Internews is an organization devoted to helping out people in areas not served by an independent media:
Internews is an international media development organization whose mission is to empower local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect, and the means to make their voices heard.
This sounds like a laudable goal, but like many roads paved with good intentions…well, you know where that goes. In particular, this group has a curious idea of what “balanced” reporting means when it comes to global warming alarmism:
Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale. Equally enormous are the adjustments that will have to be made to our energy and transportation systems,economies and societies, if we are to mitigate climate change.
All journalists should understand the science of climate change – its causes, its controversies and its current and projected impacts. Start by doing your own research from established sources, such as reports from the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or from local scientific experts you trust.
Read and report on the latest research from peer-reviewed scientific journals, or at the very least from reputable popular science publications.
OK, so it seems to be a given to these people that global warming is a proven fact. I suppose that doesn’t make them all that different from much of the rest of the media, but then there is this bit of advice for aspiring journalists:
Avoid false balance. Some journalists, trying to be fair and balanced, report the views of climate change sceptics as a counterweight to climate change stories. But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science. For example, an overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that average global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels and that human activity is a significant factor in this.
Of course it’s good to air all sorts of views if they are placed into context. So if you report climate change sceptics’ views, also describe their credentials and whether theirs is a minority opinion.
Oh, so balance is not balance when it is “false” balance, that being when skeptics are given anything approaching equal time without caveats and qualifications designed to make their statements suspect.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, at least they didn’t recommend Wikipedia.
I love that they’re helping us this way, ‘cept not rilly.
“Empowering Local Media Worldwide” — what a joke!
“It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world…..” – 1984.
Must be an offshoot of the BBC then.
Here is some ‘approved’ news from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm
The cold spell is worrying them so they are telling us that it’s OK because it’s actually all part of global warming – obviously!
Note to Mods: I have just posted this letter on an older thread, but it may be more relevant here. I will leave it to you to decide.
An example of “balanced” journalism (NOT) is the local paper in Norwich, the “Evening News”, which has carried little more than a few brief mentions of the CRU emails, and comes down firmly on the side of AGW.
The following appeared on the letters page tonight:
After a disastrous 2009, the new year offers new hope in many respects. And while the UN climate talks in Copenhagen ended with a “historic cop-out”, as Oxfam describes it, there is much reason to believe that 2010 will be different.
The politicians meeting in Denmark’s capital may have huffed, puffed, squabbled and gesticulated, but tens of thousands of ordinary people like me gathered there with a common purpose: solving this climate crisis. We had no other interest besides solving a global problem threatening us all – including us in Norfolk.
The so-called “Copenhagen Accord” stated “the desire to keep warming below two degrees”, but put in place no commitment, and no method by which to do so. As one observer commented: “If the climate were a bank it would have been saved: not abandoned to the brutality of the market.”
If temperatures increase two degrees, it will cause sea levels to rise by more than two metres – swamping the Norfolk Broads, flooding the Thames Estuary and inundating our south-eastern coastline. London, Portsmouth, and much of Kent will need vast new flood defences.
But at least we have the resources to protect ourselves. In developing countries, 300,000 people are dying every year from increased drought, severe flooding, water and food shortages and tropical storms. So, as campaigners like me gathered at Copenhagen, we knew that time was running out.
While the UN summit ended in failure, our own “Peoples Summit” was a success. In solidarity, in unity, fighting for a common cause, we built huge momentum for the future. We protested, we networked, discussed real solutions and produced better outcomes on our own than any politician could manage.
We realised that 2009 was not the end but just the beginning. It saw the world’s biggest demonstration against climate change. It saw 1.5 million people gather at Oxfam’s climate hearings held all over the world, to testify against the global warming impacts they are feeling right now. The summit at Copenhagen, far from weakening our resolve, made us stronger. So, we go forward into 2010 knowing that while there is work still to do, in order to get the fair and safe global deal we all need, and while a fresh approach and new direction is called for, we are better placed and better equipped to succeed than ever before.
James Cracknell, Oxfam campaigner for Norfolk.
Disgusting
“Start by doing your own research from established sources, such as reports from the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), the American Association for the Advancement of Science”
They left out wikipedia.
“So if you report climate change sceptics’ views, also describe their credentials and whether theirs is a minority opinion….”
Got it? A PhD who agrees with AGW has better credentials than a PhD who doesn’t.
I seem to recall Einstein being in the minority,,,,,,,
This statement actually made me feel sick….
I remember when it was an undeniable fact that stomach ulcers where caused by stress and hydrochloric acid, only the well-settled science were so wrong on that as well.
Now if only they could make the inconvenient cold and snow go away.
“But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science.”
Apparently the UN believes minority views do not deserve equal time. What would Dr. King have to say about this? Or President Obama? There are no “minority views” in science. There are theories and proofs. This is an assault against open-minded journalism and is easily countered by internet publishing.
These people don’t really understand how viral word of mouth works. These days the public understands that if they want a new perspective, something different from the tired old main stream media – get on the internet. Find an open minded blog. Blogs are the new newspapers giving minority views equal access to the public. Internews – gatekeepers who are panicked they’ve lost their sheep.
More money wasted that could be put to good use countering poverty, disease and contaminated habitat.
… only while their view remains a minority view… that’s changing, partly due to your own good efforts. If even the BBC is changing tack, well, onward and upward, like a hockey stick curve.
Doubleplusgood.
Excuse me? Since when does the Constitution permit taxpayer funding of propaganda? This is BS. I’ve had about all I can stand from the UN and it’s hangers-on.
“Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century”
How right they are … it’s just developing to a real big one … LOL
Speaking of balance:
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/snow-blindness-spreads-in-newsrooms/
Don’t be too hard on the slow of wit. It takes time for them to catch up with the curve. 😉
The beeb main news this evening reports that this cold spell is weather, not climate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm
That is true and a fair point, but then they seem to turn a news story about freezing weather into a another brainwashing propaganda story about global warming – or am I getting paranoid about BBC bias? This comes the day after they announce a year long investigation into biased reporting in response to complaints received by the BBC Trust.
The only consensus is of the media. The media keeps perpetuating this myth that the “science is settled” and that there is a “consensus among scientists.” There clearly isn’t! Grrr…..
See this: http://www.theclimateconspiracy.com/?p=291
That’s the mother organisation of the BBC, then?
The last paragraphs of the article:
“And all the money that flows in is tax exempt.”
“It’s no wonder that sometimes it seems impossible for skeptics to gain any traction. The global warming myth is so tied into vast sums ofmoney that few people could afford to tell the truth, or at least challenge the alarmists.”
“Still, taking the alarmists like Internews out of the list of charities would even the playing field, since I would be surprised if an organization openly skeptical of the global warming theory would earn a charity designation.”
National Post
Read more from Steve Janke at his blog, Angry in the Great White North
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/06/steve-janke-empowering-tax-supported-local-media-to-peddle-approved-climate-news.aspx#ixzz0bxteGtQ1
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
Their ice is rotten.
My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?
I am not fan of conspiracies, but this is a big one. As we say, wherever you step, everywhere you step into [snip]. Maunder winters on them, all, and let them heat themselves with “renewables”.