an
international and interdisciplinary journal of postmodern cultural sound, text and image
Volume 18, Fall 2021, ISSN 1552-5112
Inoculation, Climate Change and a
Post-Factual, Hyperreal World?
I.
Introduction
Building upon the postmodern concepts
of Jean Baudrillard and the branch of psychology and communication theory
commonly referred to as “inoculation theory,” this essay explores the deadliest
type of fake news in the post-truth era in the form of anthropogenic climate
change. As a maverick philosopher who
“prefigured a day when all information might become destabilized” in the
digital age in which millions of people reside within the confines of a purely
symbolic realm that is “beyond truth and falsehood,” Baudrillard’s bold
rethinking of semiotics offers a rich lens for examining the baffling
phenomenon of global warming skepticism (Coulter 6; 26). Specifically, the Baudrillardian notions of hyperreality and integral reality shed light on how we have arrived at this critical
juncture in global society “where lies, false equivalences, and pseudoscience
trump observable reality” in anti-science, anti-intellectual echo chambers or
filter bubbles (Alterman 10). The advent
of the post-factual world ushered in by late capitalism explains why conservative
politicians and pundits have been able to “delegitimize the very idea of
anthropogenic climate change” (Prasad 1222) through a steady stream of
“alternative facts” despite “a strong consensus […] amongst climate scientists
that the Earth is warming” (Williams and Bond 1). The Baudrillardian “epidemic” of simulation,
or what theorists in several fields have labelled an infodemic, is responsible for
sowing these seeds of doubt through calculated disinformation campaigns funded
by the fossil fuel industry that has become the largest purveyor of fake news
from an ecological standpoint (Baudrillard, Seduction
69).
Although Baudrillard’s concept of
integral reality unequivocally implies that resistance is futile in a symbolic
universe in which commonplace reality has been effaced entirely by banal,
consumerist simulacra, the final section of this postmodern reflection
counterpoints this radical claim by proposing counter-hegemonic techniques for
undermining the hostile takeover of the real.
It is difficult to refute Baudrillard’s position that “the matrix of
information and communication” through which the majority of
our quotidian experiences are now filtered has diminished our ability to
discern between reality and its ubiquitous representation on a plethora of
divergent screens. Even if a large
segment of the global population has undoubtedly lost the capacity to “know
what is real anymore” owing to the deluge of misinformation in which they are
submerged in anti-science echo chambers that perpetuate climate change denial
in the face of scientific certainty (Penaloza and
Price 127), evidence compiled by scholars who study “attitudinal inoculation”
and “misconception-based learning” proves that the “perfect crime” (i.e. the
utter implosion of reality) to which Baudrillard alludes has yet to occur. The digital “toxins,” or the “widely
distributed pieces of misinformation” that have created a polarized atmosphere
in which the subject of climate change is politically controversial are
certainly pervasive (Logan et al. 2; 2), but they have yet to substitute
themselves for “evidenced-based knowledge resources” completely (Walker
135). Due to the severity of the
impending environmental crisis that threatens the existence of all abundant
life on this biosphere, “[w]hat non-scientists believe about science is
literally a matter of life and death” (Williamson). If we are to stem the tide of the ecological
calamity that is upon us, the key to our survival may be to fight against “the
murder of reality” that is preventing us from taking action
in defense of an imperiled planet (Smith 79).
II.
The Transition from Hyperreality to Integral Reality
and the Inception of a
Post-Truth Society in Baudrillard’s
Philosophy
This disquieting and potentially ecocidal lack of
“trust in science” (Hopf et al. 1) inextricably
linked to an ocean of simulacra in which the postmodern subject is engulfed at
nearly every waking moment is a microcosmic reflection of the “state of hyperreality, where little distinguishes
the real and the imaginary” (Wright 171, italics in original). Baudrillard posits that the “gigantic
apparatus of simulation” which concretizes so many facets of postmodern life
has resulted in a “crisis of representation” of epic proportions (The Intelligence of Evil 27; Forget Foucault 73). The philosopher highlights how millions of
people across the globe “have mistaken the image for the real thing,” because
of the self-referential semiotic networks in which they are encapsulated (Root
237). Decades before other French
philosophers with the notable exception of Michel Serres
would start to investigate the fundamental shift in the capitalist paradigm
from a society revolving around the production of material goods and services
to an economy driven by the incessant reproduction of images laden with
symbolic value,[1] Baudrillard began to reflect upon the
repercussions of screen-based (hyper-) reality with the publication of his
first essay The System of Objects in
1968. The unconventional, post-Marxist
thinker would continue to hone his theory of hyperreality until his death in
2007. Baudrillard’s central thesis that
“the image is no longer a pathway to real things, but
has become a world unto itself” helps us to understand the initially befuddling
anti-science discourse that reverberates throughout climate change denial
filter bubbles (Root 240). The fact that
“around 20% of the U.S. public” think that “climate change is a scientific
hoax” in spite of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary lends credence to Baudrillard’s conclusion that signs grounded in
hyperreality take on a life of their own in a parallel universe of simulation
(Cook 6; 6).
In the so-called “second genealogy”
(Rubenstein 12), Baudrillard maintains that “we are entering a final phase of
this enterprise of simulation” that he terms integral reality in works such as The Perfect Crime, The
Transparency of Evil, and The
Intelligence of Evil (The
Intelligence of Evil 34). According
to Baudrillard, we now live in the “golden age of simulation” (The Intelligence of Evil 69) in which
all signifiers “have lost their referents entirely” (Penaloza
and Price 127). After nihilistically
proclaiming that “the (hyperreal) substitution of the world is total,” Baudrillard
ironically longs for the “happy days, when the simulacrum was still what it
was, a game on the fringes of the real and its disappearance” before concluding
that “[t]his heroic phase is now over” (The
Intelligence of Evil 27, my insertion; 69; 69). Baudrillard steadfastly argues that there is
no cure for the “acute crisis of simulation” that has culminated in the
inception of integral reality in which objective reality has disappeared buried
deep under an avalanche of meaningless simulacra (Baudrillard, Seduction 48). The strong version of Baudrillard’s notion of
integral reality does not even provide a faint glimmer of hope related to “the
inevitable fate of all those who mistake the image for reality” (Leak 130). Whether we like it or not, Baudrillard
affirms that “the murder of the real” and the “death of (all) meaning” are
interrelated problems that cannot be solved (The Perfect Crime 25; Seduction
81). Based on research findings from
several different fields, the final section of this essay will deconstruct
Baudrillard’s prognosis that we are condemned to dwell in a post-factual world
uniquely comprised of a “web of stray signs” (Baudrillard, Seduction 74).
III.
The Hegemonic
Force of Proliferation in the
Post-Truth Era
Baudrillard may occasionally overstate
his main point, but his key concept of proliferation explains how “alternative
facts” that sometimes border on the absurd have generated their “own horizon of meaning” (Vincenti 196, italics in original). As Alan Logan et al. reveal, “the term post-truth
era emphasizes the sheer scale and rapidity with which falsehoods and dark
conspiracies can and do travel within our modern, interconnected world”
(8). Baudillard
hypothesizes through his theory of proliferation that there is “no exit” from the screen-based images
that the postmodern subject passively devours on her-his computer, smartphone,
or tablet (Kellner 128, italics in original).
Baudrillard’s notion of proliferation implies that when simulacra are everywhere, any frame of reference to an
outside reality vanishes. For
Baudrillard, “profusion is the most striking characteristic” that renders the
destruction of reality through omnipresent signs possible (La Société de consommation 19).[2] With
the birth of the digital revolution, Baudrillard describes the phenomenon of
profusion as “a carnival or mirrors reflecting images projected from other
mirrors” (Kellner 128). For those who
seek refuge from the unending onslaught of seductive simulacra, Baudrillard
declares that it is too late.
Offering an operational definition of
his theory of proliferation connected to what he refers to as integral reality, Baudrillard muses, “by
giving you a little too much one
takes away everything […] the more immersed one becomes in the accumulation of
signs, and the more enclosed one becomes in the endless over-signification of a
real that no longer exists” (Seduction
30-33, italics in original). Owing to
the “vast and extensive media networks and techno-sciences in which our lives
are immersed,” Baudrillard avers that we have lost our already tenuous grasp on
reality entirely (Coulter 4). When we
are constantly saturated with a flood of empty images, “the system cracks up
from excess” leading to the “collapse of the information systems” that we are
witnessing firsthand in the post-factual world (Baudrillard, The Transparency of Evil 192; 193). It is through the hegemonic force of
proliferation that “virtual reality substitutes itself for the real world” (Barron
391). Baudrillard maintains that the
post-truth era is concretized by “the invention of an increasingly artificial
reality such that there is no longer anything standing over against it or any
ideal alternative to it, no longer any mirror or negative” (The Intelligence of Evil 34). In the context of climate change denial
fueled by post-truth metanarratives, Ajnesh Prasad
probes the dangers of living in a world in which “all representations of
knowledge are equally valid and equally valuable” (1217). We have reached an alarming point in which
millions of people can no longer discriminate between truth claims that are
grounded in evidence and sound logic and “alternative facts” inspired by
ludicrous, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories because of proliferation.
IV.
The “Illusory
Truth” Effect Disseminated through Climate Change Denial
Echo Chambers or Filter Bubbles
The “illusory truth effect”
empirically examined by researchers from multiple disciplines supports
Baudrillard’s theory of proliferation. Scholars have discovered that “repeated
information is often perceived as more truthful than new information” for a
large percentage of the global population (Hassan and Barber 1). Moreover,
mounting evidence suggests that “repeated statements are easier to process” for
many individuals as well (Fazio et al. 993).
It is perhaps in this sense in which Trump’s “post-literate,” redundant
rhetorical speech should be understood (Moyd and Komska). Although it
has been speculated that the extreme repetition that is emblematic of Trump’s
conversational style is a reflection of a limited
lexicon, it is also possible that the former president is keenly aware of the
power of the illusory truth effect. In
this regard, Trump’s incessant repetition of the same words that some people
find to be mind-numbing may be strategic.
As Seong Hong observes, “U.S. President Trump
recently highlighted fake news on global warming when he revealed skepticism
toward global warming by repeatedly tweeting that humans
are not the primary cause of global warming.
He has tweeted more than 120 times on global warming since 2005”
(2). Instead of possessing a weak
vocabulary, Trump may understand that “repeated exposure to fake news causes it
to be judged as more accurate and repeating information increases its continued
influence” (Drummond et al. 3). Armed
with the knowledge that people can be skillfully manipulated through redundant
tweets and retweets originating from ostensibly fake news sources, it is
plausible or at least possible that Trump et al. intentionally reinforced
patently false and misleading post-truth metanarratives about controversial
topics, such as climate change and subject matter for political gain. Regardless, the illusory truth effect
explains why a recent report uncovered that “more than half of American adults
are unaware that a consensus (about climate change) exists, with 28% believing
a great deal of uncertainty remains” (“Fake News Threatens a Climate Literate
World,” my insertion). “The structural
and social features of social media have facilitated the development of echo
chambers” (Cook 9) that “destroy truth altogether” through proliferation and
the illusory truth effect (Gabler qtd. in Lopez and Share 2). “Outlets […] known for peddling in conspiracy
theories and disinformation” related to global warming recognize that repeating
dubious truth claims ad nauseam that
have been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community will increase their
perceived veracity (Lutzke et al. 2).
Given that “users online tend to
acquire information adhering to their worldviews” from certain sources (Cinelli
et al. 1) where they “are mostly exposed to viewpoints they already agree with”
(Cook 9), the problem of confirmation bias is one of the psychological and
structural issues undergirding the evolution of anti-science, climate change
denial filter bubbles. For those who
have already convinced themselves that global warming is a hoax, “information
silos” (Pulliam 35) abound where they can validate their unfounded, post-truth
conviction that “climate science is illegitimate” (Cook 9). Online echo chambers are the latest and the
most perilous form of obscurantism where millions of web surfers only take into
consideration “news stories that are in line with preexisting narratives” (Grüner
and Krüger 1). When internet subscribers
only “search for information that supports their beliefs and
ignore or distort data contradicting them,” they will essentially believe any
conspiracy theory no matter how outlandish it is from an objective perspective
(Peters 1). A case in point is the
purported “QAnon conspiracy about pedophilic Satan
worshipers in politics and the media” to which many conservatives in the United
States adhere staunchly (Witze 23). From an ecological angle, the issue of
confirmation bias is revealing in the context of anthropogenic climate
change. Whereas evidence in support of
the theory of global warming has been nearly irrefutable for decades, climate
change denial propaganda continues to proliferate itself throughout cyberspace
in the post-truth age.
The dilemma of confirmation bias,
which has fostered a “herd mentality” (Logan et al. 5) within anti-science,
global warming denial filter bubbles, is linked to the disconcerting phenomenon
referred to by several theorists as the “death of expertise.” In his influential book The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and
Why It Matters that has resonated throughout academia, Tom Nichols “lays
out the case for why we are turning away from the experts and professionals in
our lives” (Pulliam 35). As opposed to
trusting the opinions of actual experts who have dedicated much of their lives to
exploring climate science, Nichol’s concept demonstrates why “fake experts and spokespeople conveying
the impression of expertise on a topic while possessing little to no relevant
expertise” have been able to polarize public opinion about the ecological
crisis (Cook 5, italics in original).
Due to the nefarious effects of proliferation and the problem of
confirmation bias, millions of television viewers or internet surfers readily
accept “so-called insights or recommendations about a subject from people who
lack the qualifications for offering them” on various outlets that incessantly
disseminate anti-science, anti-knowledge viewpoints (Lutzke
et al. 5). The notion of the death of
expertise reveals why “people no longer respect the opinions of experts” in a
post-factual world comprised of floating signifiers that stand in for reality
if they are repeated or retweeted enough in cyberspace (Yoo
4). For conservative talk show hosts who
often express their skepticism about climate change, “[t]he
purpose of the fake expert strategy is to cast doubt on the high level of
expert agreement on human-caused global warming” (Cook 5). Unfortunately, this hegemonic technique for
altering the perception of reality, or creating an alternative version of it
through the force of proliferation, is so pervasive that it has eroded public
confidence in how knowledge is objectively and methodically constructed in
scientific circles. Instead of relying
on true specialists who possess a veritable wealth of erudition, millions of
individuals place their faith in political commentators or fake news sources to
which they turn for answers that are “consistent with their […] ideologies”
(Drummond et al. 3). Furthermore,
Nichols notes how “the advent of the Internet has made it easier than ever for
every person with access to become their own ‘expert’ in all things” (Pulliam
35). The widespread mentality that
Google can solve all of life’s mysteries with a simple mouse click has greatly
contributed to the death of expertise and climate change skepticism. From the standpoint of confirmation bias and
the illusory truth effect, the issue is that many people lean heavily on
purveyors of fake news and conspiracy theories when they are scrolling through
(dis-) information on their screen. In
the Baudrillardian sense, a ubiquitous code that finds its “origins outside of
concrete reality” has supplanted the real in the simulacral imagination of a considerable
segment of the population (Jordan and Haladyn
253).
V.
The Main Forms of Climate Change Denial and the Nefarious Effects
of Mimesis
John Cook and Jean-Daniel Collomb identify the most common forms of climate change
denial that manifest themselves in hyperreal echo chambers where millions of
people are sheltered from reality through the power of simulation. Based on the results of empirical studies, Cook outlines “three main categories of misinformation:
trend (global warming isn’t happening), attribution (humans aren’t causing
global warming), and impact (climate impacts aren’t serious)” (Cook 4). In addition to these misleading, post-truth
arguments that echo throughout a self-referential network of signs supporting
anti-science perspectives, Collomb observes that
“climate change denial stems from the strong ideological commitment of small-government
conservatives and libertarians to laissez-faire and their strong opposition to
regulation […] US climate deniers often rest their case on the defence of the American way of life, defined by high
consumption and ever-expanding material prosperity” (21). The “debate” is settled regarding climate
change, but the deliberate transmission of a deluge of anti-science signs pinpointed by Cook and Collomb represents an effective “strategy of ‘manufacturing
uncertainty’ (that) has been used with great success by polluters […] to oppose
public health and environmental regulation” (Michaels 149, my insertion). Given that there is an “ever-growing
consensus within the scientific community that we have entered into a sixth
mass extinction” connected to human activities, time is of the essence (Wagler 78). It is the “misperception that there is a lot of
disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening” that is
standing in the way of conceiving and implementing a more sustainable roadmap
for the future (Ceccarelli 206). The current infodemic or information dystopia that Baudrillard calls “the murder of the
real” could soon lead to the demise of all sentient and non-sentient organisms
on this planet. While “the ocean’s
temperatures are rising” and “the level of biodiversity is being reduced,”
millions of people dwell in a symbolic universe where these established
scientific facts have been eclipsed by hyperreal simulacra (Prasad 1223; 1223).
Alan Logan et al. note that the
dominant post-truth metanarratives used to defend global warming skepticism
derive much of their strength from our unfortunate biological predilection to
imitate the behavior and attitudes of others that René Girard terms mimesis.
As Logan et al. assert, “It can be argued that many of the
Anthropocene’s grand challenges are linked to the human tendency to
unconsciously copy and mimic the behavior of others; from an evolutionary
perspective this has been an adaptive strategy, and yet imitation in unhealthy
behavior and consumption in the modern era has been detrimental at scales of
person, place and planet” (15). Girard
illustrates in seminal essays such as Violence
and the Sacred and The Scapegoat “the
pervasive and primordial role of imitation in human life” (Garrels
47). According to Girard, “the pressure
to conform is so powerful that it defies any form of rationality” (Sfetcu 54). Girard’s
theories about mimetic desire, which underscore our evolutionary penchant to
imitate without reflection for the sake of belonging to a certain social group
connected to the process of identity formation, elucidate why climate change
deniers embrace fake experts and attack renowned scientists. Although it may seem and is indeed illogical
to undermine the reality of global warming, “Human beings are the sorts of
beings that are bound to imitate one another” (Romero 2). Girard’s concept of mimesis helps us to
understand why so many people jump on the proverbial bandwagon in defense of
far-fetched conspiracy theories like Trump’s declaration that “climate change
was a hoax that China had devised to secure an unfair trade advantage” that
should be dismissed automatically (Wong).
Heavily influenced by the work of
Girard with whom he taught for many years at Stanford University, Michel Serres decries the illusory truth effect to which
Baudrillard alludes in his reflections about the perils of hyperreality. Pondering whether we will soon find ourselves
on the brink of the inception of a post-truth society, Serres
declares, “From mimicking flows
our desires […] We imitate, we reproduce, we repeat […] The major danger facing
our children, here it is: we immerse them in a universe of replicated codes, we
crush them with redundancy” (193).[3] Baudrillard insists that the postmodern
condition is even more dire because of “new forms of virtual mimesis” that bear
little (if any) connection to reality (Lawtoo
89). To be more precise, Baudrillard
theorizes that late capitalism takes advantage of “forms of mimesis and mimetic
rivalry typical of primates” including Homo
sapiens in order to ensure that the monetary
wheels never stop spinning (Grace 12).
In an economic landscape in which “all of the basic needs of the masses
have been satisfied,” the capitalist paradigm had to evolve if it was to survive
(Messier 25).[4]
Baudrillard posits that marketers
began to promote unbridled consumption of goods whose symbolic importance far
transcends their practical use value by instigating mimetic rivalries
compelling “consumer citizens”[5]
to “keep up with the Joneses.”
Specifically, Baudrillard points out that the economic system creates
artificial models including allegedly subversive subcultures to which consumer
citizens are expected to conform by purchasing a wide array of clothing items
and accessories corresponding to these hyperreal images generated on a digital
screen. Highlighting that these supposed expressions of individuality are void
of any real significance, Baudrillard affirms, “so personalization consists in
a daily realignment to the smallest marginal difference (SMD)” (The Consumer Society 90-91). The philosopher reiterates,
Differences of the
‘personalizing’ type no longer set individuals one against another; these
differences are all arrayed hierarchically on an indefinite scale and converge
in models […] As a result, to differentiate oneself is precisely to affiliate
to a model, to label oneself by reference to an abstract model, to a
combinatorial pattern of fashion, and therefore to relinquish any real
difference, any singularity, since these can only arise in concrete,
conflictual relations with others and the world (Baudrillard, The Consumer Society 88).
Baudrillard’s theories regarding how the simulators of
hyperreality have harnessed the force of mimesis like never
before explain why climate change deniers imitate the behavior of others
in online echo chambers without a passing thought. Global warming skepticism is fueled by this
genetic trait that appears to be hardwired into the DNA of all primates from an
evolutionary angle. No matter how
preposterous that anti-science discourse may be in cyberspace, it is effective
because we are mimetic organisms whose constitution of a stable sense of Self
is linked to reactive, unreflective imitation.
VI.
The Semiotic Pollution or Disinformation Campaigns of “Big Carbon”
Baudrillard’s
explanation about how capitalism had to transform itself given that the limits
of production had been reached offers insights into the intentional
disinformation campaigns that lie at the heart of climate change denial. In a global financial system dominated by
multinational titans that possess nearly all of the
capital, “[i]t is important to consider who would
benefit from a post-truth era in which science and facts are free for any
interpretation” (Lopez and Share 2).
Antonio Lopez and Jeff Share provide the following answer to this
question: “In their role as watchdog and Fourth Estate, the mainstream and
corporate media was manipulated by Big Carbon, whose strategy (honed by the
tobacco and chemical industries), was to create doubt about climate science,
and hence delay action” (4). Directing blame toward the fossil fuel industry,
Jean-Daniel Collomb concurs with the assessment that
“the climate change denial movement is part and parcel of this larger corporate
effort to hinder regulations” (3).
Official documents have surfaced that unequivocally prove that “Exxon
was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a
public issue, according to a recent investigation” (Hall). Additionally, John Cook reveals, “80% of
ExxonMobil’s internal documents from 1977 to 1995 acknowledge that climate
change was real and human-caused” (3).
Worried about protecting their unheralded profits as opposed to
transitioning to a green economy, fossil fuel executives would soon change
strategies entirely. The petroleum
industry would cynically assume the risk that 97% of the world’s eminent
scientists were wrong about global warming, thereby becoming the primary source
of anti-science rhetoric and disinformation in both traditional and online
media. Big Carbon would abandon evidence
altogether in an effort to “greenwash reality and deny
the science about anthropomorphic climate change” (Lopez and Share 9).
Since
regulations related to lobbying are virtually non-existent in the United
States, it was easy for the petroleum industry to bribe politicians and other
public officials and to sway public opinion with their “campaign
contributions.” As Sandra Laville uncovers, “The largest five stock market listed oil
and gas companies spend nearly $200m […] a year lobbying to delay, control or
block policies to tackle climate change.”
From an environmental, political, and philosophical standpoint, the
consequences of this semiotic pollution and corruption have been
catastrophic. It is only because of the
calculated efforts of Big Carbon to misinform the masses that any controversy
about global warming exists at all. The
fossil fuel industry is the main culprit in the transmission of hyperreal signs
designed to manufacture uncertainty about a subject for which there has been a
consensus for a long time within the scientific community. In his article entitled “Simulacra in the Age
of Social Media: Baudrillard as the Prophet of Fake News,” James Morris observes,
“The controversy over climate change denial is a case in point. Even when 97 percent of scientists believe
that climate change is a real phenomenon, many still refute its human causation
[…] because believing in climate change would force them to force them to
fundamentally alter their way of life, and those companies that rely on this
way of life for their income encourage this situation, such as those in the
fossil fuel business” (324). It is more
convenient and lucrative for oil and gas companies to fabricate their own
“alternative facts” than to accept reality.
Their dissemination and funding of hyperreal simulacra intended to plant
seeds of doubt about global warming is like playing Russian roulette and
loading all six chambers.
The investigative
journalist Chris McGreal reveals that the petroleum industry decided to alter
its approach with the dawn of the digital age.
Recognizing that “the simulated highway of internet” is the fastest way
to proliferate “counter-evidence” grounded in hyperreality (Nunes 316),
“research shows the fossil-fuel industry has moved away from
outright denying the climate crisis, and is now using
social media to promote oil and gas as part of the solution” (McGreal). Perhaps, the most salient example of this new
strategy is the ridiculous notion of “clean coal.” Although “contradictory evidence for domestic
resource depletion, poor regional air quality, and global climate change”
linked to coal mining is nearly impossible to discredit, big carbon has spent millions
of dollars funding conspiracy theories and fake news promoting the idea of
clean coal throughout various media outlets in the United States and around the
world (Kuchler and Bridge 136). Moreover, students in some regions of the
U.S. have been indoctrinated by a book entitled “‘Natural Gas: Your Invisible
Friend” that depicts natural gas “as an ideal, clean way to cook food, power
vehicles, and heat and cool buildings” (Kempe).
These corporate-funded pamphlets fail to mention that “burning natural
gas emits greenhouse gases and contributes to climate change” (Kempe). It is in this same sense in which recent
debates about fracking should be understood. Regardless of the dirty energy
source in question that only serves to exacerbate the ecological crisis, fossil
fuel companies realize that many routes along the information superhighway are
sold to the highest bidder. After
decades of trying to bury the findings of climate scientists, big carbon has
once again started to admit that climate change is real. However, their “alternative facts” present
the petroleum industry as the solution instead of the problem.
VII.
The Problem of
Media Consolidation and The Rise of
the Corporate Establishment Media
The hyperreal fallacy of eco-friendly
fossil fuel technology is part of the larger issue of media consolidation and
the rise of the corporate establishment media.
When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relaxed their ownership
rules, a handful of transnational corporations would begin to take over the
mainstream media apparatus. The six
multinational entities (General Electric, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time
Warner, CBS) that now control approximately ninety percent of the news channels
that Americans watch have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo from
which they have derived unparalleled profits (Lutz). The former host of the Daily Show Jon Stewart would often satirize American news outlets
across the country for literally repeating the same lines verbatim from a
carefully prepared script. This
fundamental shift in the media landscape has significantly eroded the quality
of coverage resulting in journalists on national and local networks being
presented “[w]ith a script, a screenplay, that has to
be followed unswervingly” (Baudrillard, The
Intelligence of Evil 125). For
Baudrillard, this extreme redundancy connected to the illusory truth effect is
“merely the visible allegory of the cinematic form that has taken over
everything-social and political life, the landscape, war, etc.” (The Intelligence of Evil 125). Baudrillard argues that those at the top of
the social ladder have taken advantage of simulated reality to brainwash the
masses and to conceal unprecedented economic disparities in the neoliberal age. The six aforementioned corporations
that possess a stranglehold over the means of transmitting (dis-) information
to the public cannot possibly play the role of a benevolent fourth estate or a
watchdog because they have to answer to their shareholders and board of
directors driven by the profit motive.
From an ecological standpoint, research about global warming that
conflicts with their purely economic interests must be minimized or
challenged. The so-called “life-blood of
American democracy” has been corrupted by the integrated political and social
elite through semiotic pollution (Wellstone 552).
The corporate hijacking of the U.S.
media also “set into motion an increasing polarization of news” (West and
Bergstrom 4). In
particular, it enabled “the conservative movement and especially its
think tanks (to) play a critical role in denying the reality and significance
of global warming […] by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science”
(Dunlap and Jacques 699, my insertion).
In the United States and Australia, Rupert “Murdoch gets away with
pretty much everything,” despite the “intellectual corruption at the heart of
the Murdoch empire” (Alterman 11; 11).
The news organizations “owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch in Australia
and the United States […] give disproportionate oxygen to deniers” (Robie 22). The manner in which anthropogenic climate change is framed on
Fox News and News Corp is so egregiously distorted that “James Murdoch and his
wife, Kathryn, issued a rare joint statement directly criticising
his father’s business for their ‘ongoing denial’ on the issue” (Waterson). Armed with billions of dollars and a
sophisticated means of shaping public opinion, venture capitalists like Murdoch
have succeeded in creating “doubt where it is unmerited” by validating the previously
mentioned corporate propaganda (West and Bergstrom 4).
In addition to its misguided decision
that facilitated the corporate takeover of the mainstream media, the FCC’s
fairness doctrine originally enacted in 1949 would be weaponized and misused by
corporate titans to whitewash reality for “their own ideological objectives”
(Prasad 1218). The concept of “balanced”
coverage representing all sides of a debate may sound good in theory, but it is
“critical to discern what constitutes neutrality” (Jones et al. 65). The problem with balanced reporting, as it is
commonly misunderstood, is that this principle implores journalists to give
equal weight to opposing viewpoints even when all of
the evidence is squarely on one side.
The “conventional journalistic practice of being ‘fair and balanced’ by
allowing different sides of the climate discussion equal time” has created the
misperception that scientists are divided about the reality and gravity of the
ecological crisis (Lopez and Share 4).
Within anti-science echo chambers, “the prevailing norm of balanced
reporting has resulted in uncertainty among members of the public about the
factuality of anthropogenic climate change” (Prasad 1225). Conservative networks that traffic in climate
change denial like Fox News while pretending to be “fair and balanced” are
indicative of the “alt-right fervor of fake news and alternative facts (that)
has brought into focus the so-called post-truth era” (Kirkpatrick 312, my
insertion). The idea of balanced
reporting is an appealing concept, but it has been misappropriated by the
simulators of hyperreality as a hegemonic tool for fabricating a post-factual
filter bubble that has rendered “any and all truth claims” to be equally valid
(Prasad 1228). This journalistic standard
has obfuscated the reality that there may be two sides to every story, yet only
one of them may be legitimate based on evidence.
Another unintended consequence of
turning over the reins of the media to transnational conglomerates is that
having solid ratings is paramount for all journalists. Competitive ratings generate a solid revenue
stream for corporate media outlets. The
issue is that many individuals have a stronger desire to be entertained than to
be informed about the actual state of affairs. Citing Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse
in the Age of Show Business, Alan Logan et al. note that this “increasing
need to be amused in all critical aspects of social discourse, political,
academic and otherwise” has led to an “emerging apathy for truth” (6; 6). It is no surprise that the multinational
giants who own the media would readily give in to this demand, since they are
incessantly exploring ways to increase their profit margins, even at the
expense of the truth. For this reason,
the entertainment value of television anchors and talk show hosts is much more
important than the veracity of the truth claims that they make on air. Compared to sensational stories about
celebrities that have proven to be lucrative for all major news channels,
“climate change is a ‘ratings killer’” that does not line the pockets of
corporate CEOs (Lopez and Share 5).
Consequently, even when the establishment media acknowledges the
severity of the ecological crisis, segments devoted to climate change are often
too short and superficial.
VIII.
The Advent of
Late Capitalism and the Incessant Promotion of Consumerist Metanarratives
As scholars like Ernest Mandel
and Fredric James theorize in their analyses of the origins of late capitalism,
the new media landscape dominated by six multinational corporations in the U.S.
is also complicit in “legitimizing dubious ‘truth’ claims” that serve to
promulgate consumerist metanarratives (Berthon et al. 144). The corporations that control the major news
outlets, which are a byproduct of the aforementioned dramatic
paradigm shift in the capitalist system, could be described as the greatest
cheerleaders of neoliberal globalization.
Stories about climate change are usually inadequate at best, because most journalists promote materialistic
messages that encourage frivolous consumption and waste upon which the
financial system depends for survival that are destroying the planet. When the
limits of production had been effectively reached in Western civilization, an
economic system centered around the idea of continual growth and expansion
shifted to a throwaway society in which marketers and journalists would
endlessly peddle signs of happiness through consumer goods laden with purely
symbolic value to stimulate the economy and allegedly maximize contentment for
all citizens. In reference to the crisis
of late capitalism that forced the financial model to evolve or disappear,
Adele Flood and Anne Bamford underscore, “Needs are created by objects of
consumption and exist because the system needs them” (92). Hence, marketers and journalists spin the
simplistic, binary logic that an increase in GDP is always positive and vice
versa in order to fulfill these manufactured “needs”
linked to ecocidal overconsumption.
Baudrillard explains in The Consumer Society that companies are
always scrambling “to keep pace with the explosive growth of ‘needs,’” since the
system in its current shape would collapse if the wheels were to stop turning
momentarily for any reason (2).
Baudrillard maintains that our understanding of capitalism “thus needs
to be revised in light of a much more general social logic in which waste, far
from being an irrational residue, takes on a positive function, taking over
where rational utility leaves off to play its part in a higher social
functionality-a social logic in which waste even appears ultimately as the
essential function” (The Consumer Society
43). This new stage of capitalism
announced by Baudrillard representing a post-Marxist perspective sheds light on
how “marketers became proponents and propagators of a postmodern world view,
one in which reality gives way to hyperreality” (Berthon et al. 144). Baudrillard’s theories also reveal why a key
cog in the neoliberal machine (i.e. the establishment
media) continues to disseminate the consumerist metanarrative that all growth is positive, even forms of
development that are depleting the earth’s limited “resources,” thereby placing
the existence of all sentient and non-sentient beings in jeopardy. The transnational entities that own the
information superhighway cannot be a watchdog for consumers or the biosphere,
for they are part of “a system which is contingent upon the domination of human
and natural life” (Hardwick 372). The
unsustainable concept of unending growth and “progress” is a type of violence
that has been unleashed against the remainder of the cosmos.
The ecolinguist
Arran Stibbe identifies
this post-factual myth as one of the deadliest stories-we-live by, or “stories in the minds of multiple
individuals across a culture” in Ecolinguistics:
Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By
(6). Inspired by postmodern insights, ecolinguists deconstruct “discourses such as those of
economic growth, consumerism and neoliberalism that are at the core of an
unsustainable society” (Alexander and Stibbe
107). Although the reductionistic
neoliberal view of growth is more like an overt declaration of war against the
hand that feeds to paraphrase Michel Serres, “in
Western society, the words ‘growth’ and ‘progress’ have inherently positive
connotations” (Alexander and Stibbe 108). Refusing to acknowledge the scientific
consensus that our “endless pursuit of economic growth is destroying the
planet” and our “obsession with GDP is driving the climate crisis,” most
mainstream journalists repeat from the same script that is uniquely focused on
the monetary measure of Gross Domestic Product (Steward). Degrowth viewpoints that are more
ecologically sound are entirely absent from the conversation,
since they are at odds with the corporate agenda of the establishment
media.
Luis Pradanos
notes that the viability of the financial paradigm itself is rarely called into
question in our corporate-driven news world. As Pradanos
outlines, “We are immersed in a socially and environmentally unsustainable
globalizing system that promotes a teleological conception of progress based on
relentless competition, capital accumulation, over-consumption, energy
depletion, and debt-driven economic growth.
Neoliberal globalization generates and exacerbates the present
ecological crisis” (153). The visible
scars of the neoliberal “world war” in the Serresian sense
are all around us, yet the faulty logic of unchecked growth is still being
transmitted to the masses. There is
virtually no dialogue about the concept of “‘degrowth’ as a powerful discursive
tool to facilitate the emergence of new social imaginaries and creating new
socio-economic models that will provide beneficial ecological consequences for
living in the Anthropocene” on corporate news outlets (Reichel and Perey 242). In the
face of evidence suggesting that neoliberalism and rampant consumerism are the
problem, journalists on corporate networks laud the virtues of consumption and
celebrate increases in GDP that are wreaking havoc on the planet.
IX.
Counter-Hegemonic
Techniques for Resisting the “Murder of Reality”
Owing to the effects of corporate
media saturation and the ubiquity of consumerist metanarratives, Baudrillard
nihilistically proclaims that resistance is pointless with the emergence of integral reality. According to Baudrillard, the hyperreal realm
in which the postmodern subject now resides is so “extreme in the absence of
critical distance it grants us” (The
Intelligence of Evil 8) that “any form of resistance is readily
incorporated and assimilated back into the code” (Norris). Depicting a tragic “world from which all
reference has disappeared” (Coulter 3), the philosopher avers, “We should
entertain no illusions about the effectiveness of any kind of rational
intervention” (Baudrillard, The
Transparency of Evil 119-120). Given
that concrete action is urgently required in the Anthropocene, “[t]he greatest
difficulty with Baudrillard’s analysis is that he does not propose a way out of
the condition of hyperreality” (Mannathukkaren
428). For a frustrated climate scientist
or an environmental activist, Baudrillard’s radical semiurgy
initially appears to lead to a dangerous impasse. If “the murder of reality is a crime that
alas cannot be solved […] precisely because all ‘critical distance’ […] has
vanished into the play of signs,” there seems to be no hope for avoiding the
apocalyptic doomsday scenarios outlined by the scientific community (Smith
79).
Nevertheless, if we reject the strict
version of integral reality,
Baudrillard’s framework for deconstructing banal, commercial simulacra
represents a point of departure for conceiving counter-hegemonic techniques
connected to the erosion of reality in anti-science echo chambers. The budding field of inoculation theory in
psychology demonstrates that people of all ages, especially young students, can
be taught to identify and dismiss the “alternative facts” that Baudrillard
denounces. As John Cook et al.
summarize, “one approach showing a great deal of potential in countering
misinformation comes from inoculation theory: a branch of psychological
research that adopts the vaccination metaphor-just as biological vaccination
neutralizes viruses by exposing people to a weak form of the virus,
misinformation can be neutralized by exposing people to a weak form of
misinformation” (7). Furthermore, Cook
et al. pinpoint several empirical studies which support the theory that
individuals can be taught to recognize fake news stories about climate change
through attitudinal inoculation. These
findings were replicated by Matt Williams and Christina Bond who “found that
providing information about the scientific consensus on climate change
increased perceptions of scientific consensus, as did an inoculation provided
prior to provision of misinformation” (1).
Instead of succumbing to despair or apathy, “this growing body of
research” implies that “scientists (should) communicate the consensus in order to close the consensus gap” (Cook et al. 5; 5, my
insertion). Without painting too rosy a
picture of the serious infodemic,
these studies undermine the extreme view of integral
reality by offering proof that a rather large segment of the population can
be at least partially vaccinated against fake news and anti-science
rhetoric.
Media literacy training in elementary
schools also demystifies Baudrillard’s pessimistic position that “there is no
critical distance from which to oppose” the takeover of the real in online
filter bubbles (Nechvatal). Similar to the field
work conducted by psychologists, educational theorists have discovered that
pre-exposure to misinformation, or what is often referred to as “prebunking,” can “trigger a cognitive process that
generates counterarguments to disinformation like a form of ‘cognitive
antibodies’” (“Fact or Fake” 10).
Baudrillard was correct to have sounded the alarm, but the perfect crime
has not yet been actualized since “prebunking still
has value” (Witze 4).
Although it may seem like an uphill battle against the sea of simulacra
that have hollowed out our ability to distinguish between reality and its
representation, research from the classroom proves that “echo chambers may be
disrupted through critical media literacy training” (Melki et al. 2). Based on the core principle of prebunking, many public-school science teachers have
started to create misconception-based lessons in which “misconceptions are
first activated then immediately countered with accurate information or
inoculating refutations” (Cook et al. 8).
For educators who employ this approach, their students have “improved
argumentative and critical thinking skills” in the digital age (Cook et al.
8). Despite Baudrillard’s stance that it
is no longer possible to perform “an act that punches a hole in our artificially
protected universe,” the concept of prebunking and
the application of misconception-based learning illustrate that our ability to
engage in critical reflection has not been effaced entirely by the simulators
of hyperreality (The Transparency of Evil
95).
Not only do schools have a pivotal
role to play in the fight against fake news, but research also highlights the
responsibility of museums to debunk climate change denial. Since many “visitors trust museums to provide
objective and accurate information on climate change” (Jones et al. 68),
museums are “cultural brokers in collaborative efforts around public
understandings of climate change” (Salazar 123). In an attempt to
close the consensus gap, or to inform visitors that a consensus has been
reached within scientific circles, several museums have discovered that
“exhibitions and programs can increase climate literacy and call people to
action” (Sutton 618). Even if trust in
museums “is conditional” (Jones et al. 68), “the purpose of museums more
broadly is ripe for reimagining in the era of climate change” (Sterling and
Harrison). As long as
they do not fall into the trap of being too didactic or politicizing the
climate “debate,” findings from recent studies strengthen the argument that
museums can become counter-hegemonic spaces where anti-science discourse is
weakened. After visitors have been
inoculated against fake news perspectives, they possess the necessary tools for
“constructive climate change engagement” (McGhie et al. 183).
Another counter-hegemonic strategy
for combating climate change denial is to find new angles that appeal to
conservatives. Even though the
conservative movement in the United States and abroad is not a monolithic
coalition, climate change skepticism is usually associated with the right or
alt-right. As opposed to viewing voters
on the conservative end of the spectrum as a lost cause, several researchers
have urged scientists and other stakeholders to reach out to individuals on the
right using slightly different tactics.
Specifically, numerous studies indicate that “reframing climate messages
using moral values that are valued by conservatives (e.g.
purity) has been shown to neutralize ideological influence” (Cook et al.
10). Antonio Lopez and Jeff Share
explain that “national and regional coverage can focus on food security
(production and safety), health, immigration and sports (i.e.
it’s too hot to play baseball in the summer)” instead of the usual framing
(6). When climate change has been (re-)
contextualized as a matter of national security and protecting the American way
of life, the above studies have found that conservatives are more amenable to
having discussions about the ecological crisis.
Moreover, climate change could also be effectively presented as an
economic problem that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year in an effort to sway fiscally conservative voters. Many governments have already been forced to
implement “strategies to minimize the socioeconomic impacts on climate change
refugees” who have been displaced by rising sea levels, desertification, soil
erosion, and natural disasters that are increasing in intensity and frequency
(Yusuf 1).
X.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Baudrillard’s
highly original theories shed light on how climate change denial has
proliferated itself in cyberspace through the illusory truth effect. When online users are only exposed to
viewpoints that confirm their preexisting biases on their digital screens,
there is not enough resistance to
fake news about climate change or any other issue. For all intents and purposes, millions of
people around the world live in their own alternate (hyper-) reality. As Baudrillard meticulously outlines from
1968 to his death in 2007, simulated reality sometimes appears to be on the
verge of eclipsing the real entirely.
This troubling and potentially ecocidal phenomenon linked to late capitalism, media
consolidation, and the creation of the corporate establishment media and its
“fairness doctrine” that has served to legitimize all truth claims is the nexus
of climate change disinformation. The
corporate titans including fossil fuel executives that control the (dis-)
information superhighway that has spellbound the masses are undeniably
powerful. Nonetheless, compelling
evidence suggests that certain counter-hegemonic devices can be utilized to
tear a hole in the pervasive fabric of the hyperreal before integral reality sets in completely and
the planet that we call home is irreparably annihilated. Unless we are able to
inoculate a much larger percentage of the populace against deleterious
post-truth metanarratives that question the reality of climate change, our swan
song may be on the horizon.
an
international and interdisciplinary journal of postmodern cultural sound, text and image
Volume 18, Fall 2021, ISSN 1552-5112
Notes