 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Global Warming Censored
A study from the Business & Media Institute
Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor
Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars and
Men-on-the-Street for Science
So much for that job requirement of balance and objectivity. When it came
to global warming the media clearly left out dissent in favor of hype, cute
penguins and disastrous predictions.
Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change
"debate's over." It isn't, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global
warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions
are mentioned it is often with barbs like "cynics" or "deniers" thrown in to
undermine them.
Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and
NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it's mankind's
fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics -
omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears
scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.
The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about
"global warming" or "climate change" between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31,
2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any
alternative opinions to the so-called "consensus" on the issue.
. Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly
outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic
there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with
a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS's ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.
. Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global
warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians,
celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were
more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype
than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)
. What's It Going to Cost?: All "solutions" have a price, but the cost of
fighting global warming was something you rarely heard on the network news.
Only 22 stories (11 percent) mentioned any cost of "fixing" global warming.
On the rare occasion cost came up, it came from the lips of a skeptic like
Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch (D), who said one climate change bill in
Congress "would cost $6 trillion."
. CBS the Worst: Journalist/global warming advocate Scott Pelley helped CBS
be, by far, the worst network. Pelley argued in 2006 that he shouldn't have
to include skeptics in such stories because "If I do an interview with
[Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a
Holocaust denier?" In 2007, he helped ensure only four skeptics were
included by CBS - and not a single one was a scientist. Compare that to the
151 people used by the network to promote global warming hysteria. The
wildly one-sided outcome was not surprising given remarks by some of its
other journalists. Harry Smith declared that "There is, in fact, global
climate change" on the Aug. 7, 2007, "Early Show."
. ABC the "Best": Despite its over-the-top climate hypocrisy of jet-setting
journalists around the world to cover climate change, ABC included more
skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than either NBC or CBS. Still, the
network has plenty of work to do. Bill Weir made the outrageous claim during
the Nov. 18, 2007, "Good Morning America" that "all these scientists" urge
immediate action to stop global warming. Weather personality Sam Champion
even referred to the most recent U.N. climate report as "unequivocal" and
"definitive.
To improve coverage, BMI recommends:
. Report the issue objectively: Reporters have a professional responsibility
to remain objective and avoid inserting their own opinions into their
reports. Many in the media have sorely missed that mark when it comes to
reporting on global warming and climate change.
. Include skeptics: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
states journalists should "Support the open exchange of views, even views
they find repugnant." It is the media's job to inform the public, not
persuade them by leaving out alternative viewpoints. Particularly, networks
should give skeptical scientists the opportunity to share their findings -
just like they include scientists who say manmade global warming is
negatively impacting the planet.
. Show Me the Money: If the U.S. government passes legislation to address
global warming, it will carry a cost and American taxpayers have a right to
know what it would be. The media need to do a much better job by asking
about or including cost estimates of climate change "solutions."
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/
GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.
asp
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
On Nov 23, 8:02 pm, "bnzoo" <b...@...com> wrote:
> Global Warming Censored
< usual stuff cut >
> Warmest Regards
"Warmest Regards" for having to see all this crummy spam? STFU
already. Get a job. Get a girlfriend. Get lost.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Ignore any evidence that cramps your style.
Paralleling the non-logic of Bonzo's article leads
to a whole new class of conspiracy theories.
Below, are three examples:
The media carry videos, books and articles about
cooking. It's almost impossible to find anything
about cannibal cooking. This indicates a vast
conspiracy against cannibals.
The media carry videos, books and articles that
show a round earth. It's almost impossible to
find anything showing a flat earth. There must
be a vast conspiracy against flat earthers.
The media carry videos, books and articles that
show mountain climbing. It's almost impossible to
find anything about jumping off high cliffs. There
must be a vast conspiracy against gravity deniers.
On Nov 24, 1:50 am, Roger Coppock <r...@a...com> wrote:
> Paralleling the non-logic of Bonzo's article leads
> to a whole new class of conspiracy theories.
> Below, are three examples:
>
> The media carry videos, books and articles about
> cooking. It's almost impossible to find anything
> about cannibal cooking. This indicates a vast
> conspiracy against cannibals.
Humans have a taboo against cannibalism. We don't have a taboo
against global warming. So this is an apples and oranges comparison.
>
> The media carry videos, books and articles that
> show a round earth. It's almost impossible to
> find anything showing a flat earth. There must
> be a vast conspiracy against flat earthers.
People can look at pictures and come to their own conclusions about
the shape of our planet. This is not the case for climate change. We
have no choice but to rely on "experts." So, once again, this is an
apples and oranges comparison.
>
> The media carry videos, books and articles that
> show mountain climbing. It's almost impossible to
> find anything about jumping off high cliffs. There
> must be a vast conspiracy against gravity deniers.
Another apples and oranges comparison. Humans experience gravity in
our daily existence. This is not the case for climate change.
If you global warming weenies are so confident in the scientific
validty of your premise then why the censorship?
Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Nov 24, 1:50 am, Roger Coppock <r...@a...com> wrote:
>> Paralleling the non-logic of Bonzo's article leads
>> to a whole new class of conspiracy theories.
>> Below, are three examples:
>>
>> The media carry videos, books and articles about
>> cooking. It's almost impossible to find anything
>> about cannibal cooking. This indicates a vast
>> conspiracy against cannibals.
>
> Humans have a taboo against cannibalism. We don't have a taboo
> against global warming. So this is an apples and oranges comparison.
>
>
>>
>> The media carry videos, books and articles that
>> show a round earth. It's almost impossible to
>> find anything showing a flat earth. There must
>> be a vast conspiracy against flat earthers.
>
> People can look at pictures and come to their own conclusions about
> the shape of our planet. This is not the case for climate change. We
> have no choice but to rely on "experts." So, once again, this is an
> apples and oranges comparison.
>
>>
>> The media carry videos, books and articles that
>> show mountain climbing. It's almost impossible to
>> find anything about jumping off high cliffs. There
>> must be a vast conspiracy against gravity deniers.
>
> Another apples and oranges comparison. Humans experience gravity in
> our daily existence. This is not the case for climate change.
Yes, no one ever claimed Bonzo's logic was valid.
On Nov 24, 9:41 am, "marcodbeast" <i...@c...com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 1:50 am, Roger Coppock <r...@a...com> wrote:
> >> Paralleling the non-logic of Bonzo's article leads
> >> to a whole new class of conspiracy theories.
> >> Below, are three examples:
>
> >> The media carry videos, books and articles about
> >> cooking. It's almost impossible to find anything
> >> about cannibal cooking. This indicates a vast
> >> conspiracy against cannibals.
>
> > Humans have a taboo against cannibalism. We don't have a taboo
> > against global warming. So this is an apples and oranges comparison.
>
> >> The media carry videos, books and articles that
> >> show a round earth. It's almost impossible to
> >> find anything showing a flat earth. There must
> >> be a vast conspiracy against flat earthers.
>
> > People can look at pictures and come to their own conclusions about
> > the shape of our planet. This is not the case for climate change. We
> > have no choice but to rely on "experts." So, once again, this is an
> > apples and oranges comparison.
>
> >> The media carry videos, books and articles that
> >> show mountain climbing. It's almost impossible to
> >> find anything about jumping off high cliffs. There
> >> must be a vast conspiracy against gravity deniers.
>
> > Another apples and oranges comparison. Humans experience gravity in
> > our daily existence. This is not the case for climate change.
>
> Yes, no one ever claimed Bonzo's logic was valid.
I can find noting wrong with Bonzo's logic. And apparently you can't
either.
"Lloyd" <l...@e...edu> wrote in message
news:29989c86-b9f9-4d47-9c7e-0632f9341ff0@j38g2000yq
a.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 11:02 pm, "bnzoo" <b...@...com> wrote:
> Global Warming Censored
>
> A study from the Business & Media Institute
>
> Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor
>
> Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars and
> Men-on-the-Street for Science
>
> So much for that job requirement of balance and objectivity. When it came
> to global warming the media clearly left out dissent in favor of hype,
> cute
> penguins and disastrous predictions.
>
> Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change
> "debate's over." It isn't,
It is, in science.
****************************************************
*********
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts" Bertrand Russell
****************************************************
***************
>but the news media clearly agree with him. Global
> warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks,
Neither do flat-earthers.
>and when their opinions
> are mentioned it is often with barbs like "cynics" or "deniers" thrown in
> to
> undermine them.
>
> Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and
> NBC:
The message of science.
****************************************************
***
ROTFLMAO
Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars and
Men-on-the-Street for Science
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:42:13 +1100, "bnzoo" <b...@...com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd" <l...@e...edu> wrote in message
>news:29989c86-b9f9-4d47-9c7e-0632f9341ff0@j38g2000y
qa.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 23, 11:02 pm, "bnzoo" <b...@...com> wrote:
>> Global Warming Censored
>>
>> A study from the Business & Media Institute
>>
>> Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor
>>
>> Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars and
>> Men-on-the-Street for Science
>>
>> So much for that job requirement of balance and objectivity. When it came
>> to global warming the media clearly left out dissent in favor of hype,
>> cute
>> penguins and disastrous predictions.
>>
>> Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change
>> "debate's over." It isn't,
>It is, in science.
>***************************************************
**********
>
>
>"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
>certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts" Bertrand Russell
>
>
>
>
>***************************************************
****************
>>but the news media clearly agree with him. Global
>> warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks,
>
>Neither do flat-earthers.
>
>>and when their opinions
>> are mentioned it is often with barbs like "cynics" or "deniers" thrown in
>> to
>> undermine them.
>>
>> Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and
>> NBC:
>The message of science.
>***************************************************
****
>
>
>ROTFLMAO
>
>Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars and
>Men-on-the-Street for Science
>
>
>
>
>Warmest Regards
>
>Bonzo
>
>
>
>
>
At the current time AGW is essentially all talk.
Everyone seems to want to do something about it , but only if
someone else does something about it first.
Once people actually see what allegedly fixing AGW does to their power
bills, then you will quickly find the support for it dissapears pretty
quickly.
Raising the price of electricity artificially for no reason not only
increases power prices, but also the prices of just about everything
that needs electricity as one of its inputs, pretty well everything.
Its going to take very brave , or stupid Governments to start jacking
up power prices in the current economic climate.
Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Nov 24, 9:41 am, "marcodbeast" <i...@c...com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 1:50 am, Roger Coppock <r...@a...com> wrote:
>>>> Paralleling the non-logic of Bonzo's article leads
>>>> to a whole new class of conspiracy theories.
>>>> Below, are three examples:
>>
>>>> The media carry videos, books and articles about
>>>> cooking. It's almost impossible to find anything
>>>> about cannibal cooking. This indicates a vast
>>>> conspiracy against cannibals.
>>
>>> Humans have a taboo against cannibalism. We don't have a taboo
>>> against global warming. So this is an apples and oranges comparison.
>>
>>>> The media carry videos, books and articles that
>>>> show a round earth. It's almost impossible to
>>>> find anything showing a flat earth. There must
>>>> be a vast conspiracy against flat earthers.
>>
>>> People can look at pictures and come to their own conclusions about
>>> the shape of our planet. This is not the case for climate change. We
>>> have no choice but to rely on "experts." So, once again, this is an
>>> apples and oranges comparison.
>>
>>>> The media carry videos, books and articles that
>>>> show mountain climbing. It's almost impossible to
>>>> find anything about jumping off high cliffs. There
>>>> must be a vast conspiracy against gravity deniers.
>>
>>> Another apples and oranges comparison. Humans experience gravity in
>>> our daily existence. This is not the case for climate change.
>>
>> Yes, no one ever claimed Bonzo's logic was valid.
>
> I can find noting wrong with Bonzo's logic.
HAW HAW HAW
On Nov 25, 10:08 am, "marcodbeast" <i...@c...com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 9:41 am, "marcodbeast" <i...@c...com> wrote:
> >> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>> On Nov 24, 1:50 am, Roger Coppock <r...@a...com> wrote:
> >>>> Paralleling the non-logic of Bonzo's article leads
> >>>> to a whole new class of conspiracy theories.
> >>>> Below, are three examples:
>
> >>>> The media carry videos, books and articles about
> >>>> cooking. It's almost impossible to find anything
> >>>> about cannibal cooking. This indicates a vast
> >>>> conspiracy against cannibals.
>
> >>> Humans have a taboo against cannibalism. We don't have a taboo
> >>> against global warming. So this is an apples and oranges comparison.
>
> >>>> The media carry videos, books and articles that
> >>>> show a round earth. It's almost impossible to
> >>>> find anything showing a flat earth. There must
> >>>> be a vast conspiracy against flat earthers.
>
> >>> People can look at pictures and come to their own conclusions about
> >>> the shape of our planet. This is not the case for climate change. We
> >>> have no choice but to rely on "experts." So, once again, this is an
> >>> apples and oranges comparison.
>
> >>>> The media carry videos, books and articles that
> >>>> show mountain climbing. It's almost impossible to
> >>>> find anything about jumping off high cliffs. There
> >>>> must be a vast conspiracy against gravity deniers.
>
> >>> Another apples and oranges comparison. Humans experience gravity in
> >>> our daily existence. This is not the case for climate change.
>
> >> Yes, no one ever claimed Bonzo's logic was valid.
>
> > I can find noting wrong with Bonzo's logic.
>
> HAW HAW HAW
I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure
you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
What The Global Warming Fearmongers Won't Tell You
Scarewatch: Global Cooling Is Really Global Warming!!
Huffington Admits Bias On Climate Change Scam
How Embarrassing, Global Warming Horror Flick Put on Ice!
Global Warming For President!!!
Change You Can Believe In !!!!!!!!1
Global Cooling Bulletin: Snow Hits New South Wales Just One Week Before Summer
Up