If you think the Media is honest and credible. . . .

[Foxfyre]

He's not asking about global warming. He's asking about Fox's dishonest coverage of global warming.

I was referring to the PBS article he referred to earlier. As for the report on Fox News and WSJ coverage of global warming issues, I have found both to be far more balanced and both at least report opposing points of view which LiveScience generally does not do. Therefore I have to place any criticism of Fox News by LiveScience into the category of needing far more verification from more reliable sources before I will accept their opinion.

Fox not only "report opposing points of view". It treats them as if they're the scientific consensus.

I accept that as your opinion which may or may not be based on something more substantive than your opinion of Fox. I do not accept that as fact unless you can support it with something more than your opinion.

 

[Polk]

Wry already linked to an article about the Union of Concerned Scientists study showing 93% of global warming coverage on Fox is inaccurate.

 

[Foxfyre]

On global warming reporting, LiveScience takes the unequivocable view that AGW is a reality and has reported that 97% of scientists now believe it is happening with 90% certainty. I strongly question that based on scientists I have personally discussed this topic with and on other opinions I have read. Is the reporting on AGW complete and honest by all sources? Not from my perspective.

It isn't that LiveScience means to be dishonest. Their stuff is cited or utilized by mainstream news organizations, including Fox News. But their writers only give us one side of the story.

For instance, I have never seen LiveScience report anything like this:

Joseph D'Aleo the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel explains, "The forecasters live in the real world. They know models in general, and they know these models don't even get tomorrow right. They aren't going to trust them to be right about what is going to happen in 2100."

We in India should instinctively appreciate this logic having the ready illustration of monsoon predictions going haywire, year after year. This year was no exception—with not a single international model, including those of the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) on course to getting it right.

So finding themselves totally impotent to stop climate sceptic weathermen from influencing public opinion on the climate debate, the AGW lobby did the next best thing. Get the AMS to endorse AGW. And how would they do that? By offering liberal funding just as the West offers our NGOs to advocate adoption of policies friendly to their interests here in this country. Lord Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, in a lighter vein exposed such funding to AMS in his article Climate ($$$ and) Change. Read here.
Global warming and climate change: The never-ending debate - Moneylife

When we hear that the AMS supports the AGW theories, it is helpful to know what happened at the same time they changed their position to support AGW. Maybe they would have done so anyway, but for somebody like me, I have to wonder whether this is the real deal when most meterologists are not ready to get on board with that because so far, the AGW scientists scientific models have produced little or no accuracy to date.

Thinking people look at all the available data with an open mind. The closed mind is willing to see only one point of view.

I would very much like for those providing media information to all be thinking people with open minds.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suppose Foxfyre will find cause to question this too:

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds - Yahoo! News

The Primary Source is here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

This thread is not about global warming and I won't participate in a discussion of that and politely request that this thread not be derailed into that.

This thread is about media honesty. And the story you posted re PBS's coverage on global warming is neither conclusive nor instructive on the topic of this thread. Somebody's opinion expressed on a TV program may or may not be accurate; may or may not be well researched; may or may not include and/or omit any mitigating information that would encourage the viewer or reader to draw any conclusion other than what the 'reporter' wants the viewer or reader to believe.

You see THAT is the point of this thread. Does the information provide ALL credible points of view? Or does it attempt to indoctrinate you with a particular point of view? One precious freedom too many Americans are willing to give up is the ability to think for oneself. Too many want somebody to tell them what to believe or think, and once they pick a side, they become riigid and refuse to even consider a different way of looking at it.

Those of us who value freedom do not want our opinions dictated to us. We want ALL information so that we have a real shot at arriving at a place that is closer to the whole truth.

Here for instance is an unbiased and objective look at Arctic Ice melt. Does it reinforce the opinion expressed on PBS? Or does it leave room to consider other possibilities? It is the consideration of all possibilities that exist that makes a news report of any kind credible and trustworthy.
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

You missed the point. There was no intent to derail this thread, the post was clear. It provided evidence that Fox misrepresents science; its intent is to offer evidence that Fox is dishonest. The links are credible sources; your posts are becoming less so. Spin all you like, but don't expect me to buy what you hope to sell.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose Foxfyre will find cause to question this too:

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds - Yahoo! News

The Primary Source is here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

This thread is not about global warming and I won't participate in a discussion of that and politely request that this thread not be derailed into that.

This thread is about media honesty. And the story you posted re PBS's coverage on global warming is neither conclusive nor instructive on the topic of this thread. Somebody's opinion expressed on a TV program may or may not be accurate; may or may not be well researched; may or may not include and/or omit any mitigating information that would encourage the viewer or reader to draw any conclusion other than what the 'reporter' wants the viewer or reader to believe.

You see THAT is the point of this thread. Does the information provide ALL credible points of view? Or does it attempt to indoctrinate you with a particular point of view? One precious freedom too many Americans are willing to give up is the ability to think for oneself. Too many want somebody to tell them what to believe or think, and once they pick a side, they become riigid and refuse to even consider a different way of looking at it.

Those of us who value freedom do not want our opinions dictated to us. We want ALL information so that we have a real shot at arriving at a place that is closer to the whole truth.

Here for instance is an unbiased and objective look at Arctic Ice melt. Does it reinforce the opinion expressed on PBS? Or does it leave room to consider other possibilities? It is the consideration of all possibilities that exist that makes a news report of any kind credible and trustworthy.
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

You missed the point. There was no intent to derail this thread, the post was clear. It provided evidence that Fox misrepresents science; its intent is to offer evidence that Fox is dishonest. The links are credible sources; your posts are becoming less so. Spin all you like, but don't expect me to buy what you hope to sell.

Perhaps it does. Perhaps it doesn't. But again, I will need evidence other than the opinion of a LiveScience writer as LiveScience is not an unbiased or objective source re global warming.

My purpose is not to defend or denounce any media source in particular, though I am trying to focus mostly on the MSM as the vast majority of Americans form most of the impressions re current events from that medium. If you can find a valid example of how Fox News intentionally misrepresents science, that would be a good thing to post in this thread. But as I personally have observed BOTH sides of the AGW issue discussed on Fox News, I won't take the opinion of a biased science writer writing for a biased website as an authority on the veracity of Fox News.

 

[Polk]

On global warming reporting, LiveScience takes the unequivocable view that AGW is a reality and has reported that 97% of scientists now believe it is happening with 90% certainty. I strongly question that based on scientists I have personally discussed this topic with and on other opinions I have read. Is the reporting on AGW complete and honest by all sources? Not from my perspective.

It isn't that LiveScience means to be dishonest. Their stuff is cited or utilized by mainstream news organizations, including Fox News. But their writers only give us one side of the story.

For instance, I have never seen LiveScience report anything like this:

Joseph D'Aleo the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel explains, "The forecasters live in the real world. They know models in general, and they know these models don't even get tomorrow right. They aren't going to trust them to be right about what is going to happen in 2100."

We in India should instinctively appreciate this logic having the ready illustration of monsoon predictions going haywire, year after year. This year was no exception—with not a single international model, including those of the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) on course to getting it right.

So finding themselves totally impotent to stop climate sceptic weathermen from influencing public opinion on the climate debate, the AGW lobby did the next best thing. Get the AMS to endorse AGW. And how would they do that? By offering liberal funding just as the West offers our NGOs to advocate adoption of policies friendly to their interests here in this country. Lord Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, in a lighter vein exposed such funding to AMS in his article Climate ($$$ and) Change. Read here.
Global warming and climate change: The never-ending debate - Moneylife

When we hear that the AMS supports the AGW theories, it is helpful to know what happened at the same time they changed their position to support AGW. Maybe they would have done so anyway, but for somebody like me, I have to wonder whether this is the real deal when most meterologists are not ready to get on board with that because so far, the AGW scientists scientific models have produced little or no accuracy to date.

Thinking people look at all the available data with an open mind. The closed mind is willing to see only one point of view.

I would very much like for those providing media information to all be thinking people with open minds.

The article was posted by "LiveScience", but the study comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

As for meterologists, they're not the same thing as climatologists, and noting climatologists are the ones with the specialized knowledge in the field, they're the ones that should be listened to.

 

[Foxfyre]

On global warming reporting, LiveScience takes the unequivocable view that AGW is a reality and has reported that 97% of scientists now believe it is happening with 90% certainty. I strongly question that based on scientists I have personally discussed this topic with and on other opinions I have read. Is the reporting on AGW complete and honest by all sources? Not from my perspective.

It isn't that LiveScience means to be dishonest. Their stuff is cited or utilized by mainstream news organizations, including Fox News. But their writers only give us one side of the story.

For instance, I have never seen LiveScience report anything like this:

Joseph D'Aleo the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel explains, "The forecasters live in the real world. They know models in general, and they know these models don't even get tomorrow right. They aren't going to trust them to be right about what is going to happen in 2100."

We in India should instinctively appreciate this logic having the ready illustration of monsoon predictions going haywire, year after year. This year was no exception—with not a single international model, including those of the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) on course to getting it right.

So finding themselves totally impotent to stop climate sceptic weathermen from influencing public opinion on the climate debate, the AGW lobby did the next best thing. Get the AMS to endorse AGW. And how would they do that? By offering liberal funding just as the West offers our NGOs to advocate adoption of policies friendly to their interests here in this country. Lord Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, in a lighter vein exposed such funding to AMS in his article Climate ($$$ and) Change. Read here.
Global warming and climate change: The never-ending debate - Moneylife

When we hear that the AMS supports the AGW theories, it is helpful to know what happened at the same time they changed their position to support AGW. Maybe they would have done so anyway, but for somebody like me, I have to wonder whether this is the real deal when most meterologists are not ready to get on board with that because so far, the AGW scientists scientific models have produced little or no accuracy to date.

Thinking people look at all the available data with an open mind. The closed mind is willing to see only one point of view.

I would very much like for those providing media information to all be thinking people with open minds.

The article was posted by "LiveScience", but the study comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

As for meterologists, they're not the same thing as climatologists, and noting climatologists are the ones with the specialized knowledge in the field, they're the ones that should be listened to.

Yup, and the USC is another organization that is rigid and unyielding in its points of view and does not provide any information from anybody who disagrees withi that point of view. It also routinely denounces anybody who dares challenge that point of view. I am not going to take time to look it up again, but my last research on the USC showed that most of its participating membership--those writing the opinions--are receiving government grants to study global warming. Those grants go away of course should the 'scientific consensus' show that there was no significant AGW and there was no way that government policy would have any effect on global warming. I will just present that as my basis for understanding what is and what is not a completely honest news source.

 

[Polk]

And if they weren't studying global warming, they'd be getting government grants to study something else. This idea that scientists are somehow pimping a false idea just to rake in grant money is absurd. For starters, it doesn't explain why they were reaching the same conclusions before grant money existed for their research.

 

[Foxfyre]

And if they weren't studying global warming, they'd be getting government grants to study something else. This idea that scientists are somehow pimping a false idea just to rake in grant money is absurd. For starters, it doesn't explain why they were reaching the same conclusions before grant money existed for their research.

You'll have to cite your evidence for that. If you can't, your opinion is noted. Government does few things that stimulate study and research at the private sector level on the scale of AGW. It has been a massive lucrative gravy train for a lot of scientists, and there are others who would very much love to board that train. In my opinion, it is expressily naive to think that the massive government money is not influencing the conclusions put forth in those studies. And, because the left is mostly on the side of the pro AGW doctrine, it is only reasonable to assume that a left leaning media, no longer given to objective reporting, would promote the AGW doctrine by giving favorable coverage to its advocates, and much less favorable coverage to its critics.

 

[Polk]

And if they weren't studying global warming, they'd be getting government grants to study something else. This idea that scientists are somehow pimping a false idea just to rake in grant money is absurd. For starters, it doesn't explain why they were reaching the same conclusions before grant money existed for their research.

You'll have to cite your evidence for that. If you can't, your opinion is noted. Government does few things that stimulate study and research at the private sector level on the scale of AGW. It has been a massive lucrative gravy train for a lot of scientists, and there are others who would very much love to board that train. In my opinion, it is expressily naive to think that the massive government money is not influencing the conclusions put forth in those studies. And, because the left is mostly on the side of the pro AGW doctrine, it is only reasonable to assume that a left leaning media, no longer given to objective reporting, would promote the AGW doctrine by giving favorable coverage to its advocates, and much less favorable coverage to its critics.

I don't need to cite evidence for it, because it's pretty implicit in the idea of grant funding. You're not going to get grants to research something that no one believes exists. If I say gravity exists, I don't need a citation for that either. You know where real massive amounts of money to conduct climate "science" are? Going to work for the oil companies claiming it's a massive hoax. Climate change isn't a "doctrine", it's a theory supported by solid scientific evidence. You'll notice that because virtually every scientist in the field agrees. Holding to the belief that it's false is as credible at this point as saying smoking doesn't increase risk of lung cancer, because hey, a few people employed by tobacco companies say it doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody is paying anybody to study gravity. There IS a bonafide scientific consensus on that, and there is no advantage to anyone in the government or in the scientific community to further study gravity. And there is zero money available. There is massive government spending going into studies of AGW, but it ONLY goes to those who will say that AGW is a problem. Those who have the integrity to suggest that the preponderance of the evidence simply won't support AGW always see any funding they were getting go away.

But all that is better suited to a global warming thread.

My interest here is in the media coverage of global warming and how the MSM usually gives favorable treatment to AGW advocates and usually buries any dissenting opinion if they report it at all.

 

[Polk]

Care to point to where some of massive pools of money for funding climate change research are? And where is the integrity in being a shill for oil companies?

 

[Foxfyre]

Care to point to where some of massive pools of money for funding climate change research are? And where is the integrity in being a shill for oil companies?

I have a close family member who is at a pretty high level and in on most of the inner working of the oil companies. They are makiing out like bandits because of government initiatives re global warming. Trust me, they are quite happy to keep the AGW panic going. That is something the MSM isn't reporting either, but have you wondered why the subsidies to the oil companies continue even as the Democrats and the President trash the oil companies? Have you ever questioned what all that funding goes for? The oil companies do contract out various studies via grants, but very few of those, if any, focus on anthropological global warming. The MSM probably has informed you differently.

I have no idea how much is allocated for AGW research, but it is mega dollars. Such information is almost impossible to obtain uniless you have hours and hours to plod thorugh the federal budget and are privy as to what the various line items are actually covering. Two local scientists involved in very modest projects are receiving $200k and $250k respectfully. And the funding is something the MSM absolutely is avoiding reporting on at all because they don't want any focus there.

 

[Polk]

They don't on it because it's not a real story. 250k for a project that likely spans across several years and requires a team of people to complete. That's not a gold mine.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again lets focus on the media. I have noted that you think government grants to study glonal warming are not excessive and that you don't think they influence either the data produced or the date reported. You don't see a problem and that's cool.

But if you can show me that the MSM is treating the issue evenly between those making claims for AGW versus those who aren't convinced by the data, go for it. And if you can find me a single scientist reported by the MSM who is both a skeptic AND is receiving a government grant to study global warming, I would like to see that too.

 

[LoneLaugher]

A Chart Critics of the 'Lamestream Media' Need to See - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

 

[Jtoomuch]

It's too bad that we really don't have any neutral media. I don't like having even my OWN opinion spoon fed to me all day.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's too bad that we really don't have any neutral media. I don't like having even my OWN opinion spoon fed to me all day.

Exactly. I was in the business when reporter objectivity was not only the norm, but was demanded and rigidly enforced. Any hint of the reporter's opinion that made it into a straight news story would get one's knuckles figuratively rapped by the city desk as would leaving out any mitigating information that would influence the reader's conclusion re what was reported. Also, we weren't allowed to leave such mitigating out of the opening patragraphs and/or headline of a story. There are no such ethics in news reporting, radio/newspaper/television, any more.