On this blog I have written extensively about press and mass media and their role in this the greatest scientific and political scandal of modern times.
The sad part about this Global Warming Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, the press and mass medias role in this.
More and more people have had enough of the religious gospel that most of the mainstream media is spreading. And their willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria.
AT THE SAME TIME AS THESE MEDIA HAVE TAKEN an ACTIVE PART in SUPPRESSING FACTS and IS CENSORING AND INTIMIDATING EVERYONE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS HYSTERIA.
A truly “worthy” goal for the organizations and companies whose goals was supposed to protect and enhance freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Talking about the ultimate betrayal of all that good and independent journalism was supposed to be.
Below are two examples of this utter betrayal of journalism and the blatant hypocrisy from these “liberal” medias – TV news and New York Times. Who changes the “rules” as it suite their political needs.
And it’s no difference here in Sweden – the same “journalistic” shenanigan goes on. All in the name of spreading “the right” gospel.
ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 24, 2009 – 11:03 ET
The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists — many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
- ABC’s ”World News with Charles Gibson” Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
- ABC’s ”World News with Charles Gibson” Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
- CBS ”Evening News” Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
- CBS ”Evening News” Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie ”New Moon”
- CBS ”Evening News” Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
- NBC ”Nightly News” Friday reported on Switzerland’s supercollider being turned back on
- NBC ”Nightly News” Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
- NBC ”Nightly News” Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle’s CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
It’s not that these aren’t valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
Also consider that the news divisions of ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcast many hours during the day besides their evening programs, and LexisNexis identified no ClimateGate reports in those either (through Monday).
As for CNN, it has been broadcasting for almost 100 straight hours since this story broke, and it appears the so-called ”Most Respected Name In News” has yet to devote one second to this scandal.
By contrast, Fox News did at least four reports on this subject on Monday alone. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also done multiple stories on this matter, as has BBC.com.
Yet, despite the seriousness of this issue, as well as a prominent Senator calling for hearings to investigate it, America‘s television news organizations appear to be actively boycotting this growing controversy.
Is this a replay of how they ignored September’s ACORN scandal for many days until they were basically forced to cover what had gone viral across the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News?
What is it going to take for these so-called news outlets to begin sharing this subject with their viewers?
On a humorous related note, ABC might not be interested in ClimateGate, but it still is devoted to spreading climate fear.
On Tuesday, ABCNews.com’s top story was, ”Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame”
There’s even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.
Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the climate change.
”Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case projections” made three years ago by the world’s scientists, the new Copenhagen Diagnosis said.
Well, at least ABC is consistent.
Bozell Column: When the Press Favors Secrecy
By Brent Bozell November 24, 2009 – 23:33 ET
Here’s a dirty little secret about The New York Times. It likes to leak things. Important things. Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, the Times has routinely found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.
Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, e-mails that exposed how the ”scientific experts” cited so often by the media on global warming display are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents, and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda.
The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is. And now suddenly, the New York Times has found religion, and won’t publish these private e-mails. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who’s more global warming lobbyist than reporter, quoted – sparsely – from the e-mails, but declared he would not post these texts on his ”Dot Earth” blog on the Times website: ”The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”
That rule didn’t apply to things like the disclosure of the SWIFT global bank monitoring program against terrorists.
Unlike our secret terror-fighting efforts, there is no grave matter of national security to protect here. There is only a danger of shredding the undeserved reputation of some global-warming alarmists as nonpartisan, nonideological, just-the-facts scientists with no preconceived environmentalist or statist agenda.
The networks also have ignored this emerging scandal with all the ignorance they could muster. But in the seven days after the New York Times revealed the existence of an NSA program to monitor communications to terrorist cells abroad, the three networks ran a combined 23 stories about the program, more than one story, per network, per night.
Revkin’s story in the Times did have some truncated quotes with ridiculous details. In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing apparent climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones of the CRU said he had used a ”trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to ”hide the decline” in temperatures.
Dr. Mann confirmed the e-mail was real, but told the Times ”the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem,” and not as something secret.
Doesn’t a network correspondent just smell the fraud when scientists start offering lame excuses for the words they somehow didn’t mean? Don’t just listen to conservatives. Try Nate Silver, a statistician and liberal-media favorite, recently named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People. He says the scientists in this exchange were unethical:
”Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing to do — I’d go so far as to call it unethical — and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer.” But then he adds the typical liberal disclaimer: ”Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector — have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate.”
When conservatives are wrong, conservatives are wrong. When liberals are wrong, everyone does it, don’t you know?
It’s also important to note that these folks play a rough game of hardball. This isn’t about science. It’s politics – the brass-knuckles sort. In another e-mail from Jones to Mann, reported in The Washington Post, there’s talk of cutting skeptical scientists out of the official United Nations report: ”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. ”Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal to reject the work of climate skeptics, perhaps with a boycott: ”Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. ”I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
This kind of censor-your-opponents activity ought to disgust a journalist who values openness and rigorous debate above all. Every day the networks avoid this story, they’re saying they don’t really care about either of those values. In fact, they become willing accomplices in a coverup of global proportions.
A Tale of Two Leaks: NYT Bashed Palin, But Won’t Touch ClimateGate
By Lachlan Markay
November 24, 2009 – 12:41 ET
The ClimateGate email leak has demonstrated in full force a glaring double standard in the mainstream media’s coverage of leaked information. Too often, liberal media outlets jump at the chance to damage conservative figures by publishing sensitive information, but refuse to publish such information if it discredits or hinders the left’s efforts.
As Clay Waters reported yesterday, Andew Revkin, who writes for the New York Times’s Dot Earth blog, refused to publish emails from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showing efforts to manipulate climate data and marginalize global warming skeptics.
Said Revkin, ”The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”
Revkin is correct that the emails were never intended for the public eye, contained private communications, and were released by hackers who violated the law in obtaining them. But apparently this standard for publication of such documents does not apply to information about Sarah Palin.
The Times’s Caucus Blog reported on September 17 of last year:
Computer hackers broke into the private Yahoo e-mail account of Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, and posted some of her messages and a long list of contacts on the Internet.
The Web site Wikileaks posted screen shots of Ms. Palin’s inbox displaying her username, email@example.com, and messages that were reportedly obtained by a group of hackers on Tuesday night.
The e-mails include an exchange between Ms. Palin and Alaska’s lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, as well as an associate, Amy McCorkell, who Ms. Palin appointed to a state drug and alcohol advisory board last year. Wired Magazine reported on its Internet privacy blog, Threat Level, that it obtained confirmation from Ms. McCorkell that she did, in fact, send the message to Governor Palin.
On Wednesday, the McCain campaign acknowledged the breach in a statement from campaign manager, Rick Davis: “This is a shocking invasion of the governor’s privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.”
Governor Palin has faced criticism for reportedly using her private address to conduct government business.
When hackers posted screenshots of the then-Vice Presidential nominee on Wikileaks, the Times rushed to publish the information. It even included a link directly to a page displaying the screenshots, disclosing private communications and making available her personal email address and contact list. This is ”private information” in every sense of the term.
Guy Benson at National Review extrapolates that at the Times, ”it’s unacceptable to direct readers to hacked private emails that fundamentally disrupt a lefty meme-of-the-decade, but it’s totally cool to direct readers to hacked private emails of the lefty bete noire-of-the-year.”
Revkin’s statement displays a profound double standard in the Times’s reporting on leaked information. It managed, in the last sentence of the Caucus Blog post, to turn Palin’s email leak into an attack.
Yet in the case of the ClimateGate emails, which were obtained in a near-identical manner and contain similarly sensitive and personal communications, the Times suddenly finds ethical misgivings in publishing the information. The paper’s reservations appear to be a veiled attempt to shield the left’s global warming narrative from criticism.
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>
Etiketter: Al Gore, Carbon Trading, CO2, Etanol, EU, EU Parlamentet, Global Warming Hysteri, Havsis, Havsnivå, IPCC, Isbjörnar, Journalism, Klimatmodeller, Korruption, Kyoto, Media, News, Obama, Orkaner, Peer review, Politik, Press, Riksdagen, Snötäcket, Temperaturdata, Traditional Media, UN, Vindkraft