Mainstream media abandons journalism for activism on climate change

Posted: July 23, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, bbcbias, climate, Critique, media
Tags:

Credit: planetsave.com


For whatever reasons, large parts of today’s media are bending over backwards to support the notion that man is changing the climate – and in a negative way. Opposing lines of evidence and theory are routinely ignored or dismissed as unworthy of attention. Recently some of them have even attempted to whitewash the notorious ‘Climategate’ episode of 2009 that exposed the e-mails of biased climate scientists trying to promote the man-made warming idea.
What happened to genuine reporting?

For more than 20 years I’ve watched media outlets fail to accurately portray the debate surrounding climate change, writes H. Sterling Burnett in The American Spectator. Unfortunately, things are getting worse.

Over the past six months, news outlets including The Guardian, long a mouthpiece for leftist propaganda, and Telemundo announced they will now use the fear-invoking term “climate emergency” instead of the more descriptive phrase “climate change.”

In Florida, rather than competing for news on climate matters, six news outlets — Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Tampa Bay Times, and WLRN Public Media — are collaborating on climate coverage under the moniker Florida Climate Reporting Network (FCRN).

This means each news outlet that receives their climate stories from FCRN will be speaking with one voice on the issue.

Recently, in the midst of Hurricane Barry, research meteorologist Ryan Maue tweeted about how national coverage of the storm was driven by a single set of talking points.

In one tweet, Maue asked, “How is [it] that every news article on ‘Barry’ and climate change published in past few days has a similar headline, premise and conclusion — or, if you will, set of talking points? Is this original reporting or something else like an outfit providing copy?”

Maue answered his own question in a subsequent tweet: “Strategic communications groups funded by the usual foundations set up these rapid response services for journalists — so they can quickly churn out copy. … The bad news coverage is not by accident at all.”

Contrary to the mainstream media drumbeat, there is no consensus that catastrophic climate change is happening and humans are causing it. Yet, due to publishers and broadcasters not requiring their operations to maintain standards of fairness and veracity, the mainstream media uncritically presents a climate crisis as settled fact.

If journalists displayed a modicum of intellectual curiosity, they could easily find peer-reviewed surveys, hundreds of skeptical studies, and letters signed by hundreds of scientists attesting to the falsity of one or more aspects of the three-part claim of climate alarmists: first, that the climate is changing and humans are the cause. Second, on the whole, the results will be bad or catastrophic. And third, we must end the use of fossil fuels in the near future to prevent the destruction of human civilization and the environment.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. JB says:

    At the age of seven I would wonder if TV advertisers and propagandists realized what they put on the airwaves was ignored. Then I couldn’t imagine anyone who was moderately conscious paying the least bit attention to such impositions. I would even switch it off and go play with my erector set, or experiment with crystal radios. Until remote control with audio mute came into vogue, we changed the channel. Now I can blank the video along with muting the audio, or switch to the internet in a flash. Chicken-littles and con-artists get zero time of my life.

    I see in hospitals and professional offices in the waiting rooms large TV panels blaring the latest BS, and among those in the room,rarely one paying any attention. If they’re not reading, they’re staring out the windows or talking among themselves. Anything but that noise, save the weather for the day.

    The more they’re ignored, the more shrill and audacious their impudence.

  2. oldbrew says:

    The social media giants seem to be playing the same game if in a slightly different way 😬

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/23/silicon-valley-thinks-journalists-shouldnt-talk-to-nigel-farage/

  3. Phoenix44 says:

    Most of the media had always been pushing one point of view or another for as long as there has been mass media. A few newspapers might claim to be “neutral” but they were not much of the time. But at leaSt then they declared their biases and there were different views and interpretations expressed. Now virtually all sing the same song and “denialism” has become utterly outre in many circles. Bizarrely it is more socially acceptable in many parts of London and LA to avoid vaccinating your child than to express doubts about climate change. Or if you are the heir to the throne, to make wild claims about climate change and claim they are science whilst advocating something utterly disproven by science – homeopathy.

    What all this means is that it is not about science. It never has been. It is political, whether you are a virtue-seeking BBC presenter or a middle class pseudo-revolutionary or a Left-winger seeking reasons to damned capitalism. None of these people care if the science is right or not. Assuming it is allows them to do what they want to do.

  4. At one particular U.S. news media outlet, this egregious bias in reporting can actually be quantified. Back in 2010 for an AmericanThinker piece I was writing ( https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html ), I needed to be able to back up what I said about the Public Broadcasting System’s NewsHour not having a single skeptic scientist on its program since 1996. So, I spent about 3 days rummaging through their archive transcripts to be certain I didn’t miss one. I’ve kept the tally running ever since: “NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally, Updated 6/29/19: 69 to 0” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=3834

  5. ivan says:

    The UN and its tentacles are running short of money so they are now in panic mode. If they can’t convince more countries to cough up more money the edifice will fall apart and many minions are likely to be facing total loss of earnings or even prison time.

  6. ivan says:

    This https://xkcd.com/2179/ seems so plausible considering the stupidity we are seeing.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
    July 23, 2019 at 5:02 pm

    Re Russell’s link – if it looks like a duck conspiracy, acts like a conspiracy and sounds like a conspiracy…we know the rest 😎

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

    They are ignoring the elephant in the room…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    it’s really quite simple. It sells headlines and gets the idiot brigade all upset which leads to more headlines. Rinse. Repeat.

  9. Gamecock says:

    ‘Mainstream media abandons journalism for activism on climate change’

    Uhhh . . . what do you think journalism is ?!?!

    Only journalists think journalism is noble.

    There hasn’t been a decent editor since Perry White.

  10. hunterson7 says:

    What a state of corruption.
    How pathetic.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Let’s see this in the media…

    ‘On average, clouds have a net cooling effect, as illustrated in Figure 1.’

    https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/11/2305/htm

    More:
    ‘The net cooling effect of clouds is approximately 10 times higher than the decadal anthropogenic radiative forcing induced by increase of greenhouse gases. Trends and changes in extremes of the cloud albedo would change the cooling effect of clouds and would therefore significantly affect the climate on a global and regional scale. Hence, the effective cloud albedo plays a dominant role in the Earth’s radiation and energy budget. Furthermore, this quantity can be observed from satellites without the need of any model or otherwise external data source.’

  12. pochas94 says:

    When things are well-run and predictable we get bored and look around for controversy. That’s what the media is for.

  13. tom0mason says:

    The Main Stream Media’s (MSM’s) masters — via UN, Globalists, Fabians, Socialists, Communists and Malthusians elitists — wish the populations of the world to stay very, very worried. These rich and powerful masters see politician moving to more nationalist tendencies, and in contradiction to the UN-IPCC’s, noisy climate scientists, and MSM reports, people are noting that recent winters appear to be getting cooler and longer. Many people too, now see the UN as an inept bunch of over-bureaucratic money-wasters. With all these developments, the UN and socialist Malthusians see that they may well miss their 2030 deadline for the ultimate in Globalism — the UN’s move to start forming a ‘World Government’.
    The Malthusian, Socialists, Communists and Fabians are very worried.

    Hence the ramping-up of MSM propaganda about missing targets on ‘Green Energy’, ‘Climate-Change™’, ‘Zero emissions’ ‘Preventing Sea-level rises’, and stories about Veganism, protests, or exotic and potentially lethal diseases/infections.
    All of this feeds the paranoia infecting too many western children, as well as Ídiots like Extinction Rebellion, and other volatile protest groups such as those funded by G. Soros.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    H. L. Mencken

  14. Adam Gallon says:

    There does appear to be an organised, coordinated effort, to push the “Climate Crisis” theme, at every turn.
    Trying to push things through, before cooling does set in?

  15. oldbrew says:

    How far can absurd media climate nonsense go? 😨

  16. Gamecock says:

    Try to keep up. It’s now the “global heating crisis.”

  17. hunterson7 says:

    The quality, and scientific accuracy, of modern journalism is more in line with that of religious tract publications.

  18. oldbrew says:

    How much public consultation on carbon targets, Boris? Net Zero
    By Ben Pile – July 26, 2019

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-much-public-consultation-on-carbon-targets-net-zero/

  19. hunterson7 says:

    “Abandons”?
    Wrong tense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s