Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their contributions. I am very interested in and passionate about this area. My primary degree is in sociology, so I very much appreciated all the contributions. The witnesses have added to our knowledge already through their contributions. It is important to separate the advertising from the reporting and the policymaking. As Dr. Robbins said, we do not direct journalists, and there has to be a sense of independence, but we do put out press releases. As Professor Walker said, we can look at what the stages in that disruptive behaviour are and either put out press releases based on that or formulate policy in a way that will match the stages in people's lives. I do not think either of those things are being done at the moment, so I would like to see that in a report.

Are journalists, from Dr. Robbins's perspective, looking for ways to communicate on climate that will make it interesting? My view is they want high ratings and do not want to be criticised for not communicating about climate. Sometimes, therefore, the reporting that comes out is quite boring and does not catch on among the public so it does not satisfy the requirement of journalism that it develop an understanding among the general population. There might be opportunities there for some kind of training that would look at disruptive behaviour as a way to communicate from each event. From COP, for example, I could reach a certain percentage of the population by talking about babies and the impact on them because I know that a certain percentage of the population has small babies. I could put out another press release knowing that a certain number of people are between the ages of 16 and 25 and, therefore, in my communications on COP, put out something that will reach that age group. We could be much more effective from the point of view of both ratings and communication if we were to do that.

What is the impact of institutions trying to recreate themselves and therefore not wanting change themselves? Dr. Lunn spoke about the general population not liking change and backing the status quoand gave very good reasons that is the case, such as it is the appropriate way to behave as human beings. It is also the case, however, that there are groups in society that benefit from the continuation of the status quo, not on an individual level, but it is the policymakers themselves who have an inherent benefit to gain in things continuing pretty much as they are. What place does that have in the way things are communicated? Do the witnesses have information on that?