Joe Romm and Al Gore share one thing in common besides being paid for blogging, writing, and making opinions on climate to scare the dickens out of people: they don’t understand what journalism is supposed to be about. Not only that, Joe shows his own bias and hyprocrisy compared to how he dealt with Climategate emails a year ago:
Joe Romm at Climate Progress 11/21/2009:
Note: No, I’m not thrilled with reprinting part of an illegally stolen e-mail, but this was in Wired and has been confirmed by the author and actually deals with the science.
Joe Romm at Climate Progress 12/15/2010:
Kudos to Media Matters for unearthing this story from the anti-earth folks at Fox News. See also the Politico story, “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”
He seems thrilled to publish such a “stolen email” now, when it suits his cause. And of course, he puts the Fox News email front and center, but you won’t find him doing that for any of the climategate emails, lest he scare the flock.
And here’s what he’s all bent out of shape about, this passage from the Fox News “illegally obtained” email, bold mine.
…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
Gore writes on his blog today:
“Fox News has consistently delivered false and misleading information to its viewers about the climate crisis. The leaked emails now suggest that this bias comes directly from the executives responsible for their news coverage.
Heh, a year ago Gore wouldn’t even read the emails from CRU, and got caught with his foot in his mouth: Al Gore can’t tell time – thinks most recent Climategate email is more than 10 years old
Of course, there’s no mention of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, being hauled into court in Britain and found to be “false and misleading”.
There’s also no mention of the CRU emails on Gore’s blog, the entire month of November last year, even after major media outlets such as the New York Times had reported on it. He was sure to wish everyone a “happy Thanksgiving” though. In fact it took Gore a full month, until Dec 18th, 2009 to make any mention of it at all, and then it was only a sideways glance, by reporting on a favorable story (for him) in Politico.
And let’s not forget this story, where Al locks our reporters from his presentation, and is even bold enough to put up a sign to that effect: Gore to press: Stay Out!
It seems to be a pattern with Mr. Gore: Journalists pan Gore secrecy
Neither Al or Joe seem to get what journalism is supposed to be about. Here’s a clue.
The Encyclopedia of American journalism, By Stephen L. Vaughn, page 38, says:
A “core journalistic value”.
As Lachlan Markay at Newsbusters writes:
So Sammon instructed staff to incorporate the most basic tenets of science and journalism – skepticism and political neutrality, respectively – into their reporting on contentious scientific issues with tremendous political implications. And this is a problem?
Only if you are MediaMatters, Joe Romm, or Al Gore.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mountain meet molehill?
There is nothing in the email which suggests or hints at bias is there? In fact the email is a perfect example of how journalistic integrity and independence should be common place but is in fact becoming ever rarer. MSM outlets like the BBC for example have been proven to show incredible bias and prejudice and has been closely working with and for the propagandists of CAGW alarmism.
Unlike the biased BBC Fox news is the essence of impartial reporting, but Fox news is hated and despised by leftists simply because it brings real impartial news to the viewer and probably why Fox news is far more popular with people who require their news to be impartial and genuine and true.
Fox news is a spanner in the works of the leftist dominated press, the lies and deceptions spun by the likes of the BBC and others can only give the illusion of reality if no other news outlet leaks the actual truth. With the majority of the MSM stitched up by the alarmist CAGW cult just one real honest news outlet can destroy the entire edifice.
In a normal rational honest world the email is the essence of reason and represents the best of impartial journalistic endeavour but in the warped world of the fabricated consensus it represents something else altogether. The truth is the enemy of the lie, reason is the enemy of prejudice, impartiality is the enemy of the consensus. No wonder Fox news is so popular then? People demand real news delivered in a fully impartial manner and little wonder then that the biased propaganda outlets hate Fox news.
And consider this: the phrase “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” is an accusation against skeptic scientists, seen spelled out across the screen in red letters in Al Gore’s movie, and it is essentially responsible for the anti-skeptic career of book author Ross Gelbspan – but the phrase comes from a 1991 memo that is never seen in its full context, see: “How an Enviro-Advocacy Group Propped Up Global Warming in the MSM – A Nov 2 Election Connection” http://bigjournalism.com/rcook/2010/11/02/how-an-enviro-advocacy-group-propped-up-global-warming-in-the-msm-a-nov-2-election-connection/
At 9:39 PM on 15 December, AntonyIndia had written:
One of the less appreciated factors in the Climategate event was the way in which the Norfolk police officials publicly stated – early and often from 17 November through the rest of 2009 – that they were in hot pursuit of the “hacker(s)” responsible for this heinous violation of the Climatic Research Unit’s property and privacy, and would be dragging in the perpetrator(s) Really Real Soon Now.
Er, has anybody heard anything from the Norfolk law enforcement folks about getting their hands upon a suspect in this case? Any suspect? A material witness, maybe?
No? Jeez, the malefactor(s) musta done a D.B. Cooper. How sad.
Of course, it couldn’t have been an inside job; some fed-up-to-the-gills C.R.U. staffer who had watched Professor Jones and his conniving buddies scheming to defy U.K. law (doesn’t “FOIA” kinda coincidentally look like an acronym for “Freedom of Information Act”?) and aggregated all that stuff explicitly to fulfill compliance with the FoI requests lawfully submitted by the various skeptics who were trying to make some sense of how the
thievingfraudsconcerned climatologists had come up with their predictions of anthropogenic climate catastrophe….Nah. Couldn’t be something like that. And the sturdy protectors of law and order will be dragging in that outside hacker Real Soon Now.
—
JPeden says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“Hahaha, Fox sure knows how to attract a wider audience: leak an email stating Fox’s intent to be objective, have some of its competitors go ballistic in a public P.R. campaign, and voila! Hasn’t it been proven over and over that demonizing Fox only seems to increase its ratings?”
Great observation, and I think you’re probably dead on. A very convenient ‘leak.’
And now, if they are really as clever as a fox, they will be genuinely balanced, with guests from both sides, and the usual one-sided networks will obviously look biased by comparison. The debates shall speak for themselves. Imagine one between, say, Romm and any serious sceptic. Great drama potential.
Of course, none of the usual AGW suspects would ever go on Fox, or in any serious broadcast debate, would they?
At 4:57 PM on 15 December, co2insanity had written:
Hardly necessary. I did discover, however, that if you want a post on this subject stricken immediately from this scumbucket site, all you have to do is mention the word “Climategate.”
Anathema, apparently. Poor bastiches. I could almost pity them were it not for the fact that my Sicilian nature desires something lingering and agonizing – involving boiling pitch and iron tongs – before I’m done with them.
—
This article is subterfuge.
While the call for even handed reporting by Fox news is laudable and to be encouraged, it has not done itself any favours by being outrageously biased in it’s reporting on other matters. Unfortunately while we continually see biased reporting on climate change, the uniformed see the call by Fox for even handed reporting on an issue as having the same validity as Robert Mugabe calling for more openness in politics.
We had a sharp political journalist in Australia in the 1970’s. Unlike the rest of the Canberra press who were acolytes of the political left, and still are, Alan Reid was heard to say, ‘never get too fond of the animals in the zoo.’ /-;
Fox seems to get back what it sends out. It sends out clueless 24/7 commentary with very little real news and people that watch the station actually believe the commentary to be news. Fox is an entertainment station that pulls in the Jerry Springer style ratings for that reason. Anyone that takes the prime time lineup on fox as news is clueless about reality and should seek mental health care.
Actually in this case the Fox position is consistent with the Scientific Method and the Philosophy of Science in that there is always a debate in science. So it’s perfectly fine for Fox to officially counter the notion that climate science is settled.
Science is never settled… there is always room for improvement.
Heck chemists just redefined the atomic weights of ten basic elements on the periodic table! Not just changing the value to more accurate but now each of those elements has a RANGE of possible values for variations of the element.
Science moves on and debate and skepticism is the OFFICIAL STANCE of Science!!! If you don’t get that then you don’t get the Philosophy of Science and you’re being political rather than scientific.
Oh, and there is a serious scientific debate over the wild catastrophic claims of climate scientists and media manipulators like Al Gore.
On a different point a Facebook friend commented:
”… it is imperative for our country to get off of our addiction to oil and promote renewable forms of energy. Our infrastructure is based around coal and oil which is why they are fighting tooth and nail against the switch” – Stan A.C.
It will likely take hundreds of years to develop the alternatives to hydrocarbon fuel sources. CO2 isn’t a problem, it’s an essential part of the carbon based life cycle of Earth. Co2 is an essential plant nutrient. The current atmospheric levels of CO2 (~391 ppm) is dangerously low from a geological record of ~8,000. Commercial greenhouses operate at between ~900 ppm to ~1,400 ppm of CO2 on purpose to grow food bigger and faster. CO2 is a green life nutrient and most plants flourish with more CO2 (some won’t use anymore but most will). To be against CO2 is to be against green life.
It’s entirely ironic and deeply disturbing that the “green environmentalists” are against the very life cycle that makes life on Earth possible!!!
Only the sharpest eye, the keenest nose, the quickest ear and the fleetest toes
Can ever outfox the Fox
Only the stoutest arm, the bravest heart, with a magic charm and a good head start
Can ever outfox the Fox
Those who try to tangle with my daring do
End up at the angle that herring do
(They hold their head
like every dead herring do)
Only the sprightliest sprite, the nimblest elf, a wicked old witch or the devil himself can ever outfox the Fox
Whenever they try to find me
They find me where I am not
I’m hither and yond, I’m there and gone, I’m Johnny-not-on-the spot!
I’m out on a limb they think!
I’m down on the ground in a wink
My enemies say “Gadzooks! It’s spooks!”
Shivering in their socks
They know that they’ll never, I’m far to clever
They’ll never outfox the Fox!
The Fox
There’s only one of me
Till suddenly there’s two of me
When two is what you see of me
Gadzooks!
Three of me
That’s the proper score of me
Three of us is the core of me
And we can tell you-
Woops!
Sorry, four of me
There’s one of me, two of me, tree of me, four of me, five six seven
Sorry, no more of me
Each as strong as ten are we
Very stout hearted are we
We’re off to fight all wrong
And we’ll right it
Right or wrong
The planet is warming, that is what all the measurements show (temperature, sea level, ice mass, snow extent, etc.) and it is supported by all the observations (changes to growing seasons, migration patterns, etc.) Anyone who disagrees with that fact is wrong, not objective.
Gore writes on his blog today: “Fox News has consistently delivered false and misleading information to its viewers about the climate crisis.”
Ahh, the pot calling the kettle black.
The ignorance of liberals and their media and blogs never ceases to amaze me….
The liberals have tried this same thing, tried to tell people how un-biased they are.
No one fell for it, and it shows in their ratings.
Fox leaks an email, that anyone in their right mind could only interpret as “positive”, and the liberals do their best to make sure even more people know about it……..
As a rule, people tend to think that everyone has a certain level of intelligence. Without realizing that there are some really stupid people.
Why in this world does anyone pay attention to a group of people that are really that stupid?
Joe Romm and Al Gore’s response to Fox News’ editorial policy is beyond parody.
The concept and practice of investigation, accuracy and balance in reporting are central tenets of journalism. If you do not practise them, you are not a journalist but a PR man – an apologist for a particular point-of-view.
John Pilger recently fronted a television programme in which he examined the distorting effect of embedding reporters with the military. This is what we are seeing today in the mainstream media, where editors and journalists are ’embedded’ with the CAGW lobby.
Anthony, I know I have alerted your readers to the situation at the BBC elsewhere in this blog but it is relevant to this thread – David Jordan, the lead author of the new BBC editorial guidelines, has explained that when it comes to climate change, the word ‘impartiality’ has a different meaning to the dictionary definition.
In a shameful episode of Newswatch from November 29th – at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vjxv3/Newswatch_29_10_2010 –
Jordan told Raymond Snoddy: “If both sides of the debate were to be reflected it would give the impression that both sets of views were equal and we don’t have to approach impartiality in climate change in that way”.
Snoddy just let it pass and I suppose he is just picking up his BBC cheque. But for me, who trained as a journalist in the late 60s and became a fully-qualified senior journalist in 1970, it was a moment of abject humiliation for BBC journalists everywhere. They have been left in no doubt by their masters – they are NOT to be impartial when it comes to reporting global warming issues.
The reason that this is particularly important is that the BBC is a public service broadcaster in the UK. It is funded by the taxpayer and many members of the public believe that it presents accurate, honest and balanced reports.
When I asked Richard Black, the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, on his Cancun blog, if he would report on Climate Depot’s updated report (‘Shredding the climate consensus myth’) one of his supporters criticised my request as “threatening”. He later apologised and admitted that it was not actually threatening but he considered it “insulting”.
This is where Joe Romm, Al Gore and all the other blinkered warmists sit. It is not that they do not understand what journalism is all about. They understand it very well, and fear it.
There has been a failure of mainstream journalism in the UK and the USA with regard to global warming. Just as the skeptical scientists keep the walarmists honest by exposing sloppy research and publishing accurate data, we non-scientists must continue to challenge inaccurate, dishonest and unbalanced coverage of global warming issues by reporters who are ’embedded’ with the CAGW lobby.
Faux says:
December 16, 2010 at 2:20 am
The same could be said of any 24 hour news network, and a lot of the other news organizations as well. True skepticism and uncomfortable leaking is dead. No reporter takes any risks reporting anymore. They’re all in it for the weekend and would never say anything on-air that might upset a boss, a sponsor, or a interviewee. Those “investigating” and reporting on the news these days are out to gain influence themselves and you can’t gain influence if you very presence is making everyone you talk to uncomfortable talking to you, including your boss.
The sad thing is, with the world connected as it is, there is actually a lot of stuff going on that would be interesting to Americans and that real reporters would be making valuable careers on reporting in a non-editorializing fashion.
The world has not warmed in any statistically significant way since around 2000. I’m not wrong, and I’m not biased in saying that. Retract your bias and zip your fly please.
So, which one of these following guidelines should be denounced immediately as delivering “false and misleading information.”?
a) We need to offer up scary scenarios and downplay any hint of uncertaintity that may exist, or
b) we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.
I rest my case.
I think you’ve completely missed the whole point of the issue.
This email was leaked by a recipient, because I suppose this is vile and someone decided to slip it out as a favor to the world. In contrast, the 13,000 UAE emails were stolen by hackers paid by radical fundamentalist think tanks, fossil fuel companies, or both.
Speculation? Yes. Truthy? Very. Falsifiable? Are you up to the challenge?
REPLY: Assuming you know all the inside details of both, and can verify them, go ahead. So far even the Norfolk police have not been able to establish theft or leak. So if you know more than them, by all means lay your cards on the table.
P.S. Oh, and “because Joe Romm says so” isn’t acceptable evidence. – Anthony
This calls for a connect the dots exercise.
Joe Romm is funded by George Soros; as are Media Matters, Huffington Post, and NPR. Soros is a front man for an international statist cabal that promotes anti-fossil fuel measures for self gain and to gain control of energy production and consumption globally. The UN IPCC, and captive scientists and research organizations are among their many agenda promoting proxies.
Obama’s approach to energy promotes the Soros initiatives. Soros is heavily invested in Petrobas, the Brazilian oil company, and numerous alternative energy companies, and carbon trading exchanges. Obama has closed the Gulf and coast waters to oil and gas exploration and development. He has added to the off-limits federally controlled lands where oil and gas exploration and mining are prohibited. The consequences include grater dependency upon foreign oil imports; and promotion of alternative energy subsidies and development and carbon trading.
Obama is Soros’ puppet. The John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress, that founded and manages many of the Soros funded organizations, actually pulls the strings. Although Obama is bright enough, he lacks the worldly experience, knowledge and is way too lazy to have developed and executed his political agenda. Moreover, he cannot stay on message without his teleprompters. He is a highly disciplined, radical socialist with a gift for rhetoric.
Getting back to the subject of reliable news sources, I find it interesting that almost all of the mainstream sources of honest and balanced journalism are owned by Rupert Murdoch. That should trouble the Democrats that are regular readers of this blog. Traditional news sources have become willing promoters of the “big lies”.
Anderlan says:
December 16, 2010 at 9:47 am
==================================
good Lord, are you guys losing that bad?
Paddy,
“Soros is a front man for an international statist cabal that promotes anti-fossil fuel measures for self gain and to gain control of energy production and consumption globally.”
Soros is eighty years old. Unless he possesses the elixir of eternal life, then you would have to ask, why bother?
How to shoot yourself in the foot (without the aid of a firearm)
1)Find yourself an unambiguous statement.
2) Aggresively assert that it states the antithesis of what it actually does say.
3)Put your thoughts together with the Statement, on your website and let others read your interpretation of the statement. Job done.
What you should have done was not comment.
I am so glad that you did, because your comments will help to persuade those people who are currently sitting on the fence to off the fence.
Any guess as to which side of the fence they will come down on.
After watching today’s Electricity Market Reform Statement on BBC Parliament, (video – http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9293000/9293372.stm; and DECC text – http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/emr_os/emr_os.aspx) warmists such as the majority of Westminster MPs, and those protesters mentioned in this blog, really need to ask themselves this very basic question…
“On those days when the air feels ‘muggy’, ‘close’, or ‘humid’ (use your preferred term), do you think it’s due to a temporary increase in the concentration in the air of water vapour or carbon dioxide.”
Sometimes I really feel like slapping those people, especially Chris Huhne.