalyptic coverage of climate change issues.
So much so that the institute has accused them of producing "climate porn".
Now 'food porn' is an easy phrase to understand and entirely appropriate when it applies to the sort of gloriously illustrated recipe books that leave one of your orifices very wet and make you want to blow the chef (after eating the dish concerned, of course).
But "climate porn"? Pur-lease.
Does anyone actually get a stiffy from reading about how we're damaging the planet?
The gist of the IPPR's idea is that people buy newspapers and respond to statements that are sensationalistic; that people enjoy being a little frightened or shocked. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it's 'porn' of any variety.
Are these people so sad that they've never actually seen porn? Are they so sad that they don’'t know what porn is? Or are they so sad that they think that porn is bad and nasty and scary and is a good label for anything else that's bad and nasty and scary and which we all need protecting from?
Porn is great. It's entertainment and it helps to develop the vocabulary of our fantasy lives. It's escapism. It's a release. It's a way to explore ideas and fantasies. Most of all, it's a turn-on.
To describe something as "climate porn" is as crass and as lazy as people who use the word 'fascist' to describe anyone whose views they don't like.
Mind you, given that the IPPR labels the Independent as being particularly guilty of sensationalism in reporting global warming, perhaps all they're really hoping that, if the government gets its way, anyone caught with a copy of the Indy will be chargeable under any forthcoming legislation On Possession of Extreme Climate Pornography.
So much so that the institute has accused them of producing "climate porn".
Now 'food porn' is an easy phrase to understand and entirely appropriate when it applies to the sort of gloriously illustrated recipe books that leave one of your orifices very wet and make you want to blow the chef (after eating the dish concerned, of course).
But "climate porn"? Pur-lease.
Does anyone actually get a stiffy from reading about how we're damaging the planet?
The gist of the IPPR's idea is that people buy newspapers and respond to statements that are sensationalistic; that people enjoy being a little frightened or shocked. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it's 'porn' of any variety.
Are these people so sad that they've never actually seen porn? Are they so sad that they don’'t know what porn is? Or are they so sad that they think that porn is bad and nasty and scary and is a good label for anything else that's bad and nasty and scary and which we all need protecting from?
Porn is great. It's entertainment and it helps to develop the vocabulary of our fantasy lives. It's escapism. It's a release. It's a way to explore ideas and fantasies. Most of all, it's a turn-on.
To describe something as "climate porn" is as crass and as lazy as people who use the word 'fascist' to describe anyone whose views they don't like.
Mind you, given that the IPPR labels the Independent as being particularly guilty of sensationalism in reporting global warming, perhaps all they're really hoping that, if the government gets its way, anyone caught with a copy of the Indy will be chargeable under any forthcoming legislation On Possession of Extreme Climate Pornography.
posted by Amanda Kendal at 11:56 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home