Well, that wasn’t quite the original GWPF headline – but close enough đ
We’re about to receive yet another media tsunami of alarmist babble, it seems. All that and a ‘Brexit election’ too for our long-suffering UK readers.
* More than 200 media outlets and journalists partnered together with activists to coordinate and hype climate change news before the 2019 U.N. climate summit.
* Two of the largest media outlets â BuzzFeed News and HuffPo â did not disclose their role in the project to their readers, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
* The project raises questions about whether journalists should work side-by-side with activists to hype climate change.
Over 250 news outlets and journalists partnered with Columbia University School of Journalismâs flagship magazine to shape control of âclimate crisisâ coverage in the lead up to the United Nations climate conference.
The coverage-coordination initiative included directing how much time, space and prominence should be devoted to the coverage, and asking that climate ânewsâ be added to seemingly unrelated stories.
Some of the biggest media outlets in the country, such as CBS and Bloomberg, joined the effort. But others, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, declined to participate in a project they reportedly feared appeared activist in nature.
More troubling, a number of the major outlets that joined did not disclose participation to their readers.
In addition to CBS and Bloomberg, the effort, called Covering Climate Now, involved BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, the Center for Public Integrity, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair and The Weather Channel, among many others.
BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post were among the major outlets that did not disclose the coordination. When asked by the Daily Caller News Foundation, the lack of disclosure was criticized by the Society of Professional Journalists.
The coordination effort was organized in part by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), a nonprofit that represents professional journalists and was traditionally focused primarily on journalism ethics.
Covering Climate Nowâs founders hope to continue elevating climate news even after the project ends.
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
And the BBC? It certainly seems that way.
They pretend it’s news, but mainly it’s propaganda-based opinion…
Advocacy-style journalism is the new in-thing, according to David Blackmon, an independent consultant and analyst who has nearly 40 years experience in the energy industry.
âI donât think that anyone would object to any of it if they were upfront about their agenda,â he told the DCNF. âThereâs no effort to properly identify agenda-driven pieces. They are backed up with factual information, but it usually tells just half the story. Itâs become the norm.â
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/18/greta-thunberg-climate-change-media/
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
‘Society of Professional Journalists’
They’ve been doing a great job.
Not.
‘For more than 100 years the Society of Professional Journalists has been dedicated to encouraging a climate in which journalism can be practiced more freely and fully, stimulating high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism and perpetuating a free press.’
They have failed. Journalists are Left wing activists.
‘high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism’
Are they trying to be funny?
Let me clarify this a bit:
*Columbia School Of Propaganda*, Mouthpiece For The Ministry of Truth.
There, much more accurate.
In the old days reporters reported the news, laid out all what was known and allowed the individual to decide what it all meant. The good publications and broadcasters put Opinion items in separate pages/time-slots.
These days all we have are journalists.
These modern day journalist over-emote their ‘news items’, keeping with whatever the editorial position and opinions of the publishers’/proprietors’ are, and keep the facts to a minimum. These journalist intentions are to influence peoples feeling about a topic, not report on it. Their raison d’ĂȘtre appears to be that the more people they get to believe in their opinion then the more truthful it must be. What they fail to understand is that just because an opinion/idea is popular does not make it right or correct, it’s just popular.
“So contact us now on twitter, or email us about your feelings on this topic, or call us on 984 … “
None of these media outlets can EVER accuse anyone of having âconspiracy theoriesâ, can they?
New Scientist also joined this mob:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215495-new-scientist-joins-the-covering-climate-now-initiative/
At the same time, as with the Guardian and the Independent, they have a separate division offering travel deals to far off places, such as Hawaii, New Mexico, The Himalayas, Japan, Kenya, Argentina: https://www.newscientist.com/tours/
These are not cheap, so probably will be affordable by Extinction Rebellion members and the like.
Presumably they will be courtesy of Greta’s Global Adventures.
Politicians can say whatever they like about 2050 as it’s well past their retirement date.
18 Nov 2019
2050 climate neutrality ‘magical thinking’ â German industry association president
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/2050-climate-neutrality-magical-thinking-german-industry-association-president
– – –
True, but ‘climate neutrality’ is a nonsense anyway.