In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Saturday, April 20, 2024

Fox News ordered staff to slant news against climate change


On Wednesday, the liberal watchdog site Media Matters published an e-mail from Bill Sammon, Washington managing editor of Fox News, in which Sammon urged the network’s reporters and producers not to refer to climate change “without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.” The e-mail, dated December 8, 2009, was sent around the same time as the Climategate scandal and the Copenhagen climate summit.

This story comes only days after Media Matters leaked another Sammon e-mail, this one encouraging Fox News staffers to use the term “government option” instead of “public option” when discussing health care reform. Here’s a look at the responses to this latest bit of news:

Read the rest of the story on The Atlantic Wire

Enhanced by Zemanta

15 thoughts on “Fox News ordered staff to slant news against climate change”

  1. Logtroll, I have not stated that climate change is not occurring. In fact, climate change has been part of this planet for a good part of four billion plus years. This is yet another failed straw man on your part .

    I would like to know what your understanding of climate change is. Do you agree with the IPCC’s findings that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominate cause of catastrophic global warming? If you do, then are you aware of the criticisms of the IPCC including manipulating the peer review process including favouring papers in line with their policy while excluding critical papers, the inclusion of non-peer reviewed “grey” literature as evidence and appointing lead authors to review their own papers? Do you not believe that natural influences on climate, such as the Sun and cloud over, can influence the temperature of our planet or do you deny these influences?

    Here is a range of peer reviewed papers skeptical of man made global warming:

    If you are seriously interested in learning and discussing climate issues, here is a list of sites that would benefit in helping your knowledge:

    You want to know what to do in the meantime? How about we open discussion of climate science for starters. Lets have the research made transparent with the raw data, source code of models, and methodology. This will allow others to replicate the processes used by scientists to check if their hypotheses is correct or on the correct path. Failure to do so goes against The Scientific Method and is nothing short of fraud.

    If this method of research was currently occurring, then maybe we could have planned better for the harsh winters currently affecting the Earth and would be currently planning ahead for the cooling period we are currently in right now that has followed a warming period. Instead of good planning, governments along with financial corporations have created a bogey man in CO2 which can be turned into a trading commodity earning commissions for financial traders and a pseudo taxation scheme for governments.

    If you want to visit Glacier National Park, then contact a travel agent. Its not my job to plan for your travel needs. Maybe you can hitch a ride with Al Gore on a private jet to the nearest airport?

    In all of this, you have failed to mount a sensible rebuttal to the part of the memo and avoided discussion of the contents within. I will reproduce that part of the memo for you here. Hopefully you do not have any comprehension issues with it.

    “we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

    Do you agree or disagree with the wording of the memo? If you disagree, why do you disagree with it? Is it “practicing bad journalism” as you put it?

    Lets see if you can comment on the actual wording of the memo shall we?

    • Bravo, DB! Bravo! I concede, having been offered incontrovertable proof that you have it all figured out. I trust you, so won’t bother reading the links (frankly, the previous link you posted was a dud, which is my real reason for not reading the new ones…)

      I find it comforting that it’s so easy to dismiss humanity’s complicity in the the global warming/cooling/staying the sameness, and will rest well knowing that it may just be Nature taking her revenge upon us. (Thank God my truck has both a heater and air conditioning; I’ll survive if they don’t stop drilling, no matter which way the fickle climate chooses to go.)

      But I really had hoped that you could tell me when the glaciers will be coming back. If the trusty journalists at Fox come up with a prediction, please post it here.

  2. Okay DB, I’ll bite on your offer to demonstrate your knowledge on “scientific method”. First thing, I’m completely in the dark as to your hypothesis. What is it that you are methodically trying to prove?

    Since you never said, I’m going to assume, for the sake of efficiency, that your hypyhesis is, “Climate change (or global warming; you need to be specific in the process of using SM in a proof) is not occurring.

    Second, what data set or facts have you accumulated to support your hypothesis? What facts exist that confound your hypothesis?

    Now the work begins… you have to assemble your data and analyze it. This will require thorough research, consultation and collaboration with specialists, modeling, refutation or assimilation of non-supporting data, and the publishing and peer review of your findings. When you have successfully dealt with the shortcomings of your hypothesis, then, by god, you’ll have yourself a theory!

    I think that a whole lot of scientists have been doing such work for decades, so there will be a tremendous amount of research to do; and I expect that the compexity of the issues will not deliver a crystal clear proof of anything. As with so many environmental issues, only time will tell.

    That leaves us with the question of what to do in the meantime? Should we be conservative and become more careful and deliberate in our actions? Or should we liberally continue to indulge in squanderous behavior? I’m sure that in the scientific method process you will have developed a set of predictions and recommendations for action.

    I would be interested in your documented theory, especially the sophisticated model that you are using. I understand that it will be too voluminous to post verbatim; please attach links. Offhand, can you tell me when the glaciers will reform? I would like to plan a vacation to Glacier National Park and would like to hit the peak season.

    • Hello? DB… are you there? Wanna come out and play?

      Something the Fox a$$holes and their guru Rush forgot to let you in on — they never get themselves in the position of having a real discussion with an able opponent.

      That’s because their schtick relies upon one of the techniques you accuse me of; creating a straw man to attack. Straw men don’t talk back.

      • Logtroll, I did not realise that my life had to revolve around your wants. Sorry I caused you distress by not responding in what you may perceive as timely manner, but I have other things of higher importance in my life than this comment thread.

        For someone who hates the corporate media tactics of creating straw man arguments, you seem to love using the same tactics with your arguments.

        And as for the subject having a discussion with able opponent, well, its not my fault that you are lacking the goods here. Much like the Scarecrow (another straw man) from the Wizard of Oz, may I suggest you also seek the wizard to grant you the same gift.

  3. “By a little application of scientific method, aka managed logic, one might assume that you think apples and oranges are the same thing. ” …extract from rebuttal to D. Bonson.

    Ahh, ‘managed logic’…..brilliant imagery and spot-on I must say logtroll. : )

    I’m enjoying this campfire level ‘flame’ between you two. I’ll have to agree that D. Bonson has used “projection” to defend his argument, not taking sides though.

    Words of wisdom: …Peace!…in the end we are all dead…no?

    Carl Nemo **==

    • Ah, yes, a little dustup in the schoolyard, spontaneous amateur fisticuffs… one of the most precious (and cheapest) of the entertainments!

      Here in the Matrix we do suffer from a lack of the real thing, mostly getting only highly manufactured imitations of life delivered via the telly.

      I think the boxing gear that DB has gotten from Fox is of an inferior grade and won’t stand up for three rounds in the ring. Which one of those poo ladeling doofuses is using “scientific method” in his carnival pitch?

  4. Logtroll, it looks as if its impossible for you to be tempted to counter my comments as you have so far proven unable to do so. Your Straw Man arguments continue to be ineffective and you refuse to answer questions I have put to you.

    And you are now trying to categorize me as a Limbaugh/Beck follower in another pathetic attempt to justify your views. This allegation is baseless as I did not bring up either of those poor examples of “journalists” into the discussion. I brought up other poor examples such as Gore and Romm, which you have avoided commenting on their tactics. Too inconvenient maybe?

    Spoiler Alert: FOX isn’t the only corporate media entity that resorts to lying or propaganda tactics to push their agendas. All the corporate media companies are guilty of this. Have you been sucked in by some of them?

    If you don’t know about the Scientific Method then you are hardly in a position to criticize anyone on the subject of climate journalism.

    • Dude,

      Let’s make a new distinction; Fox claims to be a news organization with real journalists. You are comparing it to Al Gore (and Romm, whoever the hell that is), who is an individual promoting his own agenda, who doesn’t represent himself as a journalist and doesn’t besmirch the airwaves 24/7 with biased spew that pretends to be reported news. Right or wrong, Gore is an inconsequential gnat compared to Fox in the propaganda game. By a little application of scientific method, aka managed logic, one might assume that you think apples and oranges are the same thing.

      Once again you have assumed to know my positions on things that I have not revealed to you. Is that more of your scientific method? Just because one can find other examples of media bias, does that mean Fox is honest and reliable?

      My only position represented here is that Fox is trash. No straw men, no assumptions about whatever other beliefs you might hold, just that Fox has suckered you up to your eyebrows. I am sorry for you and I am sorry for this country that they are so damn good at poisoning the well.

  5. Logtroll, not as clever as your twisting my words from “finally brings a little journalistic credibility in climate reporting” to “Fox is THE credible source for journalism” (notice the word “little”). Its a pity for you that your lame straw man attempt to do so showcases your bias against open debate when it threatens your beliefs.

    Why are you so forgiving of the hypocritical approach of Gore and Romm? They are apt examples of preaching one ideal while practising another when it comes to media matters relating to climate. They are the ones wanting money from “trusting folks” by using F.U.D (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) tactics while quelling any debate that would very effectively show their views to be unfounded when scrutinised by the Scientific Method.

    • Yo, Dude,

      You are reading an awful lot into my comments and demonstrating the psychological principle of projection with your judgments. I’m sorely tempted to counter with, “Same to you and more of it!” But I won’t. (That was a Fox journalism trick, take a note).

      Let me skip the cleverness this time; my sole point is that Fox news runs on a business model of lying, distortion, and fear-mongering propaganda, all for the purpose of making money. Any accidental real journalism that issues therefrom is for the purpose of giving them a few fallback tidbits of credibility to argue saintliness. Limbaugh tried and proved the method and many are following the model. Beck has to be the Flim-Flam King with the extremes he takes it to. And for some god-only-knows-what reason, people like you fall for it.

      We like to blame the politicos for the problems of our nation, but we all contribute through our chronic laziness, irresponsibility, and fear. Fox makes a bundle playing to our faults. (Scientific method my ass, what ARE you talking about?).

  6. Very clever, DB, proving your point that Fox is THE credible source for journalism by citing a Fox opinion guy’s faux journalism “quotes out of context” proof about the incredible jounalistic acts of the targeted by-declamation hypocrites who called out Fox for strategically requiring staff to always add spin to their supposed “journalistic” efforts for the purpose of discrediting science and confusing the holy sh-t out of trusting folks who just want to know who the enemy is so they can send all their money to the other guys who are, in reality, scamming the pants off of them.

    Your first post mislead me into thinking that you were sheepishly gullible.

  7. Your welcome logtroll. Have you actually read the leaked memo?

    Sites such as Al Gore’s blog, Joe Romm’s blog and others of their ilk have jumped on this as proof of manipulating journalism. Unfortunately, those sites have a long history of biased reporting in climate matters and will ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

    Read the following article which shows both the hypocrisy and lack of journalistic integrity of those crying foul.

  8. Someone at FOX finally brings a little journalistic credibility in climate reporting and hypocritical sites are up in arms over this improvement in reporting.

    Have a look at all the sites complaining about this and you will find that their views are tainted towards their partisan beliefs. This is not journalism, it is merely propaganda for the unintelligent and gullible sheep.

    • Thanks DB for an excellent specimen of “the Rule of the Opposite Thing”, which is fundamental to, as you pointed out, unintelligent and gullible Fox sheep.

      Let me rephrase your cleverly crafted ill-logic — a Fox editor tells company journalists to always skew stories on climate change and this enhances Fox credibility in journalism.

      Someone else reports the fact that Fox has a stated policy of propagandizing news stories, and that reporter is practicing bad journalism.

      Got it! It’s all a bunch of ROT.

Comments are closed.