Monday, March 1, 2010

Journalists consider culpability

Apparently, 'How to report climate change after Climategate?' has been a question troubling our media elites for some time now, and the whole idea was kicked around at a discussion meeting at Oxford University on 26th February 2010.

The question and answer format featured environmental correspondents Richard Black of the BBC, Fiona Harvey (FT), David Adam of the Guardian and Ben Jackson of the Sun, and was chaired by Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre.

Those in the know have been thinking about how best to spin the news. Look at these questions, and let's start with the opener:

"Has the press done a disservice to the public in reporting Climategate? Has media a responsibility to make the public “think the right way”?"

What the hell is that? Are they are asking each other if they did the "right thing" in reporting the news about the document dump from Hadley CRU, the same document dump that released all kinds of materials that had been repeatedly requested to be released through FOI requests (the file was titled, i.e. Freedom of Information Act file), and which had been stone walled by that assclown Professor Jones?

"How to report uncertainty in, for example, Met Office forecasts? What will persuade sceptics and deniers?"

How is it that this panel of journalists view themselves as being in the business of persuading people? What about reporting? What about truth finding? Why would persuading be a goal of the media? This is outrageous.

DA: We can no longer call people deniers. We need a new term. Some people have suggested “climate creationists”.

FH: Sceptics were clever in choosing their name. We do need a new name, denier won’t work because of Holocaust associations.

They are looking for a term to discredit those that are questioning the science and its conclusions, and they are seeking one that will be readily accepted by the public, while at the same time clearly indicating that those people are ideologically driven and don't really know what they are talking about.

How about 'Journalists'?

1 comment:

  1. Apparently, "How to report climate change after Climategate?" has been a question troubling our media elites for some time now

    I'm embarrassed to tell you how pleasantly surprised I was to completely misunderstand the meaning of this -- and the physical shock I felt (more fool I) as I read on:

    "Has media a responsibility to make the public “think the right way?"

    Dear God. They actually say this OUT LOUD?? Could there be any other profession so perverted and corrupted as that former champion of the truth, the Press? We live in one of the few places it's actually safe to tell the truth, and these contemptible frauds throw it aside, and with it any shred of honor that could mark their life's work.

    Sitting around brainstorming for a new industry standard in sneering slurs with which to denigrate and undermine people who object to disinformation. And "Climate Creationist"? Is there any more reason to so sweepingly link Creationists and people who don't believe that modern living is heating things up, than there was "evidence" to damn Joseph Stack as a Tea Party adherent? Doesn't matter. Anything they believe would make someone foolish by association will do.

    And I have friends who honestly don't believe that "the news is slanted."