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.
As I said on another topic: “1984” meet “Atlas Shrugged”.
One neat project that would make an impact on fence-sitters would be to re-post “highlights” of threads from CP & RC where the negative qualities of their leading lights and hatchetmen are on display. Call it, maybe, “Quoted Without Comment” or “Get a Load of This.”
Doubt if this is original but shouldn’t it be ‘Mann Made Global Warming’?!
Internews has the following exciting overseas positions open: (free hearing protectors included for those loud explosions)
From the website:
Open Positions – Overseas
* Afghanistan: Broadcast Advisor – Salam Watandar
* Afghanistan (Kabul): Resident Advisor
* Afghanistan: Broadcast Journalism Training Advisors
* Afghanistan: Youth Media Project Manager
* Pakistan: Chief of Party
* Pakistan: Deputy Chief of Party
* Pakistan: Humanitarian Media Advisor
* Various: Human Rights Journalism Lead Trainer
This following is clipped from their “Ethical Journalism” link:
Professional journalism involves selecting what is most relevant and true rather than broadcasting what is unverified simply because it may seem “interesting.” Internews subscribes to the values articulated by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book, The Elements of Journalism:
* The purpose of journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.
* Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
* Its first loyalty is to citizens.
* Its essence is a discipline of verification.
* Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
* It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
* It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
* It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
* It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
* Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Adopted by the Internews Network Board of Directors, November 2001. Revised with updated mission statement adopted by Board, November 2004.
KB: “Wow, if only the media would adhere to the above guidelines… we would be free of the current oppression, deception, and propaganda. The media has failed miserably to maintain these tenets.”
If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
Done
Soros funded, I just put ‘internews soros’ in google and the whole first page was filled. Anytime I hear about one of these media groups, I always check for Soros funding. It’s usually there. In this case, it’s huge. The donor page linked on the Nat. Post article does have Open Society listed, which is his. He has twice been convicted of stock fraud and is connected with currency manipulations that caused enormous suffering to average citizens. Very invested in global warming, made a great deal of money in the sub prime scandal that cost many Americans half their life savings or more.
“Schrodinger’s Cat (13:38:45) :
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.”
->
Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Quote:
“Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale.”
Climate change alarmism could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale.
There, fixed it.
Need to see some change from the BBC ?
There’s an election coming up in Britain !!
Time to lobby the Conservative party guys about changes at the top of the BBC, and lobby them hard.
The Government of the day appoint the executive board members which run the BBC, for some years Labour has been stacking the various Boards with their fellow travellers. The pro AGW position of the BBC flows directly from the kind of people appointed by the current Government .
Look foreward to some changes there if there is a change of Government and that seems more likely all the time
The BBC organizational structure consists of the Board of the Governor, the Executive Board, the Creative Board, the Journalism Board, and the Commercial Board.
The Creative Board, the Journalism Board, and the Commercial Board all report to the Executive Board.
The Executive Board reports to the Board of Governors.
The Board of Governors ultimately reports to the Queen.
The Queen appoints the Board of Governors members with advice from her ministers.
The Board of Governors has 12 trustee members.
The Executive Board has 9 directors who report to the Director-General.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
I wonder if Richard Black would stand by this piece now on Bias at the BBC in 2007
JohnH (23:15:15) :
If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
Done
Sorry it got deleted, I only pointed out that maybe the leaked emails may mean nothing but the harry.txt file was an issue, well so much for the Greens in Scotland.
One of Patrick Harvie’s hobbies is reading Science Fiction, hmm he’s no doubt refering to MET/Hadley climate forecasts.
If an NGO is funded by the UN, is it still a “Non-Governmental” organization?
Al Gore mentioned the UN reaching down to the “grass roots” and bypassing governments. Methinks Climate Change was chosen as the big issue because no government can solve it, so it legitimizes the UN.
Unfortunately I now trust charities as much as I trust corporations. I no longer give them the benefit of the doubt that the money will be used well. Last charity that tried to sign me up, I quizzed the guy in the street for 10 minutes. He kept reassuring me they were doing fantastic work that was really effective. I kept asking how they measured the effectiveness. He kept saying it was really effective… eventually his colleague rang their boss, who didn’t know either.
A bit late on this one. It’s the cold weather.
A bit OT, but I heard on the early morning BBC Radio 2 breakfast programme yesterday, a newspaper article about UK scientists being very concerned about the Government’s new approach to science, something about not letting scientist study things out of curiousity, but that it must have Government approval before it can be studied! Can’t find it any where & missed which paper it was printed in – it was cold, miserable, & I was half asleep when it was read out! If this is true & the UK Government really are doing this crap, then it’s bye bye real science & hello Joseph Stalin UK style! Didn’t the Soviets screw up their agriculture programme because of political science ideology, with failed yeilded time & time again, having to buy from grain from you Colonials to get them out of a jam? Lisenko or Lysenkovtch???? was the blokes name I seem to recall or something like it who courted Stalin & the Party for favour in the 1950s? Did any Brit out there catch it?
Just a link from yesterday’s news that the BBC Trust is looking into any possible bias in BBC reporting of issues like climate change
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241049/BBC-announces-review-science-coverage-month-revealed-ignored-Climategate-leaked-emails.html
All journalists should understand the science of climate change – its causes, its controversies and its current and projected impacts.
Love the hubris. *Scientists* don’t even understand all the causes of climate change.
Alan the Brit — you’ve twigged it: Didn’t the Soviets screw up their agriculture programme because of political science ideology, with failed yeilded time & time again, having to buy from grain from you Colonials to get them out of a jam?
The bloke’s name is spelled “Lysenko.”
@ur momisuglyPaulH from Scotland (17:55:44) :
And
@ur momisuglyJohnH (23:15:15) :
If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
Maybe not so nice after all. Here’s his parting shot
“OK, you’re really starting to bore me now. You seem determined to just keep bombarding this site all night with huge quantities of self evident rubbish. Once it’s clear that you’re citing material that you can’t possibly take seriously, I think we can call an end to it. If you want to rant about conspiracy theories, go and do it elsewhere.”
Comment by Patrick — January 8, 2010 @ur momisugly 12:33 am
Didn’t realise that Joe Romm had relatives in Scotland!
I added my two pennies worth as follows-
Excellents points Paul to which Patrick can only reply. La, la, I can’t hear you! I’m ashamed to be a Scot.
I think that some more WUWT Scots need to pop into Patricks site and explain a few things.
Stefan (03:49:15), from Adelaide’s Advertiser:
The big charities manage to put a lower percentage of donations into the pockets of the executives but pay them very handsomely.
Rev. Tim Costello, do-gooder and pious believer in AGW, is paid well over Aus$300,000 a year as CEO of World Vision Australia. The head of Australian Red Cross gets nearly four hundred grand, far more than the Australian Prime Minister.
Many who run charities believe well and truly that charity begins at home (or, at least, in the office) and that whilst we should give until it hurts (and then be more highly taxed in order to give even more), they should get a limo and a nice office and travel first class…
You say, “Unfortunately I now trust charities as much as I trust corporations.” Unfortunately, I’d say that most large corporations are more accountable than most large charities, so I’d trust charities less. Enron was in the business of making money for its executives, providing energy was merely its cover story. World Vision is in the business of making money for its executives, providing help to impoverished children is its cover story.
I offered J.R. a bet that the current decade will show to have been cooler than the previous one. My bet was $10 000.
His response is pathetic and hillarious(!) as follows:
“JR: I’ve been pretty clear that I follow the Nate Silver rule of talking bets with folks who have a presence on the blogosphere. I have bets on this already, and I can’t imagine you’d pay up, since the bet is a rock solid loser.”
Hahahahaha!
Following my previous commment:
I threw out the bet to any “Warmists with balls” on the site. J.R. deleted my comment.
Looks like he’s been taking advice from RealClimate. What a loser.
@Deadman
OMG, that’s really scandalous.
@Carddan
Marxism and eugenics both were also considered scientific by their proponents.
Supporters of eugenics were once so convinced they were right that they killed millions of people they considered unfit or undesirable. Forced sterilizations also took place in the USA.
Now, back to AGW — the backers of the AGW greenhouse gas seem to not grasp the fundementals of science. The scientific method has been discarded in favor of analyzing trends and using computer model scenarios to see into the future.
Yet it is an undeniable fact that computer models do not output facts. Computer models do not produce data. An hypothesis must be falsifiable and an experimental outcome must be repeatable in order to be considered as “science.” (Also note — computer models do not qualify as “scientific” experiments, either.)
I enjoyed the double-think of the poster that said the most informed person knows how ignorant he really is. It’s because I know how much we do not know about the climate that I am highly confident that AGW is not a proven hypothesis.
royfomr (05:11:00) :
@PaulH from Scotland (17:55:44) :
And
@JohnH (23:15:15) :
If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
Roy either my cache is causing problems or your post got deleted as well as mine.
If they did get deleted then he seems not to be used to the arguments being put forward so deletes instead of replying.
Look at some of the funding organizations from their web site:
“the National Science Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the United Nations Foundation, UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of State, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the World Bank,”
Trying to set up a long-term person-to-person bet of a significant amount with a hostile stranger is “fraught”; it’s such a huge and risky hassle that it’s impractical.
The way to confront such opponents is to challenge them to take a bet on the opposite side from oneself on a bid/asked prediction market like https://www.Intrade.com. It has a bet available on whether 2019 will be warmer than 2009, which approximates the bet you were proposing. It also has bets on whether 2019 will be warmer than 2009 by 0.2 degrees C (the IPCC’s projection) and whether 2010 will be warmer than 2009, among about ten bets of that nature. They’re under the heading Markets –> Climate and Weather.