Journalism...or Propaganda
This piece is not about global warming, whether it exists, or whether it is caused by man. (Although if you want to comment that its existence is beyond question, I will appreciate you for your willingness to indelibly paint yourself as either a) an repentant ideologue or b) a moron who can't read.)
This piece is about the difference between good journalism and propaganda, and whether we as readers of the news in North Central Montana can or should legitimately expect to receive the former. The Tribune yesterday ran a piece entitled "Climate change affecting agriculture, wildlife, recreation." The clear thrust of the piece is that global warming is real and is caused by man.
The reporter states that "most scientists" agree about climate change. This necessarily implies that another number, up to 49%, do not agree with the idea that it is real and caused by man. My problem is this: Not once, anywhere, does the reporter cite to any source that suggests that climate change is not occurring on a long-term basis or that it is not caused by man. She acknowledges, then ignores, competing points of view.
Then, in a sidebar appearing in the print version of the story, the reporter noted 10 things we can do to affect climate change. Number 8? Write to a senator to lobby him or her in favor of environmentalist policies.
Is this really what a newspaper is supposed to do? Present a completely one-sided account of a story, and then urge political action by the readers based upon that account? I would submit that it is not, and what we really have here is left-wing, environmentalist propaganda.
Wikiepedia defines "propaganda" as "a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information." Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Endnote: Faithful readers of the Tribune know they frown on and refuse to publish 'form letters' to the editor. In other words, if a political group suggests that its members send a letter in a particular form to various newspapers, and if the Tribune figures it out, they won't publish it. It is interesting that in Number 8, referred to above, the Tribune refers the reader to a website where a coalition of state, left-wing public interest research groups and "state environmental groups" will send...yup, you guessed it, a form letter on your behalf.
13 comments:
The reporter specifically says the story isn't about whether global warming is caused by human activity. It's about steps being taken in this area to deal with warmer temperatures. Rather than rehash the debate, the story goes straight for solutions. That seems like a reasonable approach to me.
I have to disagree with your analysis. If the story "isn't about whether global warming is caused by human activity," the reporter has a strange way of showing it ("Most scientists now agree that greenhouse gases contribute to the Earth's warming ... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities ... Gases from factories, cars and coal-burning power plants are blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere and contributing to global warming ... Power plants are responsible for more than a third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions ... an inventory for greenhouse gas emissions ...) To the extent the story "isn't about whether global warming is caused by human activity," it is only because the reporter writes the story from the perspective that such is a known, or given fact.
Again, while the cause may be man, that's not my point. It is that the story is completely one-sided, and is really only so much environmentalist propaganda.
But geeguy, what would the other side be? If you are writing a story about actions that are being taken to deal with consequences of global warming (regardless of whether you can establish beyond scientific dispute whether humans are too blame) what would count as telling both sides? Do you give equal time to people who aren't doing anything?
I guess I disagree with your premise that it is all about steps being taken. That might be the ostensible focus, but I think actual discussion of steps being taken is a small part of the article in favor of the standard litany of man-made/Kyoto Protocol/global warming posturing.
Oh, come on, Wulfgar. Don't tell me you missed the point. If a newspaper is going to do an article on global warming, and then tell people to write their congressmen, shouldn't they include even a teensey weensey bit of the opposing point of view?
Yeah, but SallyT, those web sites you cite have been disproven, and your numbers are outdated, and they're wrong, and, and, my scientists can beat up your scientists, and everyone knows it's true and you're nothing but a right-wing reactionary, and, and...you're...you're..stupid!
While SallyT can certainly fend for herself, Wulfgar, I find that both your and Mr. Crisp's response to my complaint simply dodge the issue.
Mr. Crisp argues that it is not necessary to discuss alternative causes to climate change because the article is about solutions. You argue that it is not necessary to discuss opposing viewpoints because those reflected in the article are true.
Neither of you address what I hoped to make the point of the piece. Journalism is supposed to be balanced. Propaganda is one-sided with a particular outcome in mind.
I argued that laying out a several page piece without setting forth one single piece of contrary evidence, and then suggesting we take political action based on the one-sided story is propaganda, pure and simple.
Come on, Wulfgar, the very article that started all this states "Most scientists now agree that greenhouse gases contribute to the Earth's warming." Most, as in "not all."
Yet you now state that climate change and man as a cause is beyond question. An indisputable fact.
So, some number less than all scientists think global warming is real and caused by man, and some number less than all scientists think it is not. Yet, omniscient Wulfgar declares that all scientists who disagree with him are wrong, crying about the flat earth. Because Wulfgar's views are "fact." That's no basis for discussion, or even debate.
I respect your views, Wulfgar, but you're not that smart.
First of all, and I mean this sincerely, if you took what I said as an insult I apologize. It wasn't meant that way. When I say "you are not that smart," I do not mean that you are dumb, but merely that I do not believe you are so intelligent that your statements of "fact" on a weblog are beyond question.
Your approach to this argument is not reasoned debate. You throw out a proposition as "fact," and then challenge others to "disprove" it. Then when you conclude others cannot "disprove" your "fact," that means your "fact" is a given.
"Global warming is real. Show otherwise if you're able." That is not proof of anything Wulfgar.
You have "proven" nothing.
Global Warming is a falsity perpetrated by the left. To find it exists, one merely takes some perceived thermal anomolies occuring over an infinitesimal time period (which is what 100 years in terms of the history of the earth) and draws all kinds of grandiose and horrible conclusions from these perceived anomolies.
There, now those are "facts." Prove otherwise. Never mind, you can't do it.
The funny part of all this, Wulfgar, is that I am far more open to accepting the existence of global warming and man's relationship to it than you are to the possibility that it is not a scientifically proven fact but is a mere theory...and yet I'm the one who is accused of being closed minded!
Wulfgar's arguments on this remind of Dan Rather's arguments on the apparently faked Bush National Guard documents. Rather still insists they are authentic because critics haven't come up with 100 percent proof that they are forgeries.
A food point is that science is not consensu, and consensu is not science. Forget who said it, but it does more to help this debate than claiming sides.
Sure human activity may contribute to global warming, but how much, and to what extent are we to destroy lives just so I can freeze my ass off in Montana?
A good point is that science is not consensu, and consensu is not science. Forget who said it, but it does more to help this debate than claiming sides.
Sure human activity may contribute to global warming, but how much, and to what extent are we to destroy lives just so I can freeze my ass off in Montana?
I found this old debate while searching for something else, but I can't but ask this question. somebody says
"And methinks it's a bunch stupid to believe that 6 billion of us can't change the climate. And methinks it's a bunch stupid to believe that 6 billion of us can't change the climate. "
OK, so if it is the number of people (and the livestock needed to feed them" that is the caus, why not start fighting that. The population in the western civilization is stagnant or falling, in Africa The Middle East and Asia it is rocketing. Strangely these areas are free to pollute whatever they want, whereas we in the west must pay. It's not science, it's politics. I agree that the general US household easily could halve energy used, but it should also be noted that a house in Kuwait use twice the energy in aircon alone, than a household in northern latitudes - including heating and transportation.
Post a Comment