For those of us fed up with the lack of press coverage of the many revelations that continue to bulldoze each and every claim of the global warming zealots, perhaps a view of the ecozealot trenches will highlight the fact that even if we still don’t get anything like the press coverage the real facts deserve, if anything, the fall from “press darling” of the other side is far far worse to stomach. So, for those of a strong constitution this article may be worth a read:
Nisbet set out to “assess the performance of the mainstream news media in 2009 and 2010” and concludes in his Executive Summary that “major U.S. news organizations have overwhelmingly portrayed the consensus view on the reality and causes of climate change”
Or in plain English: the The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN.com, Politico and The Wall Street Journal. continue to push the view of the small group of climatologists as if it had an equal standing with real science.
REPORT IGNORES CLEAR TREND IN ITS OWN DATA TOWARD WORSE MEDIA PERFORMANCE
After evaluating articles on climate change in the Times, Post, Journal, Politico and CNN.com from 2009 and 2010, Nisbet concludes: “In recent years, major U.S. news organizations have overwhelmingly portrayed the consensus view on the reality and causes of climate change.”
But the report fails to explain the difference that shows up in its data between articles published before and after the “Climategate” controversy. According to numbers provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 of the report, only CNN.com remained consistent in the percentage of articles that accurately portrayed the scientific consensus on climate change.
In other words, whilst the ecozealots don’t want to admit it (particularly on Wikipedia) climategate was a game changer for everyone except CNN.
It’s hard to imagine that the groups or individuals who orchestrated the “Climategate” scandal were disappointed with the media response.
Now that is humour! What media response? Orchestrated … as I recall it was more like a karaoke contest when all the contestants arrived late, all got on the stage together and then all shouted as loud as possible in the vain hope that someone from the press might turn up to report on the noise (not the singing). And, as I recall, the BBC dealt with it as if it were a bit of dog dirt which they had to dispose of as quickly and as unsympathetically as possible
… but wasn’t it all worth it … that wonderful memory of a humiliated Obama coming down the fossil fuel eating airplane steps from jokenhagen into a snow storm!
The media represent the views of their chief executives. These are corporate views. Any resemblance to the truth in any given article, on any given day, is strictly an accidental coincidence. To expect a media outlet to tell the truth, or to believe that they do, is illogical and suggests that such people are in need of psychological counseling and treatment.