Climate Change Denial and Journalistic Malpractice: A Critical Analysis of Yen Makabenta’s Column
The Manila Times, a publication known for its internal debates among columnists, recently featured a piece by Yen Makabenta that sparked controversy and raised serious concerns about journalistic ethics and the spread of misinformation. Makabenta’s column, titled "Trump to reverse Biden’s energy policies, ‘saving nature for man’," attempts to reignite the climate change debate by presenting opposing viewpoints without clearly stating his own position. This tactic, however, serves to perpetuate the false notion that climate change is still debatable, a dangerous stance in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and observable real-world consequences.
Makabenta’s approach is deeply flawed on multiple fronts. Firstly, he avoids presenting a clear argument, instead choosing to highlight the opinions of known climate change deniers. This indirect endorsement, without providing counterarguments or acknowledging the scientific consensus, is a subtle but effective way to legitimize harmful viewpoints. By presenting the perspectives of individuals who dismiss climate change as a political fabrication, Makabenta implicitly aligns himself with their position. This tactic is particularly concerning given the severity of the climate crisis, which is demonstrably impacting communities worldwide. The recent catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles, a direct consequence of climate change, underscore the urgency of addressing this issue and the danger of downplaying its severity.
Secondly, the author’s apparent championing of former US President Trump’s policies, which are widely recognized as detrimental to environmental protection, further raises red flags. Trump’s stance on climate change, marked by withdrawal from international agreements and deregulation of environmental protections, is diametrically opposed to the global scientific consensus and the urgent need for climate action. By aligning himself with such policies, Makabenta implicitly endorses an approach that prioritizes short-term economic gains over the long-term health of the planet and the well-being of future generations. This prioritization is not only ethically questionable but also demonstrates a disregard for the scientific evidence and the lived experiences of those impacted by climate change.
Moreover, Makabenta’s journalistic practices are subject to scrutiny. His tendency to reproduce large portions of others’ work, while attributing the source, borders on plagiarism and represents a significant departure from accepted journalistic standards. Presenting others’ work verbatim, even with attribution, as the core of his column raises questions about his original contributions and journalistic integrity. This practice also risks potential copyright infringement, exposing both the author and the publication to legal repercussions. The lack of original analysis and the reliance on simply republishing others’ work further diminishes the value and credibility of Makabenta’s contributions.
The timing of Makabenta’s column, coinciding with the devastating Los Angeles wildfires, adds another layer of ethical concern. By choosing to publish a piece that downplays the reality of climate change amidst such a stark example of its consequences, Makabenta demonstrates a profound insensitivity to the suffering of those affected. This callous disregard for the human cost of climate change reinforces the impression that his primary objective is not to inform or contribute to a meaningful discussion, but rather to promote a specific ideological agenda, regardless of its factual basis.
The broader implications of Makabenta’s approach are deeply troubling. By providing a platform for climate change denial and engaging in questionable journalistic practices, he contributes to the spread of misinformation and undermines public trust in both science and the media. This erosion of trust has serious consequences, hindering efforts to address the climate crisis and exacerbating the risks posed by unchecked environmental degradation. It is imperative that media outlets uphold rigorous journalistic standards and prioritize accurate, evidence-based reporting, particularly on issues of critical importance like climate change.
Makabenta’s previous responses to criticism, including accusations of being a foreign agent, suggest a pattern of deflecting substantive engagement with opposing viewpoints. This tendency to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in reasoned debate further underscores his unwillingness to address the legitimate concerns raised about his work. His approach not only undermines his own credibility but also contributes to a climate of polarization and discourages productive dialogue on critical issues. It is essential for journalists and commentators to be open to scrutiny and to engage constructively with criticism, rather than resorting to personal attacks or dismissing legitimate concerns.
In conclusion, Yen Makabenta’s column exemplifies a dangerous combination of climate change denial and journalistic malpractice. His failure to present a clear argument, his implicit endorsement of harmful policies, and his questionable journalistic practices all contribute to the spread of misinformation and undermine efforts to address the climate crisis. The timing of his column, amidst the devastating Los Angeles wildfires, further highlights the ethical implications of his approach. It is crucial for media outlets to uphold high journalistic standards and to prioritize accurate, evidence-based reporting, especially on issues as critical as climate change. The public deserves access to reliable information and informed analysis, not the perpetuation of dangerous misinformation and unsubstantiated claims.
