Science Editor: Fox News Told Me Not To Talk About Climate Change

[Synthaholic]

Science Editor: Fox News Told Me Not To Talk About Climate Change


This week, a science writer was asked to appear on Fox News to discuss the future of science and technology. However, he says there was one caveat: The issue of climate change would be off-limits.

On Wednesday, Michael Moyer, an editor at Scientific American, described his experience with the news outlet this way:

Fox & Friends producer wanted to talk about future trends. I said #1 will be impacts of climate change. I was told to pick something else.

— Michael Moyer (@mmoyr) April 30, 2014

"About the only interesting thing that the scientific community is sure will happen in the next 50 years is that climate change is going to get worse, and that we’re going to have to deal with the impacts. So I put that as one of my talking points," he wrote.

But Moyer says a producer of the show soon reached out to him to tell him explicitly to not discuss climate change during the segment. Not wanting to back out of an opportunity to "share cool science with whomever will listen," Moyer agreed to still appear on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday.

"I found the tone and topics of coverage while I was sitting in the green room this morning to be not something that I wanted to be a part of in the future," he told Talking Points Memo of his "Fox & Friends" experience. "I didn't realize that the drumbeat of conservative propaganda was so ubiquitous on the show."

 

[Synthaholic]

Fair & Balanced & Censored

 

[shart_attack]

I wonder what the Managing Editor at MSNBC has told some of their eds about presenting all sides in the debate over gay marriage.

Just sayin'.

 

[Synthaholic]

I wonder what the Managing Editor at MSNBC has told some of their eds about presenting all sides in the debate over gay marriage.

Just sayin'.

Are you claiming that MSNBC has muted opposing voices in the Marriage Equality OR DADT controversies? I thought you were smarter than that.

One of their regular contributors is General Barry McCaffrey, ex-Drug Czar. He argued endlessly against DADT.

Another regular contributor is Hogan Gidley, of the Rick Santorum campaign. He argues endlessly against both DADT and Marriage Equality.

So do Michael Steele, Joe Watkins, S.E. Cupp, etc.

 

[shart_attack]

I wonder what the Managing Editor at MSNBC has told some of their eds about presenting all sides in the debate over gay marriage.

Just sayin'.

Are you claiming that MSNBC has muted opposing voices in the Marriage Equality OR DADT controversies? I thought you were smarter than that.

Nah. Just claiming that you're an idiot and a partisan hack if you think other networks besides Fox don't suppress viewpoint-based news just as much as Fox does.

And yes, the subject of your thread here does revolve around suppression of viewpoint-based news, because evidence of global warming is merely circumstantial — not entirely authoritative.

One of their regular contributors is General Barry McCaffrey, ex-Drug Czar. He argued endlessly against DADT.

And what has he said about global warming?

Another regular contributor is Hogan Gidley, of the Rick Santorum campaign. He argues endlessly against both DADT and Marriage Equality.

So do Michael Steele, Joe Watkins, S.E. Cupp, etc.

Yep.

Aaaaaaaaaaand incidentally enough, that also just happens to be the one singular thing that the majority (not plurality) of Americans—their party affiliations notwithstanding—like about those ladies and gents.

 

[Synthaholic]

I wonder what the Managing Editor at MSNBC has told some of their eds about presenting all sides in the debate over gay marriage.

Just sayin'.

Are you claiming that MSNBC has muted opposing voices in the Marriage Equality OR DADT controversies? I thought you were smarter than that.

Nah. Just claiming that you're an idiot and a partisan hack if you think other networks besides Fox don't suppress viewpoint-based news just as much as Fox does.

Do you believe that MSNBC or CNN or Al Jazeera producers explicitly tell guests to not broach legitimate subjects that are part of their professional field?

 

[shart_attack]

I wonder what the Managing Editor at MSNBC has told some of their eds about presenting all sides in the debate over gay marriage.

Just sayin'.

Are you claiming that MSNBC has muted opposing voices in the Marriage Equality OR DADT controversies? I thought you were smarter than that.

Nah. Just claiming that you're an idiot and a partisan hack if you think other networks besides Fox don't suppress viewpoint-based news just as much as Fox does.

Do you believe that MSNBC or CNN or Al Jazeera producers explicitly tell guests to not broach legitimate subjects that are part of their professional field?

Well, let's see, one of its most prominent talking hacks is a confidante of former President Jimmy Carter and a paid speechwriter for the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Another is an openly-avowed snitch (and confidante of President Obama) who continually uses his platform to try to trigger the Second American Civil War.

The network itself is a megaphone for President Obama.

Yes, I totally believe that MSNBC suppresses viewpoint-based news.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, let's see, one of its most prominent talking hacks is a confidante of former President Jimmy Carter and a paid speechwriter for the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Another is an openly-avowed snitch (and confidante of President Obama) who continually uses his platform to try to trigger the Second American Civil War.

The network itself is a megaphone for President Obama.

Yes, I totally believe that MSNBC suppresses viewpoint-based news.

That's not what I asked you, now, is it?

Wanna try again?

Do you believe that MSNBC or CNN or Al Jazeera producers explicitly tell guests to not broach legitimate subjects that are part of their professional field?​

Take your time and understand what I'm asking. the bolded part is probably your best hint.

 

[shart_attack]

Well, let's see, one of its most prominent talking hacks is a confidante of former President Jimmy Carter and a paid speechwriter for the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Another is an openly-avowed snitch (and confidante of President Obama) who continually uses his platform to try to trigger the Second American Civil War.

The network itself is a megaphone for President Obama.

Yes, I totally believe that MSNBC suppresses viewpoint-based news.

That's not what I asked you, now, is it?

Wanna try again?

Do you believe that MSNBC or CNN or Al Jazeera producers explicitly tell guests to not broach legitimate subjects that are part of their professional field?​

Take your time and understand what I'm asking. the bolded part is probably your best hint.

MSNBC Host Gets Schooled By Conservative Guest After He Gets Personal

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, let's see, one of its most prominent talking hacks is a confidante of former President Jimmy Carter and a paid speechwriter for the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Another is an openly-avowed snitch (and confidante of President Obama) who continually uses his platform to try to trigger the Second American Civil War.

The network itself is a megaphone for President Obama.

Yes, I totally believe that MSNBC suppresses viewpoint-based news.

That's not what I asked you, now, is it?

Wanna try again?

Do you believe that MSNBC or CNN or Al Jazeera producers explicitly tell guests to not broach legitimate subjects that are part of their professional field?​

Take your time and understand what I'm asking. the bolded part is probably your best hint.

MSNBC Host Gets Schooled By Conservative Guest After He Gets Personal

You've now run away from my direct question twice.

It's very satisfying for me.

 

[whitehall]

Fair & Balanced & Censored

Aren't low information lefties aware that all media interviews like this are restricted to certain subjects for the sake of time scheduling? What could the whiny "scientist" say about GW that hasn't been said? Typical of pompous asses in the scientific community this guy has a big chip on his shoulder and a bias toward Fox. It's a non story and low information lefties aren't even aware of it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I still don't understand those who reject climate change science, or even just don't wanna discuss it. If you're wrong, we all die. Is it really only about the money? If you're dead what good is money?

 

[jwoodie]

I still don't understand those who reject climate change science, or even just don't wanna discuss it. If you're wrong, we all die. Is it really only about the money? If you're dead what good is money?

I still don't understand those who substituted climate change for global warming when the data didn't support it.