‘You shouldn’t be flying with Air Miles or telling people how good they are on your website’ that was a comment I had today, followed by ‘I read an article in the Guardian, and Air Miles should be banned’
First thought was ‘you read an article and that’s immediately your opinion’ wow
Secondly ‘let’s have a read and see what it says’
I am all for mixing with a variety of people with differing opinions, it makes for a much more interesting and widened approach to life in general. How dull would it be if everyone agreed on everything? However opinions are opinions, not facts. The interpretation of information is personal, and to be respected.
This is different. The media have a responsibility to present facts, un-biased, informed, complete information that allows the reader to come to their own conclusion.
The Guardian has failed totally on this one, and dangerously given someone an opinion that they believe is fact.
They cite a report commissioned by the Independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC). With no questioning of the findings, no alternative views and no challenges or explanations for the assertations of the report.
The report from the CCC was 81 pages long. Four pages devoted to aviation and just six lines discuss the impact of frequent flyer schemes. Out of 81 pages, The Guardian make a headline of 6 lines.
The report states that surface transport accounts for the biggest proportion of a households carbon footprint at 34% followed by diet 30%, home heating 21% and aviation 12%.
Hmmm so the headline is ban frequent flyer schemes when Aviation is only 12%. Other studies show Flying (not just Airmiles) only contributes 2% to global warming. Not relevant to the article?
Rob from Head for Points has written this balanced Article which should be read in conjunction with the Guardians article. It is unlikely The Guardian will share these point with it’s readers. Why would they? They have their headline, they have shaped views.
Depeche Mode had a song on their Black Celebration Album called ‘New Dress’ back in 1986. I was 17 , and the words in this song stuck with me.
You can’t change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world
The Guardian may have been writing about Air Miles in this instance but isn’t this what is happening worldwide in all Media? Are the BBC impartial? I kind of thought that everyone knew there’s more than one side to every story, and that they would take information and do their own research, and make an informed decision but clearly that’s not the case.
And that is terrifying.
And the other side of this Air Miles story?
Next Year we are going to New York, San Francisco and Cyprus. Paid for with Air Miles. Saving over £10k on the cash fares. Would we still go to these places if we didn’t have Air Miles? Yes of course but probably taking more budget options which would be sacrificing Joy but hey ho. How does paying more for less make sense?
Flying (not just Airmiles) only contributes 2% to global warming. There’s a really interesting article here from Turningleftforless which includes reference to all the facts and figures, including BAs initiative to offset their Carbon Footprint. If The Guardian had have included all the facts in their Article, well, they wouldn’t have had an article that met their aim.
What do you think?
The post Why the Air Miles article in the Guardian is so dangerous. appeared first on Mind over Money Matters.