Full disclosure. I’ve worked in television and radio for 30 years, and I’ve seen many examples of bias in my time. Bernard Goldberg, who was a reporter for the CBS Evening News, documents even more in his book at left.
After this story, there’s example of a pattern for what peaked in the 10:10 video. – Anthony
Exploding Children in Eco-Group’s Video Fails to Upset Liberal News Media
Shocking British short to promote cutting carbon emissions shows skeptics being blown up for not participating.
By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
10/6/2010 3:11:11 PM
Red is the new green, according to a horrific short film put together by global warming alarmists in Britain for 10:10 a “Global Day of Doing.” Blood red that is.
The group 10:10 UK’s “No Pressure” video advertisement that was intended to promote its cause begins with a teacher lecturing her students: “Just before you go there’s a brilliant idea in the air that I’d like to run by you. Now it’s called 10:10 – the idea is that everyone starts cutting their carbon emissions by 10 percent, thus keeping the planet safe for everyone, eventually.”
Preaching global warming alarmism to children is nothing shocking, but the next part of the film was. The teacher singles out the two students who are skeptical about participating, presses a red button and BLAM! those children’s bodies explode as blood and guts cover their classmates.
Skeptical soccer players, businesspeople and even actress Gillian Anderson all get blown up in the “disturbing” video for not complying with the wishes of the global warming crowd.
The violent depiction may be a new low for the environmental movement, but its violent rhetoric has been in use for years. Yet, the response from the liberal news media in the U.S. has been minimal, despite the willingness of the same outlets to portray – without a shred of evidence – conservatives as “incendiary” and violent.
Despite the horrific nature of the video and the message that skeptics should be killed, the television news media, with the exception of Fox News, haven’t reported on it as of October 5.
The New York Times has run a couple of articles on its website, and James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal wrote a strong condemnation October 5 of the “green supremacists” that created the video. But, so far at least, much of the national news media have ignored the controversy.
The video was outrageous enough to upset even climate-change extremist Bill McKibben, who called it “the kind of stupidity that hurts our side.” Taranto said that the video had “drawn lots of criticism, much of which to our mind is not strong enough.” Perhaps he had the Time magazine’s blog headline in mind which callously read: “Blowing Up British Kids: Not Everyone’s Cup of Tea.”
But compare the minimal, isolated journalistic condemnation of such a violent and shocking film, to the volume of news stories portraying tea partiers and conservatives violent, without any proof whatsoever. On March 25, NBC’s Ann Curry harangued Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about Republicans “encouraging the violence” against Democrats.
Curry specifically cited a map from former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin’s website that had shown weak Democratic districts in crosshairs. She pressed McCain saying “Do you know, recommend that your party use less incendiary language?”
McCain replied that terms like “targeted” and “battleground” are part of the “political lexicon.” Such terms have been long used by both parties and by the news media without concern of actual violence, yet Curry declared “These are very dangerous times.”
A few days after that “Today” interview, CNN condemned Palin with an onscreen caption that read: “INCITING VIOLENCE?” as Palin was showing speaking in Nevada.
Anchor Don Lemon said on March 28, “Sarah Palin takes on one of the highest ranking Democrats right in his own backyard, all while causing another uproar by urging tea parties to quote ‘reload.’ And the question is, are comments like that inciting violence and name-calling over the health care bill and the like?” The panelists that answered that question agreed that Obama’s political opponents were inciting violence and were motivated by racism.
But Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen took the criticism of conservatives to an absurd level on October 5 by arguing that the Tea Party movement is like those responsible for the 1970 Kent State shooting. Cohen claimed a “language of rage” fuels the Tea Party and took shots at Glenn Beck and New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.
Violent Video, an Attempt at Humor?
After sparking outrage over the violent video, 10:10 pulled the video and issued an apology which read in part: “At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark … Oh well, we live and learn.”
The 10:10 UK climate group, which has several corporate sponsors including Sony, Kyocera Mita and O2, along with a number of celebrity supporters, claimed the video was supposed to be humorous. 10:10 said its sponsors did not have prior knowledge of the video and Sony issued a statement condemning the video as “ill-conceived and tasteless” and said they were “disassociating” from the group.
Kyocera Mita is reconsidering its partnership with 10:10 and said they were “very shocked by the movie.”
“We wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh,” said more of 10:10’s apology. But is humor a valid defense for portraying the murder of people who disagree with you?
That was the basic defense Jim Edwards of CBS Interactive’s BNet gave for the video. Edwards said, “No one but the most extreme climate change denier believes this is actually what environmentalists want. It’s obviously just a joke outrageous enough to actually get people’s attention.”
WSJ’s Taranto wrote that “one may hope that Jim Edwards is right when he denies that ‘this is actually what environmentalists want.’ But it’s bad enough that this is what they fantasize about — and that they manifestly felt no inhibition about airing such a depraved fantasy in public.”
Full editorial here
=========================================================
This incident would be simply a bad aberration if it were not for the fact that we have had a string of such blunders from the green movement.
Let’s go all the way back to 1990, where the National Resources Defense Council uses a group of babies, a John Lennon song, and Tom cruise, Whoopi Goldberg, Billy Crystal, and Demi Moore to push what they are selling.
By itself, harmless. But it does represent the beginning of a trend in the global warming movement with these two points; be afraid for the children, and pay attention to clueless celebrities. It is a theme that has been repeated again and again.
For example in 2006, we had a little girl that was going to be run over by a freight train if we didn’t do something about climate change:
Here’s another from 2006 called “Tick” using dozens of children:
While I can’t be certain, it looks like they may have used the same child actress for both of these. Compare:
Then we have this difficult to watch Finnish TV ad from Greenpeace showing a baby that could drown in a bathtub if we don’t do something about climate change
There’s the drowning puppy bedtime story from ACT ON CO2:
Then they move on to the beloved animals committing suicide:
Plane Stupid’s Polar bears falling from the sky commercial:
We have this disturbing child rant from Greenpeace:
Then we had this disturbing and insulting ad showing a swarm of planes attacking New York City to promote WWF’s view:
“The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.”
Yes, there’s a whole lineage of shocking, angry, tasteless, and disturbing videos from the NGO’s that take donations and turn it into pure propaganda.
But we’re the crazy ones.
UPDATE: I forgot to add this one, probably the most offensive one, from the 2009 Cannes film festival.
Source: http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THEEXPO2009.htm
Act responsible?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I ceased to watch or listen to BBC news programmes several years ago (but have yet to go the whole hog and stop paying the licence fee!). I haven’t bought a newspaper for at least 3 years. These make me feel better but I’m well aware that my efforts will have no effect on the overall scheme of things.”
Why just the BBC? Just get rid of the TV. Then you could legitimately not pay the licence fee. You will probably find not being bombarded by the constant titillation and violence will make you feel better as well.
Life is possible without a telly. Strange but true.
Anthony you missed out the biggest culprit..
The Cop15 Opening Copenhagen Conference video…
THis is what made me sceptical..
The last bit particluarly, a small child running from a tidal wave (IPCC say 59cm in 90 YEARS) the child leaps into aq tree, left dangling as the sea rushes underneath her, then she starts SCREAMING..
This LIE gave my 5 year old daughter nightmares, she still askas about the child..
She doesn’t understan why someone would make a video like that if it is not true..
So I can see the doubt in her eyes when I say, it isn’t true………………..
Pat Frank says:
October 7, 2010 at 10:02 pm
You’re right. His footnote density is daunting. But one just has to begin and go plugging along. I have to admit, though, that after all my exposure it’s become psychologically painful to read Chomsky’s stuff. That, as much as anything, makes me shy away from any more work on his material.
================
I still occasionally re-read some of his essays on the philosphy of language and mind. I no longer read his political work much, but not because I disagree with it. Arundhati Roy once commented on the “insanity” of Chomsky’s volume of evidence for whatever he was showing. It is indeed overwhelming, but in a certain sense, needed, given the highly unorthodox nature of his views. Had he been much lighter on the documentation, he would have certainly been accused of providing little evidence and making things up. As things are, critics are reduced to the drudgery of digging through the montains of references with a magnifying glass trying to find occasional inaccuracies, a depressing task. It is amusing to think of the number he could have done on the climate alarm industry, had it been an issue he chose to tackle his days. Here’s how Roy put it in a 2003 article:
[…] “when I first read Noam Chomsky, it occurred to me that his marshalling of evidence, the volume of it, the relentlessness of it, was a little — how shall I put it? — insane. Even a quarter of the evidence he had compiled would have been enough to convince me. I used to wonder why he needed to do so much work. But now I understand that the magnitude and intensity of Chomsky’s work is a barometer of the magnitude, scope, and relentlessness of the propaganda machine that he’s up against. He’s like the wood-borer who lives inside the third rack of my bookshelf. Day and night, I hear his jaws crunching through the wood, grinding it to a fine dust. It’s as though he disagrees with the literature and wants to destroy the very structure on which it rests. I call him Chompsky.
Being an American working in America, writing to convince Americans of his point of view must really be like having to tunnel through hard wood. Chomsky is one of a small band of individuals fighting a whole industry. And that makes him not only brilliant, but heroic.”
—From: The Loneliness Of Noam Chomsky
By Arundhati Roy http://www.countercurrents.org/us-roy240803.htm
davidgmills says:
October 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“This is not a liberal bias. Are you nuts?
This is a corporate bias since all of the “mainstream” media are corporate owned. If the corporations wanted it broadcasted, it would be broadcasted.
What a crock!”
What is the Federal Govt if not one big corperation? And yes by a factor of two to one wall street out donates more to the left then the right, and additionally Goldman Sachs largest contribution went to one Barrack Obama. You see, many coorperate top dogs are Ivy league educated, I call them the “corperate royalty of America”, and as such the majority have beeen indoctrnated into a leftist world view due to their youth (Ivy League schooling)
Noam Chomsky has many legitmate critics, here is just one:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.russilwvong.com%2Ffuture%2Fchomsky.html&ei=SRavTIfgE5KgsQP-uIWcDA&usg=AFQjCNEij9NyFR5tLn7ELxp0aAP5YvcLew&sig2=2wDvlW6B5-RBD6q2QNusxA
Here is a more sever criticism:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf
Here is just one Chomsky untruth:
The Lie: “in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”1
The Truth: The communists murdered 4 million people in the Ukraine; 753,000 in Poland;
360,000 in Romania; 300,000 in Belarus; 200,000 in Hungary; 100,000 in East Germany;
100,000 in Lithuania; 70,000-100,000 in Yugoslavia; 30,000-40,000 in Bulgaria; 20,000 in
Czechoslovakia; and 5,000 in Albania. Other atrocities included the murder of over 500,000
POWs in Soviet captivity and the mass rape of at least 2 million women by the Red Army.2
Francisco, your example of the chimp who utters “Me, Banana, More”, presumably deep meaning without the benefit of innate human grammar, reminds me of when I was feeding treats to one of my cats and a stray cat. Each had a pile of 4 or 5 in front of them and I carefully took one from my cat’s pile and put it on the stray cat’s pile. My cat said something like “hey!” (one word without the need for or possibility of grammar). Suppose the chimp in that situation said “banana more ME!”. He obviously has not learned English grammar which requires that “more” be in front of “banana”. But he has expressed a grammar-based concept of “one instead of other” which in a different situation might produce “banana more you” to reward the instructor. It is not simply a random ordering or mimicry of something a human might have done. The reason chimps don’t do this sort of thing is the same reason it takes them years to learn a few dozen symbols that a two-year-old human can learn in weeks or less: a low ability to conceptualize. My cats have the same deficiency.
You say “It is remarkable that in spite of the huge differences in medium and culture where a language develops, they all have words for common concepts and objects, with extremely similar categorizations, and even more remarkable that the underlying structures are so similar.” You dismiss the entire idea of linguistic anthropology such as found in a simple form here http://nothingforungood.com/ The existence of common concepts comes from the human condition and how we interact with the world, not from innate grammar. A translation using common concepts alone, without the benefit of grammar and culture and other context, is going to sound much like your chimp.
The reality of “culina” as a feminine word is simply a fact, one that Whorf would not choose to ignore as you seem to desire. John Whitman above is correct that Kant among others started the excursion away from reality-based philosophy ending up at Chomsky’s linguistics based on politics or expediency. More specifically, Kant’s analytic/synthetic dichotomy was the genesis of Chomsky’s universal and meaningless grammar. If the world contains no causality or entities or identities as supposed by Kant and Chomsky, then language is simply an arbitrary assignment of words to concepts independent of context or grammar. The problem is that leads to the oversimplified analysis of words as social constructs rather than symbols representing concepts differentiated in the real world.
I don’t mean an insult to you or your intelligence above (Nichts fur ungut), and there are many areas I’m sure we would agree.
Frank K. says:
October 7, 2010 at 10:33 am
On the positive side, the old paradigms are crumbling with internet/WIFI, and the old media will be soon be a quaint memory…
———————————————–
God I wish I could believe that. I am afraid that the current internet reporting freedoms (blogospere) will be a secretly treasured memory once Internet 2.0 comes along and only corporations will have the clout to get any decent bandwidth on the net – maybe you’ll need a license to put up a web site. Anyway, once net-neutrality is gone, it’s back to the old days really. Then the ‘old’ media will truly have re-asserted itself, in the sphere of dominating and manipulating peoples’ thoughts and opinions (globally).
And all it will take is a large-scale cyber ‘attack’ on the US and well, you know…
This post is an excellent resource, drawing together, as it does, the worst excesses of the green propaganda machine.
I hadn’t seen the little girl on the melting ice with the noose. That is just so sick. At least the explosive demise of the 10:10 dissenters was quick and painless. These media offerings really do provide a very piercing insight into the minds of some of these people. WTF is going on?
I see the bias in other areas, such as “Whale Wars”. In any other case, the actions of these protestors would be considered those of pirates. At the very least, the captain of the ship would be tried for hazarding a vessel. Peaceful protests are fine; this show incites violence. They are just waiting for one of their crew to be killed show they have their martyr.
tallbloke says:
October 7, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Frank K. says:
October 7, 2010 at 10:33 am
I feel sorry for those of you in other countries who, through you hard-earned tax dollars, have to support a giant “national” media complex.
I sold the TV on ebay last year. Since then, although I already told them we don’t have a TV anymore, I get a threatening letter from the TV licensing authority about once a fortnight. When the one with the red capitals an inch high on the *outside* of the envelope was handed to me by our postman I wrote back to them threatening court action for harassment.
I got another today saying our address has been passed to “THE ENFORCEMENT TEAM” who “WILL ENTER YOUR HOUSE”.
What? They think they can break into my home? Bring it on boys, my cricket bat is ready and waiting.
———————————-
I don’t watch TV – not for a few years. I keep up-to-date with stuff on the internet. But I still pay the UK license. It’s like living in 1930’s Nazi Germany otherwise. Been there.
P. Solar says:
October 8, 2010 at 12:55 am
“Life is possible without a telly. Strange but true.”
———————————————————
Life is better without a telly.
It’s a sign of desperation. The weaker their stand, the more violent and blatant their propaganda attempts. “Join us or die.”
Is it just me, or do these crude attempts remind anyone else of WWII propaganda demonizing the ‘enemy’ ?
Noam Chomsky advocates, amazing: BBBS
A license for a TV, that’s crazy.
Just wait…
It does not matter how “liberal” they are – MSM is savage when aroused and this will happen soon.
What arouses MSM? – Profit.
Mainstream media (apart from the BBC) are generally privately-owned profit-oriented organisations. Circulation/advertising drives their business model. Their stock-in-trade is to set someone (think: Obama, Blair, Woods etc.) on a pedestal, profit from the hype and then, when the person inevitably become less popular, shoot them down with the “we brought it to you first – here is the real story…” line. We have seen it so many times, it should not surprise.
Concepts or policies (such as the Iraq/Afghan campaigns) usually take a little longer to reverse because it is more difficult for them to disavow a previous (editorial) position. However, once one breaks ranks with a “scoop”, and this jells with public opinion (increased circulation/advertising plus no apparent loss of government access), the rest will surely follow.
The key is the “tipping point” (sic). When one MSM organisation feels that 1) public opinion has broadly swung in the contrary direction and 2) irritating the current government is not going to hinder future access (think: Blair/Brown in their latter years, Obama now, and their governments’ need to court every outlet for their views, not just those that are on-message), then they become free to use the opposite tack: “How we were all deceived.., How we were lied to…” (note: “we” is the get-out). They now have a whole bunch of new people to pillory. If this is seen to work (increased circulation/advertising), the rest of MSM will then rush to catch up – and it won’t be pretty.
They have such a wealth of good info here on WUWT, they don’t need to even to do much original research themselves (think: a reporter at a some “photogenic” weather station above the Arctic circle?). What goes around, comes around.
I would not like to be Al Gore, Jim Hansen or any other figure of the AGW movement when this happens, because they will be hung out to dry. MSM do not take prisoners.
Climate-gate (and lots of other “-gates”) will be resurrected, along with “Big Government” (which will chime here in the UK), “unfair carbon taxes” (which will chime everywhere). You can see how it goes…
So, yes, we all know about the luvvies in the BBC and elsewhere in MSM, but forget them in the greater scheme of things – they are irrelevant. The keys are profit and government access – the latter currently being the driver.
The big question is when Obama is such a soft target that, even if withdrawn, government access is not really any issue. Then there is minimal downside and a lot of upside for MSM to take a revised position. I expect this will occur in a matter of weeks.
Political leanings, aka “liberal”, will cause some MSM to be slower than others – but the liberal-leaning will catch up with a heavy attack on those who sought to profit from the global warming scare (think: [imagine; dream, even]).
es lives with their big government/brother and now I am liberating you…”]
When MSM switches, all of the above videos are going to come back to haunt the AGW/Climate change brigade. They will be replayed endlessly by MSM as examples of how our children were being brainwashed and how (- insert MSM name -) has uncovered the fraud and “protected” us …
Such is the world in which we live.
Truth be told, when this all blows up my fear is that it goes too far and people stop recycling/saving energy/thinking about their waste. I might not be “Green” but actually I am “green” – I just do what I can/want to…. quietly.
Just wait…
It does not matter how “liberal” they are – MSM is savage when aroused and this will happen soon.
What arouses MSM? – Profit.
Mainstream media (apart from the BBC) are generally privately-owned profit-oriented organisations. Circulation/advertising drives their business model. Their stock-in-trade is to set someone (think: Obama, Blair, Woods etc.) on a pedestal, profit from the hype and then, when the person inevitably become less popular, shoot them down with the “we brought it to you first – here is the real story…” line. We have seen it so many times, it should not surprise.
Concepts or policies (such as the Iraq/Afghan campaigns) usually take a little longer to reverse because it is more difficult for them to disavow a previous (editorial) position. However, once one breaks ranks with a “scoop”, and this jells with public opinion (increased circulation/advertising plus no apparent loss of government access), the rest will surely follow.
The key is the “tipping point” (sic). When one MSM organisation feels that 1) public opinion has broadly swung in the contrary direction and 2) irritating the current government is not going to hinder future access (think: Blair/Brown in their latter years, Obama now, and their governments’ need to court every outlet for their views, not just those that are on-message), then they become free to use the opposite tack: “How we were all deceived.., How we were lied to…” (note: “we” is the get-out). They now have a whole bunch of new people to pillory. If this is seen to work (increased circulation/advertising), the rest of MSM will then rush to catch up – and it won’t be pretty.
They have such a wealth of good info here on WUWT, they don’t need to even to do much original research themselves (think: a reporter at a some “photogenic” weather station above the Arctic circle?). What goes around, comes around.
I would not like to be Al Gore, Jim Hansen or any other figure of the AGW movement when this happens, because they will be hung out to dry. MSM do not take prisoners.
Climate-gate (and lots of other “-gates”) will be resurrected, along with “Big Government” (which will chime here in the UK), “unfair carbon taxes” (which will chime everywhere). You can see how it goes…
So, yes, we all know about the luvvies in the BBC and elsewhere in MSM, but forget them in the greater scheme of things – they are irrelevant. The keys are profit and government access – the latter currently being the driver.
The big question is when Obama is such a soft target that, even if withdrawn, government access is not really any issue. Then there is minimal downside and a lot of upside for MSM to take a revised position. I expect this will occur in a matter of weeks.
Political leanings, aka “liberal”, will cause some MSM to be slower than others – but the liberal-leaning will catch up with a heavy attack on those who sought to profit from the global warming scare (think: [imagine; dream, even!]).
When MSM switches, all of the above videos are going to come back to haunt the AGW/Climate change brigade. They will be replayed endlessly by MSM as examples of how our children were being brainwashed and how (- insert MSM name -) has uncovered the fraud and “protected” us …
Such is the world in which we live.
Truth be told, when this all blows up my fear is that it goes too far and people stop recycling/saving energy/thinking about their waste. I might not be “Green” but actually I am “green” – I just do what I can/want to…. quietly.
(moderators – please delete if already posted – it seemed to get lost on my system)
Eric (skeptic)
I am not sure what you are talking about when you speak of a “linguistics based on politics or expediency.”
On the other hand, I am quite sure Whorf would not miss the gender of the word kitchen in some languages. He had a sharp ear for that kind of thing, which is precisely the kind of thing I might entirely miss or attatch no importance to.
There is a pretty funny essay by Chomsky, published in Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007), 1094-1103 that may shed some light on these matters. And even if it doesn’t, at least some parts of it are very entertaining. The main character, Boden, has great universal appeal and provides all the fun. A brief excerpt:
“To begin with, Boden does not seem to comprehend the terms she uses. Thus she refers repeatedly to my “postulation of universal grammar” (UG) and writes “What universal grammar will turn out to be — if it exists at all — is still unclear.” UG is the term that has been used for many decades to refer to the theory of the genetic component of the human language faculty, whatever it will turn out to be: very much an open question, of course, as in far simpler cases that are far easier to investigate. Insect communication, to mention one. To question the existence of UG, as she does, is to take one of two positions: (1) there is no genetic component; (2) there is one, but there is no theory of it. We can presumably dismiss (2), so Boden is left with (1). She is therefore questioning the existence of a genetic factor that played a role in my granddaughter’s having reflexively identified some part of the data to which she was exposed as language-related, and then proceeding to acquire knowledge of a language, while her pet kitten (chimp, songbird, etc.), with exactly the same experience, can never even take the first step, let alone the following ones. It is either a miracle, or there is a genetic factor involved. Boden’s suggestion — presumably unwitting — is that it may be a miracle.
If UG is viewed as a mapping from external data to internal state attained (abstracting from more general principles of growth and development), we can think of it as a “language acquisition device” (LAD). To question the existence of LAD is the same as to question the existence of UG — that is, to leave my granddaughter’s feat a miracle. Boden questions the existence of LAD; more accurately, thinks she does. She cites “non-Chomskyans” who believe that the capacity to acquire language “may be some combination of mechanisms evolved for more general purposes.” If this shot in the dark happens to hit the mark, then LAD is that combination, and Boden again agrees that LAD/UG exists, while believing that she questions its existence.” […]
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20071011.htm