I just got word from the producer, that I will be on the PBS Newshour tonight. This is a long segment on climate change that will include several notable people from the climate debate, including Dr. Richard Muller among others. I don’t know what part of the hour the segment will be in, but because it is a feature story, I would suspect it not to be in the first few minutes. (Check local listings here)
I was asked by Spencer Michels, their San Francisco based correspondent, to do an interview. At the outset, he said that this would be an “in depth” segment. I replied that all I asked for was “fair editing” and he replied that there would be.
I was interviewed in my office on August 14th for about two hours. A three person crew (including Michels) with full production lighting was brought into my office where the interview was conducted. He was most interested in my surfacestations project, and my views on the severity of AGW effects and I replied at length. Later in follow up requests he asked for examples of weather stations in the SFO bay area that were affected and here is what I replied with in email:
=============================================================
===============================================================
Whether or not any of that supplemental info plus my two hours of time investment gets turned into a segment that reflects what I actually said is of course the question of the day. I have to think based on my interaction with Mr. Michels, which was quite pleasant, that it will be fair, though he did mention that there was quite a debate in the Washington office over my participation. So, that causes a little bit of worry to me.
On the plus side, he said something off camera that I thought was quite curious at the end of the interview:
You don’t seem that extreme.
I suppose that because I agreed that global warming occurred over the last century, and that Co2 plays a role (though isn’t the only driver) that he was surprised that he didn’t have a “denier” soundbite to work with. I spent a lot of time talking about station siting and the effects on absolute temperature and temperature trends as we discovered in Watts et al 2012, the logarithmic response of IR to CO2 in the atmosphere and other issues from a pragmatic viewpoint (IMHO).
Let’s hope he and the editors kept that thought about my supposed extremism when they edited.
UPDATE: My interview (a condensed version, though mostly accurate) is now online: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/17/my-interview-with-pbs-newshour-now-online/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the media, the word “fair” is completely subjective. It can mean one thing for you and something totally different for the editor.
Maybe he meant you have a pleasant demeanor….in other words, you lack the horns and pitchfork he was told to expect.
Anthony:
Is there a way that those of us not in the US can see the program, please?
Richard
REPLY- it will be online afterwards, I’ll post it. – Anthony
Don’t worry, you will get your “denier” label at some point.
First rule, never trust a politician.
Second rule, apply first rule to journalists.
REPLY: This fellow is old school, and he and I have some shared history in the broadcast business through mutual acquaintances. I got no hint of any sort of setup or malice other than that one curious comment. We’ll see. – Anthony
Well at least it wasn’t the CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration) wherein AW would have been portrayed and an insane right wing, Christian, Bush loving, seal hunt advocate, hater.
Maybe some facts will leak out through the cracks.
Extreme is not a word I would ever use for you, Brutally passionate is far more accurate. Good luck on fair and balanced Anthony in these sad times I really think that phrase is dead.
Just make sure to make and keep your own copy of the interview.
That way if the editing isn’t fair, then you can prove your side of the story.
Extreme Danger, judging by what has happened previously, hope I’m wrong but I fear the worst.
Don’t let them pull a Lewandowski on you.
I have no confidence, none at all, that your views will be fairly represented. By the time they get through with you, you’ll seem as though you bark at the moon and soil your pants.
Defund NPR and PBS. (They lie and they know they lie.)
You might consider sending photos of good weather stations so they can see the difference.
Good luck. My parents get almost all of their news from the PBS Newshour. I asked them about climategate a couple of years ago and they’d never heard of it.
I hope we get a chance to see that interview here in the UK – any chance you could make sure to try and get a link to an online video when it’s aired over there? Meantime, many thanks from a regular reader here, for all your hard work from ‘across the pond’!
They’re always surprised when reality doesn’t match the echo-chamber they live in. You hope that their brains and whatever ethical sense they have would change their behavior, but when roving journalists return to the fold, the light goes out and the fantasy story remains in place. I don’t hold out much hope for a fair report. I’ll be looking for the “what they reported” v. “what I said” post here at WUWT.
I can’t wait to see it.
Every time skeptics gets a fair hearing we usually win out over the “warmists.”
A warning Anthony. To a journalist (and society in general), the definition of “fair” is: “fair–adjective, anything that is to my benefit is fair, anything that is to my detriment is unfair.” Note that nowhere in the definition is there a reference to other parties.
BTW…. very ballzy. Watts steps into the viper pit.
On the plus side, he said something off camera that I thought was quite curious at the end of the interview: “You don’t seem that extreme.”
Time will tell whether that was a plus or not. It does make it clear that his mindset regarding skeptics had already been set in stone. He’ll be a very exceptional journalist indeed if he can overcome his bias and make an even-handed presentation. He’s apparently already being beat up by his peers for even considering giving you air time. This could be a landmark piece of journalism or it could be the same old propaganda. We’ll soon know.
How on Earth can any sceptic view be considered ‘extremist’? What are these extreme views that we are supposed to hold? Is asking questions extremist?
As for warmist views, extreme is par for the course. Is there anything that the CAGW believer will not exaggerate?
Best of luck with your segment though I do think you are a hostage to fortune here. The fact that your inclusion was considered controversial makes me wary of the outcome.
Having read the democratic platform and its Climate change segments and given the massive bias that Even a Brit like me can detect from thousands of miles away, I wont hold my breath for them being fair towards either you or the subject.
Maybe I have just become deeply cynical in my dotage 🙂
I find it interesting that those who, in the past, have insisted upon “diversity” are the ones nowadays who are doing everything in their power to avoid it when it challenges their
belief that they are saving the world. I am continually struck by the close resemblance of these
folks to fundamentalist religion adherents – the same belief that man is sinful (i.e. has a size 13 carbon footprint) and needs to change his ways or a worldwide catastrophe will descend and wipe us out, and that their’s is the only path to salvation. Of course, their opposition to nuclear power seems to contradict their desires. Their God is Mother Nature, although the destructive forces it
produces doesn’t seem to alter their belief in Her goodness. Logically, environmentalists are
a basket case and have a more or less anti rational outlook – just look at their ready acceptance
of the most implausible conspiracy theories one can conjure up.
Hope you recorded the interview yourself – even if only via a little digital recorder strategically hidden out of sight. Having said that, I’m pretty sure you legally need a person’s consent to record them. Just because I it’s obviously a common query in these cases: could you tell us if you did record it yourself, Anthony?
Be careful. These people are not fair and trustworthy.
See if you can make a complete, seperate unedited video of the interview, or get the same.
Media like this have no problem parsing an interview to make you look as badly as possible.
Beware of the friendly reporter who gets you to smile at somethign and then edits it to show you as some vacuuous uninformed person.
Be preapred, if it is a panel, to be rudely interrupted and then not allwed to respond.
Lets try again:
Here’s hoping that you are fairly represented by the editors Anthony. You never know, now that the IPCC have redefined climate change , the tide may be turning.
OK I give up, here’s the link:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/ipcc-reports-then-and-now/
This is PBS right? Sorry but he must stick to the party line.
IT”S NOT HIS FAULT. I hope I’m wrong though!