Having worked in TV and radio for 30 years, this story really hit home for me. When the editors and newscast producers see climate change as ratings losing proposition, you know the battle for eyes and ears has been lost by the climate alarmists. – Anthony
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A stormy forecast for climate change reporting
By Margot O’Neill
Not all journalists believe the media has done a good job in reporting climate change.
Fresh from a sabbatical studying climate change reporting at the University of Oxford, the ABC’s Margot O’Neill considers whether or not the media has done a good job.
WHATEVER HAPPENED to climate change? This time last year climate change was a hot topic regularly appearing in news bulletins and on front pages. Phrases such as “the future of humanity could be at stake” were quoted, celebrities marshalled and 4,000 journalists prepared to descend on the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. Apparently humanity’s future is now secure… or so it might seem given the paucity of journalism devoted to the issue in the mainstream media.
Where did all the climate change stories go? “The [programmers] are against it because it loses ratings,” says a senior BBC journalist. “The wave [of public interest] has gone. There is climate change fatigue. That is why I am not [reporting] it now.”
Other journalists agree. Even reporters at The Guardian, which especially targets environmental reporting, complain that it’s difficult to get a run. Another UK broadcast journalist said he was warned that putting climate change on prime time would risk losing a million viewers.
In a series of interviews with some of the UK’s top specialist environment and science correspondents, I explored the changing climate for reporters covering global warming – as part of the ABC’s Donald McDonald research fellowship at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. Most of the journalists rated the media poorly on communicating what some have dubbed the epic news story of the century. “We have failed to engage the public,” said a broadcast journalist.
The key problems? The list is long but includes a cold winter in Europe, the distant impacts, the failure of the December 2009 UN climate change Copenhagen summit to produce a binding international agreement, public confusion about whether there is a reliable scientific consensus, and alarmist media coverage with Hollywood-horror headlines like “Be Scared; Be Very Scared!” that are more likely to induce the purchase of popcorn than solar panels.
‘Climategate’
The biggest hurdle mentioned by most journalists was the so-called ‘Climategate’, the controversy surrounding the publication of hundreds of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK between influential climate scientists. It was a “defining moment in all our careers,” according to an environment editor.
Given the underlying science has been exonerated in successive inquiries, what is it that the journalists believe they were guilty of? Firstly, they missed a cracking story that was instead first pursued by the blogosphere and which proved to be, unlike many other climate change stories, a hit with the public. After struggling to find stories the public wanted to read, a tabloid journalist observed “Climategate … got a strong response; it made climate change more topical.”
Many journalists say the UEA email hacking, combined with the discovery of an error regarding the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also proved they had failed to cast a critical enough eye on climate science and that they had been far too dismissive of sceptics.
Read the rest here, well worth the click.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have been extremely irritated by the world’s bigoted press concerning climate science (if one can call it that, being such a vast, complex subject) for some time. Christopher Booker and James Delingpole, who happen to write for the same newspaper, the UK DT, are two exceptions that spring to mind, and Joanne Nova in Australia (amongst others) all try to produce articles that can be understood by most people, and attempt to put forward straightforward criticism of the AGW nonsense.
The article reproduced above still would seem to side with the nonsense.
If it were not for Anthony’s well -respected WUWT blog, and its balanced views and comments (apart from the odd troll), we would all be the poorer for it.
The last programme I saw on AGW on the BBC was Panorama. This was an example of the latest sinister propaganda technique, which was first used for Road Pricing just a few years back.
In this type of programme, any debate about science or anything logical is side-stepped. Instead, we have the “what would it take to get you to believe in…..” show. In this, it is taken as read that the premise is correct or desirable. (Naturally the AGW theory is sound and any sensible person would believe in paying per mile to drive.) We then see a skeptic or group of skeptics being gradually convinced that the premise is indeed correct, and by the end of the show most have seen the error of their ways.
Clever psychology. What we need is a TRULY independent, old-school hungry journalist to trace exactly who is making/funding these programmes, and what their connections are. They appear on all channels, not just the BBC.
“You’re a bad influence Anthony… after reading this I couldn’t resist jumping in and firing a few salvos at the ignorant blog comments in response to the ABC article. The ABC’s audience is very pro-AGW so any semblance of leaning towards the science side of the debate gets gunned down by the CAGW trolls there.
To their credit the Aussie ABC occasionally puts skeptics up on their shows and gives them a chance. Usually you find that panels are left-leaning and the audiences especially so. But they do try… sometimes. It is, after all, in their mandate to be balanced.”
Onya Bulldust. What we need is SBS to back down as well, seeing they’re trying their hardest to avoid the facts. One thing I know will happen, is that the MSM will simply and quietly avoid admitting their shameful and biased reporting of this CAGWist scam, or eventually that they were “misled” by the ahem.. “science”. The MSM is fully implicated in all of this by their search for sensationalism.
One thing I did see recently, was a few negative comments in the Herald Sun with people aggravated that the Education Department advocating “An Inconvenient Truth” be shown in schools without clarification of the 9 serious (and some 35 glaring errors, lies and deliberate misrepresentations) in Gorebull Warbling’s fillum not being shown alongside as in the UK by court order.
Maybe we can flood some emails with these facts..?
I refer to a comment in the article: “Given the underlying science has been exonerated in successive inquiries…”.
The extensive work by Steve McIntyre has exposed the various inquiries for what they were – a sham. Furthermore, McIntyre has demonstrated that the actual science wasn’t even the subject of any of the inquiries.
It is therefore completely false and misleading to state that the underlying science has been exonerated in the successive inquiries.
I invite everyone to refer to the archives of Steve McIntyre at the following link, and read what he found out when delving into the inquiries and why they were effectively just a sham and a cover up, and involved various conflicts of interest:
http://climateaudit.org/
The MSM still believe in AGW. It shows in their perspective and language of reporting. The only thing that seems to limit the shouting is the loss of viewers and readers (revenue).
“We have failed to engage the public,” said a broadcast journalist.
That kind of says it all. Journalists report the news, commentators provide their opinion on the meaning of news, and propagandists engage the public.
Too little too late from the ABC, Maybe they are realising their credibility is now beyond repair.
Favorite quotes:
“We have failed to engage the public,” said a broadcast journalist.
So, what is this journalist is saying ??? That they should have been pushing the AGW agenda? Whatever happened to unbiased reporting? Clearly what they didn’t understand is the public is far smarter than they thought & could see the rubbish for what it was.
Quote 2:
“they had been far too dismissive of sceptics.”
Maybe if they had actually done some due diligence on the subject vs trying to push their personal CAGW agenda, they would have seen what most people on this blog have known for years – that the data says the CAGW hypothesis is flimsy at best ; that there are hundreds of unique arguments that can made from the data that call into question the validity of the hypothesis (at least the catastrophic part – some warming , sure; catastrophic, extremely unlikely) ; that the hypothesis is more a political means to an end than a scientific fact; that even if it were correct, we are far better off from a cost-benefit standpoint adapting than trying to stop it.
Just wished to underscore John V Wright’s assessment of the phrase “climate fatigue”. Yes, the public is tired of journalists stating that the sky is falling..while simultaneously blocking all input that “the facts” might have given them. Even those without a specific science background should have started smelling a rat even before Climategate. But certainly after. I can only believe that they didn’t read the emails or HST or any of a 100+ articles that should have provoked a “let me check this out” response. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves…*.(* ref: Mark Kermode)
“Fresh from a sabbatical studying climate change reporting at the University of Oxford, […]”
Reporting is reporting, regardless of the subject. One would think that journalists would be one of the most skeptical bunch of people around. Not so. In the MSM, journalism and reporting are pretty much dead as near as I can make out. The MSM have sunk to being just another part of the entertainment industry, and poor entertainment at that.
People are turning to the web to ferret out the facts of matters as best as they can from online sources. At least online, there are lots of competing sources with various viewpoints to consider. The MSM seems to all be singing from the same page in the hymn book, regardless of the topic.
(That’s my two cents and I probably owe everyone a penny in change.)
We could consider the abnormal obsessions of global warmers/climate changers are in line with the thoughts (if they have some) of cancer cells in a body to be killed by the power drive of some cells turned mad.
Okay, I was reading it and saying, “Finally balanced reporting, what took you so long?” Till I got to the end:
“…Despite the present crisis of confidence among some UK journalists, I believe it remains a live story and that underlying the short-term news cycles is a number of titanic struggles and shifts which will force the issue back into mainstream press coverage no matter what tag it is given – these include the biggest global energy transformation since the industrial revolution; the unfolding, gobsmacking scientific mapping of the phenomenon (from ocean acidification to polar ice) as well as the reformation of an inward-looking scientific community to accept more transparency and robust public debate and explanation; and the great ideological clash over climate change policy including right-wing fears that it is a front for left-wing eco-fascism.
Then there’s the actual climate. If the scientists and insurance companies are right, it will produce increasing horror temperature, drought and precipitation events as well as more natural catastrophes. How we adapt to a dramatically changing climate, if or when it emerges, could, sadly, become the most compelling story of all.”
Same old, same old. They just can’t help it can they. If it bleeds it leads. So in the end the reporter turned a very good report into once again a bleeding deity statue we should all genuflect to and offer sacrifices lest we parish. The final words lacked only holy water and incense.
The climate always changes–its the sun stupid!!–and it’s not due to those small animals on the surface of the earth who think they know everything. The small animals can be a nuisance and make a mess in places but they do not have any major effect on the planet.
Seriously, the climate could well get warmer as we recover from the little ice age of the 1800’s. The roman and middle ages warming periods were warmer but when it gets colder again the human population will suffer more. And its got nothing to do with CO2.
Anyone puts shit on me mate Pamela Grey.
I will [snip] have you.
REPLY: Arrr, soften the pirate talk here or you’ll be keel-hauled. – Anthony
Random.
Do not teach me blog.
You hit her you hit me.
during the 1630s a mad puritan called Praise God Barebones (seriously) used to wander rounds london’s busy theatre district. He spent his time preaching from the bible and berating the crowds for their consumption of the immoral filth that they saw on stage.
The crowds as they left the plays entertained for the most part and probably drunk, laughed at the crazy man…….
CUT TO
Fifteen years later. The Theatres are shut, England is a Theocracy, Puritanism Reigns and Old Praise God Barebones is invited to speak in the Parliament around the time they beheaded King Charles.
Moral of the story is you can’t always predict how things will turn out.
She made her bones, she’s our mate.
Journalists love to drink black ink (aka coffee) all day but they need some green to buy groceries. They do see red but it’s not one of their favorite colors. Red means layoffs and parttime jobs as a bartender, or worse.
It annoys me that every time I see the CRU emails mentioned in these articles from the MSM that they are referred to as having been “hacked”. There has never been a single iota of evidence that supports this theory, and indeed the strangely representative sample of important emails points more to the existence of inside whistleblower than anything else.
No offence but last time I looked this ain’t a friendly society.
I never got to do masters or doctor , I was due and went.
But any day Pamela Grey got a problem. I will beat the living shit out of people.
Bank it.
The swine flu scare vaccination campaign that some of you are mentioning, came to an end when it became obvious to most people that it was being driven entirely by the pharmaceutical industry and for no better purpose than to make money — but not before the industry made out with untold billions of dollars pushing the sale of hundreds of millions of doses of useless (at best), untested, and potentially dangerous vaccines onto governments worldwide, forcing them to sign undisclosable contracts that exempted the manufacturers of all responsibility. This flu had a lower mortality rate than the regular seasonal flu. So the WHO changed the definition of pandemic (chich requires a high mortality rate) in order to declare it a “pandemic.” After a few weeks, they stopped testing patients for it on the grounds that it was “impractical” and were simply assigning all patients with flu symptoms to this kind of flu. A medical doctor in Spain, who also happened to be a Benedictine nun, made a video wondering why they don’t declare a pandemic every year due to the seasonal flu. When most of those doses were unused because so many people did not buy into it, they were trying to push the leftover doses to thirld world countries, billing them as “humanitarian” aid.
Nothing really new here. As early as the 1920s, a citizens watchdog group in Kansas City, called “The Advertiser’s Protective Bureau”, successfully brought criminal charges against the Missouri state chapter of the American Medical Association for having falsely declared a smallpox pandemic in order to make money through vaccines. Court records apparently exist for this. It was demonstrated there was no pandemic of any kind, but the vaccines did produce a significant number of vaccine poisoning cases, and those cases were being billed as smallpox cases. Here’s an article on the topic.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/trueottvaccineinducedepidemics24aug09.shtml
For a wider and deeper investigation on the history of the pharmaceutical industry and its major sins, especially with regard to promoting vaccines, there is an excellent (if odd) 2.5 hour documentary by Leonard Horowitz. Some of the stuff he presents is pretty shocking.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885#
Harry the Hacker said:
November 4, 2010 at 1:05 am
quote
The stuff of “The Hockey Stick Illusion” is one of the great scandals of our time. Once upon a time, the BBC Horizon, or the ABC “4 corners” would have made an hour long program investigating and reporting something like this. Instead they are still disgracefully complicit by saying nothing.
unquote
Horizon, there was a programme: remember ‘When the Chips Are Down’, a programme that galvanised the UK’s approach to computers?
Some time ago I wrote to Dana Bennett, pleading for her to do something about BBC science reporting, I’ve begged Monbiot to be a journalist and not a mouthpiece, I’ve even castigated Revkin for his lack of investigative journalistic qualities.
This whole business will only be resolved by science reporters remembering that their job is not just to paraphrase a press release with which they agree.
Black? Harrabin? Is there anybody there?
JF
The problem as i see it is the MSM has become lazy about investicating a story because they just read the press release and repeat it as gospel. NGOs PR Marketing people are just journalist majors who could not get a job in the MSM, So they send these out to there buddys and say this company is the bomb and you need to run with this story and so they do. IMHO!
That ABC article scared the hell out of me.
I have been looking for years at ‘Aunty’ to tell the truth about something.. anything.
But, alas, the ABC is the mouth piece for our totalitarian fascist governernment and, as such, cannot say one single thing without first forging it in the fires of the one world government agenda.
There is no truth here.. only agenda.. always.
This leopard would not suddenly change its spots.
It consequently occured to me that perhaps we have all been taken for a ride.
* What if there never was the intention of trading carbon credits globally.
* What if TPTB deliberately released the climategate emails exposing their very own scientists.
* What if the whole global warming agenda was a ruse to destroy the green movement.
A lot of what if’s.. I know..
But there are not many ways to have this article make sense.
I have always considered myself a hippy-greeny.. but I always thought that CAGW was a stupid concept as well.
Perhaps this was a carefuly planned series of events to prevent the extremely strong green movement that was sweeping the planet at the time from actually stopping big companies from polluting.
Is this the ABC’s way of telling us that the next time a multi-national company does incredible indisputable damage to the environment.. they won’t report on it because of the climategate emails??
I am very familiar with Hegelian Dialectic.. and this Global Warming versus Others feud is starting to take the shape of something born of that philosophy.
Seriously.. the problem is CO2??
I am pretty sure they never thought they would ever get away with such incredible nonsense.
Now.. I am pretty convinced.. there always was.. another agenda.