UPDATE: I’ve made a change to my policy on media interaction. See below. -A
Strong headline, I know. But the headline is rooted in actions (and lack thereof). Readers may recall the smear job done by Guardian reporter Suzanne Goldenberg to Tom Harris at Carleton University in Ottawa which I covered in detail here: Fake moral outrage translated to smear: media upset that students can choose to take an elective course on climate change at Carleton.
Readers may also recall that in that story there’s a recorded transcript of the interview with Harris by Goldenberg, and it seems nothing substantive that Mr. Harris had to say made it in to Goldenberg’s story.
Before I published my investigation, Mr. Harris wrote a letter to the editor to the Guardian to set the record straight. It has been 10 days now and they still have not published it. Harris sent me a copy of the letter yesterday and I too sent a letter off to letters@guardian.co.uk and asked if they were going to publish it. According to my mail server logs, they received it, and it is now late in the day in London, so one can reasonably assume the answer was no. Since the Guardian does not apparently care about offering balanced reporting, (there’s no evidence it has been printed via Guardian’s own search) I’m presenting the letter from Mr. Harris here.
Hi Anthony,
Feel free to upload my letter to The Guardian (below) to your superb site (minus my home address at the end, please), as you were suggesting. I did get an auto-response from “Letters editor, the Guardian” so there is no question that they received it. But they never published it.
Spring has sprung in Ottawa. Hope it is nice in CA too!
Tom
From: Tom Harris
Sent: February 29, 2012 1:19 AM
To: ‘letters@guardian.co.uk’
Subject: Re – “Heartland associate taught ‘biased’ climate course at Ottawa university”, Feb 28, 2012
I am commenting about the article found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/28/heartland-associate-climate-scepticism-ottawa-university. I understand you may wish to shorten my letter somewhat.
To the editor,
As primary target of Guardian Environment Correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg’s attack piece “”Heartland associate taught ‘biased’ climate course at Ottawa university” (Feb 28), I am very disappointed with this, my first interaction with your publication.
Contrary to the headline of the article, when I last taught at Carleton University, ending in April 2011, I was in not a “Heartland associate”. As was made clear to Goldenberg in our communications, I did not become an unpaid policy advisor with Heartland until only a few months ago.
Contrary to Goldenberg’s assertion that “Heartland’s core mission is to discredit climate change”, Heartland is committed to encouraging a full, open and honest dialog about the issue, and I explained to Goldenberg that they even hosted a friendly public debate between a “skeptic” and an “alarmist” at their last climate conference in Washington DC seven months ago.
Contrary to Goldenberg’s statement that the review of the Earth Sciences course was “an expert audit”, I explained to her that it was conducted by biologists who did not even bother to communicate with me about their opinions of the course before going public. This is especially odd considering the lead author is a postdoctoral fellow at Carleton.
Contrary to assertions in the subject piece, the course is well supported by peer reviewed literature and was no way extreme, merely concluding that we are a long way from understanding climate science well enough to be able to make definitive forecasts about the future but that we must help vulnerable peoples adapt to inevitable climate change.
If Goldenberg really believes that statements such as “The only constant about climate is change”, “carbon dioxide is plant food” or “the Amazon jungle is a relatively new formation, in geological terms” are even slightly controversial, then I suggest she take Professor Patterson’s course in 2013. It can be taken via the Web at a modest fee.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
When one reads the Guardian’s editorial code:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/08/EditorialGuidelinesAug2011.pdf
The first paragraph reads:
“A newspaper’s primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted.”
Our most important currency is trust. This is as true today as when CP Scott marked the centenary of the founding of the Guardian with his famous essay on journalism in 1921.
And upon further reading we find:
3. Appendices, section 3.2
Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
When the Guardian reporter doesn’t include significant points raised in an interview, then sets out to essentially create her own opinion about the story, and the editorial staff deny the right of reply in contradiction with their own policy, one can reasonably assume that The Guardian has blown its “currency of trust” on cheap thrills and is now bankrupt.
In the past, my policy has been to provide all media outlets and reporters with quotes and materials when they asked for it, for example when Fakegate broke, Suzanne Goldenberg asked for my reaction and I immediately supplied it. However, like many other reporters, she didn’t check the veracity of the documents first, and didn’t wait for my input that she requested, running the story irresponsibly to be “first” to smear Heartland (and me) thanks to the illegal act of Dr. Peter Gleick.
It seems clear to me that Goldenberg is biased, for example read how much she lauds Dr. Michael Mann here, but gives no ink to Harris in his long interview. She is also listed as producer of this laudatory video where we are treated to dozens of pictures of I ♥ Climate Scientists:
The end credits of this Guardian sponsored video read:
And yet the Guardian can’t be bothered to print a letter to the editor from Tom Harris defending himself. The bias displayed is gobsmacking.
As a result of this systemic journalistic malpractice, and since it is evident through my own experiences as well as watching the experiences of others that the Guardian has no interest in allowing “A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.” nor even waiting for accurate information in the first place, I am going to institute a new policy in regards to my interaction with the Guardian.
New policy: whenever the Guardian asks for input, my reply shall be:
Previous interactions with The Guardian experienced by myself, and by others that I have been able to witness have demonstrated that the The Guardian has no interest in reporting the skeptic side of the climate change issue fairly, but instead breaks its own policy and journalistic standards in an effort to provide what appears to be deadline oriented and opinionated reporting. Therefore, since I have no expectation that anything I say will be used fairly nor accurately, I decline comment, because to comment is an exercise in futility, and will reserve my comments for legitimate news organizations.
UPDATE: In retrospect, while this policy may be warranted by the irresponsible behavior displayed by the Guardian, it probably isn’t the best solution. So, I’ve decided to take a different tack.
Instead my policy will be:
To always ask for all questions to be submitted to me in written form. I already do that in most instances due to my hearing problem and difficulty with telephone communications. When I reply with my comments in written form, I demand that they be used as is without editing.
Then at the same time I send comments to the media outlet, I shall post the record of questions and comments made here as a new story, even if the media outlet has not gone to press yet. This will ensure that my comments are not distorted, and that there is a record of the media interaction.
I urge others to follow my lead. Record and post your media interactions. Force the issue of accountability and fairness.
There’s also the UK press complaints commission, which may provide some modicum of relief, but I have my doubts.
Tomorrow’s Guardian headline:
Well-known denier accused of eating children: Anthony Watts ‘declines to comment’…
The Grauniad is an embarrassment here in the UK. Its only readers are middle class yoghurt knitting bed wetters from London and it has always been an alarmist hard left wing rag. Try reading its “Environment” pages on line without laughing or being incredulous that people actually believe the rubbish they write. They are the mouthpiece of extremists on the left including WWF Greenpeace Socialist worker etc. Its circulation is collapsing and it will soon be bust so try not to worry…..
I recommend making it punchier
REPLY: I like it, thanks – Anthony
How many credibility blows can one movement survive? It’s like the CAGW movement is coated with Teflon, nothing sticks. The movement or “The Cause” to save the planet is surely the noblest of causes, hence, the appeal that overwhelms logic, reason, perspective, facts, or figures. Logic is stretched, reason twisted, and perspective limited. Facts are cherry picked and figures are replaced with “science” that is replete with potentials, could’s, may’s, might’s, if’s, and consistent with’s not to mention disingenuous start and end dates. It’s Zohnerism without a way out; try as we might we can’t just reveal the punch line: “its water” like with the classic “Ban DHMO!” example making everyone realize they’ve been punked. No, the Teflon coated cause is too slick for calling CO2 plant food or air; “The Cause” twists reality and consequently I exhale and plants need a pollutant! The Teflon coated cause can deflect defects of science and/or character with ease; demonstrated hypocrisy (behavior inconsistent with stated beliefs) doesn’t stick; demonstrated incompetence doesn’t stick; demonstrated deception doesn’t stick; demonstrated faulty doesn’t stick.
What will stick? Somehow, I don’t think providing them with “Mr. Watts refused to comment” will help, but I don’t see anything else you can do; it seems the best option out of a bunch of bad options.
Get your T shirt here.
“The Guardian doesn’t give a damn about accurate reporting nor its own editorial code.”
This is a surprise? Welcome to the MSM.
Always remember that newspapers are just another “product” – the owners are in it to make a buck and have no altruistic intentions of being “fair”, particularly when the bulk of their readership don’t want them to be “fair” (which is almost certainly the case here with the Guardian).
Well said Anthony,
The Guardian has an agenda and it will not allow its ‘editorial code’ to interfere wjth it.
By the way, the Press Complaints Commission is about to be kicked into touch and replaced by a Press regulatory body. Unfortunately, that too will be controlled by the MSM so there will not be any balanced reporting along any time soon.
Please keep up the good work, for which millions in the UK are grateful. I was a journalist for many years and I can tell you that the Guardian, like the BBC, has become a journalistic embarrassment in this country.
Or, if not relief, perhaps a modicum of amusement.
The PCC is to close down.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/newscorp-hacking-watchdog-idUKL5E8E8AHU20120308
It looks like the only rebuttal allowed is through WUWT and other blogs.
Unfortunately you are now playing “THEIR GAME” The have finally achieved their goal. That is they want to shut you up and that is what they have just achieved.
An Alternate strategy is for skeptics to use a recorder of some nature and make sure their side is always published simultaneously on the web with the Guardian article. Given the Guardian has show themselves to be completely dishonest there is no reason to wait until the article comes out to do the “Rebuttal”
In addition to Tom, Dr. Timothy Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University, has been an outspoken critic of the CO2 theory of global warming based on his study of earth’s varying climate over millions of years. He has also aroused the disdain of the AGW faithful.
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/
“Previous interactions between myself and others that I have witnessed have demonstrated that the The Guardian has no interest in reporting the skeptic side of the climate change issue fairly, but instead breaks its own policy and journalistic standards in an effort to provide what appears to be deadline oriented and opinionated reporting. Therefore, since I have no expectation that anything I say will be used fairly nor accurately, I decline comment, because to comment is an exercise in futility.”
That is waaaaay too professional and civil a response for those people. You’re a better man than I Anthony.
The Guardian (aka Grauniad, as it had the UK’s worst record for typos during the hot metal days of newspaper production – showing my age) is heavily dependent upon BBC job adverts. Refer now to BBC broadcasting of climate managed by people recruited via the Grauniad. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Sad but true that so much of MSM have lost their journalistic ethics in favour of shock-news appeal. Science is only secondary in any science story these days in most MSM. Pseudo-science is presented to challenge science as though it had equal weight. The public is very poorly served by most MSM on science issues.
Minor real error:
When the Guardian reporter doesn’t include significant points raised in an interview, then sets out…
Add “n”.
Minor imaginary error:
Previous interactions between myself and others that I have witnessed have demonstrated that the The Guardian has no interest in reporting the skeptic side…
Use the British “c” spelling or the smug sods will smirk and joke as to how that Yank can’t even spell correctly.
I think it would be better to give a measured reply in the future as well, but prefaced with some boilerplate about the Guardian’s obvious bias, its violation of its own journalistic standards and its disservice to its readers. But by all means, do complain to the UK Press Complaints Commission!
Kurt in Switzerland
But…..didn’t we already know the Guardian had no interesst in fair and balanced reporting of climate change? It makes my blood run hot too, but its nothing new.
“There is no such thing as public opinion – there is only published opinion.”
(or something like that. Seems to hold just as true today as when it was said many years ago)
Sadly this is par for the course for The Guardian. The individuals they choose to hire in the role of “journalist” such as Suzanne Goldenberg are not reporters but are hired to be propagandists. The story isn’t designed to inform, it is designed to further a particular world view. I think everyone understands that and nobody considers The Guardian to be a news organization.
Didn’t the KGB (ex-spy’s) claim that they used to practically run the Grauniad? If true, perhaps if you email a copy of the letter to their overseas Editor in Chief, and compliment his fine physique, Mr Putin might see to it that the letter gets published.
Just for the sake of grammatical clarity, you may want to adjust the start of your policy statement:
“Previous interactions between myself and others that I have witnessed…”
As it is, the phrase appears to refer to your interactions with “others” rather than with The Guardian. Perhaps it should be something like “Previous interactions with The Guardian experienced by myself, and by others that I have been able to witness, …”
REPLY: Good point, I’ll make a change – Anthony
You are free to have your own point of view at the Guardian: as long as they can tell you what it is first! I’ve been banned for such outrages as: Linking to a temperature graph, linking to a WUWT story, commenting on the tropospheric anomaly, pointing our discrepancies between Hansen’s projections (predictions) and reality, or generally anything that’s inconvenient.
I consider being banned a badge of honour.
“There’s also the UK press complaints commission”
Not any more, there isn’t!
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march/press-complaints-commission-to-shut-down-in-wake-of-phone-hacking-scandal/
This is what we are stuck with in the mainstream media, demonstrable across the board. Last year, after having sent numerous inquiries to the PBS Ombudsman about the PBS NewsHour’s apparent exclusion of skeptic climate scientists from its program for 15+ years, I wrote an 1100-word snail mail to the top NewsHour person himself, asking for his explanation. His reply, reproduced as a photo in my article about the situation last year, was “I hear you on your concerns about our reports on the global warming issue.” Please see “PBS and Global Warming Skeptics’ Lockout” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/pbs_and_global_warming_skeptics_lockout.html
Within that article, I reproduced my snail mail mail verbatim, where I directly asked him to comment on the appearance that he had violated one of his own “MacNeil/Lehrer guidelines for journalism”, namely “assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.” Arguably, by not answering why skeptics were never allowed to appear in-studio to rebut frequent IPCC scientist guests, or simply allowed the same length of time by themselves to offer their viewpoints as was given to IPCC scientists there, Lehrer breaks another of his own guidelines, “Do nothing I cannot defend.”
“Rules of MacNeil/Lehrer Journalism” here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2009/12/im-not-in-the-entertainment-business-and-other-rules-of-macneillehrer-journalism.html
Here in the UK we are being blasted with a Guardian TV advert, they use the childrens story of the 3 little pigs, but have the big bad wolf on video with asthma, the 3 little pigs get sent down for insurance fraud. there’s a link to it, warning it’s terrible [1] It’s a left wing rag supported only by it’s parent company which sells second hand cars, it’s Jan 2012 circulation is only 215,988 Average Net Circulation [2] I suggest it is only funded for propaganda purposes, as Tarran says above, for “certain politically powerful individuals, corporations and industries.”
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/open-journalism?CMP=KNCNETTXT15972I
[2]http://www.abc.org.uk/Products-Services/Product-Page/?tid=179
Anthony (and all those on the western side of the pond)
Ignore the Grauniad. Virtually everyone here does.
Maybe Dr Roy Spencer has a way forward?
“A Technical Apology to Juliet Eilperin”
March 7th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/a-technical-apology-to-juliet-eilperin/
Mike B says:
March 9, 2012 at 9:16 am
…Its only readers are middle class yoghurt knitting bed wetters from London and it has always been an alarmist hard left wing rag…
Mike, I’ve told you before not to refer to BBC employees like that!
/sarc
This lack of accurate reporting is part and parcel of the Guardian’s culture.
In The Guardian on Tuesday 31 August 2010 Monbiot said:
I told him that he was wrong and provided references here:
and here:
It meant nothing and no correction. Furthermore, I have just noticed that the huge amount of recommendations I got for my comment have been erased to just 2. They have now resorted to censoring votes. Doesn’t surprise me.
The good news is that their circulation has gone into freefall. 😉
Anthony, as others are telling you, the Guardian is notorious for biased activism pretending to be news.
If you search for Mann you’ll find that they have published five separate pieces of Mannian propaganda recently, portraying him as an honest, highly regarded scientist being attacked, on 5 March, 3 March, 27 Feb, 17 Feb, 17 Feb (yes, two that day).
The reason the Grauniad hasn’t printed your “correction” is because the original is essentially accurate. Your previous post didn’t identify any errors in the report critcising TH’s course.
TH claims to have only been associated with Heartland “only a few months ago” but he is wrong [snip. That is pure projection. ~dbs, mod.]
> “Heartland’s core mission is to discredit climate change”
Seems pretty accurate to me.
> Heartland is committed to encouraging a full, open and honest dialog about the issue
Very dubious. Spreading FUD would be more like it.
The “The Guardian” is well aware of the practice of bias and they have given us a show and tell to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge. Here we see they are very well versed in speaking from both sides of their mouth. If you need spin, these are your go to people.
“How many credibility blows can one movement survive?”
Credibility only matters to those people who are fundamentally dishonest. Those who are in on the fraud, and who profit from the fraud, will never be, and that’s why they can never be swayed, only defeated.
Nice at least to see all the masks coming off. Next step is to acknowledge that there is no effective operating difference between the Guardian and the NYT.
Look, mate, codes of ethics in journalism went out the window years ago in the UK. The industry’s haemhorraging cash, readers and so it spends less and less on good journalism and more and more on paid-for-drivel political pamphlets. There’s no way that can’t be case when you have James Delingpole calling warmistas everything under the sun without being censured for libel; only on the next day you have Geoffrey Lean writing such warmista drivel as to make you laugh out loud.
You’ll find the same in most aspects of the paper now: even reports on football matches are paid-for lying – you know this if you’ve seen games live and then read what you’re supposed to have seen but didn’t in fact see. In that case, it’s all about moving players on, agents touting them about, competitors trash talking them or reporters simply watching it on Sky TV at home.
The time has come to ignore these traditional media houses and realise that you get more people at your site than they get at theirs!
And why? Because you get experts to write articles which are subjected to vigorous blogging.
Don’t worry: one day you might turn into a struggling site with advertisers swearing at you for dropping traffic. If you have any sense, at that point you move on to pastures new!
Lets have a punt , what is really is all about for Goldenberg is not the science or even AGW but a the need to get Obama reelected as presiden and keep the republicans out . Lets remember that Goldenberg is not a environmental journalists their in fact a political journalists first and foremost and part of the Washington circle and one whose main claim to fame is as the biography of Hilary Clinton. Big friend of the Clinton’s and a person who has never forgiven GW for winning the election. Now if St Gore winning would have been worse or better is a very good question.
So the attack on Heartland was really an attack on the republic party by the back door, given the seeming links between the two . An attacked to portray them as ‘anti-science’ and people who are happy to ‘poison childminder minds’ which was why it was the BS about education that got Goldenberg best efforts. All in the name of ‘a cause’ if not ‘the cause ‘
Chances of her or the Guardian admitting they got it dead wrong , zero , the Guardian itself have made it clear they are fully and blindly behind ‘the cause ‘ there more than happy to hand themselves over to Bob ‘fast fingers’ Ward for his purposes , while their recent articles of adoration of Mann’s book , had all the quality of love-struck teenager writing to the latest ‘boy-band ‘ about how much they love them.
While Goldenberg as a political journalist consider such smearing as normal practice just, in fact, part of the job were some you win and some you lose in the rough and tumble of political life and its only a question of how many times not if you stab someone in the back.
Why not record such interviews and immediately send them to competing papers?
Kurt in Switzerland says:
March 9, 2012 at 9:33 am
I think it would be better to give a measured reply in the future as well, but prefaced with some boilerplate about the Guardian’s obvious bias, its violation of its own journalistic standards and its disservice to its readers. But by all means, do complain to the UK Press Complaints Commission!
Kurt in Switzerland
Kurt, it will amuse you greatly to learn that the esteemed PCC has just announced it will shut down after being shown to be so completely useless at policing newspapers who were hacking phones with impunity, blagging emails with impunity and probably trailling people through gaining access to the GPS signals on their mobile phones.
You need to address things currently to Lord Justice Leveson, who is hosting a high profile enquiry into all this sleaze, which has already led to the removal of James Murdoch from his executive position at News International UK, may well lead to many trials of journalists from the now closed down News of the World and hopefully will lead to the premature retirement of senior police officers and public officials known to have taken financial bungs from Rebekah Wade, now Brooks, for information which really shouldn’t be in the public domain. One can but hope that Brooks will be declared persona non grata in the british media for life and that Rupert Murdoch’s future right to carry out any business in the UK is dependent on him putting up $5bn in an escrow account lodged in Zurich which will be handed over to UK plc to fund a school of ethical journalism through perpetual endowment, if he ever runs a newspaper, TV channel or website with hacking going on, directly or using 3rd parties, again.
If you type Leveson enquiry into Google, you will get an email address to sent your complaints to.
Trust me, it works…….
If you were being naughty, you could cc in Tom Watson MP, to see if he is equally scathing about bad journalistic practice on the left as he has been at News International……..
The Guardian is a left wing rag. Champaign socialists, ex public school, Oxford, Cambridge all fighting for justice and democracy. This means that the Guardian is allowed to cheat, lie, smear, slander, libel to achieve justice for all. I use to wonder how Hitler could get the German people to kill the Jews. Then you read this anti-Semitic hate filled rag with some of the vilest vindictive and spiteful little shits. It is just a little step for these guys.
as per previous comment(s) – the Guardian (and I’d suggest a good proportion of it’s readers) is somewhat perfunctory in it’s level of reporting and understanding. It is to be totally ignored and in my opinion is mostly full of dogmatic, uninformed, badly written and biased reporting.
I’d go so far as to suggest that ‘Taliban Today’ would provide a more educated and even handed outlet for news!
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
The Grauniad strikes out
Hardly a Big seller, and its sales are falling, 9 March 2012
Daily sales,
The Guardian : 215,988 ; -17.75 ( -5.99 ) NA
The Sun : 2,582,301 ; -8.38 ( -6.14 ) NA
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48913&c=1
Does the News of the Weird still have a topic for things that used to be weird, but no longer are?*
The reason I ask is lack of accountability, lack of integrity and lack of honest in the Main Stream Media is covered so much that it’s starting to have that “no longer news” feel about it.
I’m starting to get outrage immunity, or perhaps burnout over the failings of the MSM to pursue the truth or uphold its own ethical standards. Just as Post Normal Scientists no longer practice, the MSM no longer practices journalism. Both now practice advocacy. Both are also indoctrinated to believe they are performing the greater good and seem incapable of recognizing they are no longer performing their cores missions.
If others think they are also burned out over the topic of the hypocrisy and dishonest of the MSM, just wait. It’s an election year.
* BTW, yes it does: http://www.newsoftheweird.com/special/special.html.
I think you have responded exactly the way they wanted you to. You should instead beat your drum loud and hard and make them listen. You have enormous reader support to back you.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the Graun – it may not be around for too much longer – please read :
http://order-order.com/2011/08/03/data-journalism-guardian-style/
Harriet Harridan, so you have a Guardian ASBO – an Anti-Science Belief Order 🙂
Mike B says:
“The Grauniad is an embarrassment here in the UK. Its only readers are middle class yoghurt knitting bed wetters from London and it has always been an alarmist hard left wing rag”.
The Graun has been the major centre left newspaper here for nearly 2 centuries. It’s almost certainly read by all three major party leaders (our conservative Prime Minister is well to the left of his party). For that reason, if for no other, its opinions count.
Yes its environment coverage is pitiful, and the censorship and distortion is shocking. (You can have comments removed for merely mentioning WUWT or Climate Audit). But you don’t destroy the quality of a 190 year old institution overnight, however hard you try. There must still be journalists there who are disgusted by the activities of la Goldenberg, Hickman, Monbiot, Carrington and co. And “recommends” on the comments by the small number of sceptical readers who manage to escape the censorship on climate change threads demonstrate that sceptics outnumber warmists by about 4:1.
And Mike, as a long standing Guardian-reading London resident, I assure you that knitting your own yoghurt does not provoke diuresis.
There’s some sort of questionnaire from the Guardian which has been lying unread in my inbox for a few weeks now. I think after reading this I might get round to going and filling it in.
I am proud to say that I have been banned by the Guardian (climate comments sections) 8 times. I have since given up trying to comment. Come to think of it imagine all the others that have been banned. No wonder they will soon go bankrupt.
Interesting comments in the Youtube video of Molemann. I like to see “interesting” comments, wink, wink, nudge,nudge. Too many congratulatory comments for such a controversial “scientist.”
Regular readers who do not also visit Bishop Hill may also be interested in this incident
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/10/can-one-trust-the-guardian.html
where his eminence got to write a response to a typical hatchet job by a Mr Ward – who apparently is a scientist of the PR variety – in the Graun after suggesting he may ask the PCC and others to look at the reporting standards there.
Somewhat amazingly Mr Ward managed not only to be the first to comment on the response but managed to dash off a few detailed paragraphs within 2 minutes of the article appearing – something he could only have done if he knew about it in advance and had been passed it by the paper’s staff.
I’m in the target demographic of that paper – I’m in the UK, have left of centre leanings and voting habits (ok, I know that makes me just to the right of Stalin here but…) and I’m one of those professional and reasonably well paid types they tell their advertisers about. Yet I don’t read it and haven’t for 15 years now and probably won’t again before it dies.
Its a shame to see that place like the BBC basically sell its soul for a belief instead of taking the middle ground in any debate and presenting the facts. You can tell in the Beeb that there are people who are struggling to try, but the Graun never even lets them in.
Moving on…
The Guardian has a circulation of about 217,000 in the UK. The Green Party had a total vote of 285,000 in the last election. (Some of them must share their papers…more sustainable see). 30,000,000 votes were cast, 65% of the electorate. The guardian is an irrelevant rag. It doesn’t even deserve a capital letter
@Geoff Chambers
If you are right about those journos who oppose such tactics maybe it can be saved, but with Rusbridger at the helm I doubt it. He makes Jimmy Wales seem very even handed in editorial terms.
Just FYI, Anthony, I think it was the Guardian that smeared Chris Horner after an environmental group went through his trash (at his home, yet!) and spun some emails of his out of context.
It was also the Guardian that smeared AEI (and myself) when DeSmogBlog uploaded an innocuous third-party private correspondence of mine (without permission!), which was spun to the Guardian, making me out to be a scientist-bribing evil overlord.
The DeSmogBlog and the Guardian are basically colostomy bags for green activists.
Now for some good news.
From one of the links above the Guardian’s revenue has fallen in 5 years from £593 million to £255 million. Hopefully they will completely shut down within the next 5 years. Have they ever thought that one of the many reasons for their drastic loss is that people have grown weary about
Global WarmingClimate Change reporting. 😉The Guardian has been hijacked by ideological extremists with no need for integrity. I’ve read the paper daily for more than 20 years, but will no more.
I’ve decided on a different strategy for dealing not only with the Guardian, but all news outlets. See the update.
The Grauniad is in its last death-throws.
It was kept afloat by the Labour government flooding the newspaper with government job adverts – in return for sycophantic reporting of party policy, and the promise that all government officials would therefore be Labour party supporters. This was blatant electioneering, and probably a criminal activity.
However, with the change in government, the Grauniad’s employment pages have shrunk to nothing, and they are losing money hand over fist. With any luck the Grauniad will be history within a year or two.
That will only leave us with the Independent and their Saudi sponsors to defeat. Like CNN, the heavy input of funding from the East ensures that these Lefty rags report everything as being wonderful in the East, in comparison to the horrid West. The editors go along with this drivel because they are self-flagilators who hate their own culture. Its about time CNN and the Indy moved to Saudi, and see how they like it there.
.
The Guardian is the newspaper for the Socialist that owns his own house
Whatever you say, never include the phrase “no comment” because they will simply take it out of context and use it as your entire response.
Who? Guardian? Oh, I understand. I’m sorry I don’t really deal with public funded PR security firms.
Or
Ah, yes, I see it’s you again. You really should do regular maintenance of your inbox you know.
:p
Can anyone decipher the runic characters written on Mann’s blackboard in that video?
Anthony, I like your new strategy and it has been interesting to watch the comments here steering you in that direction.
True democracy, or rather, free speech rules.
Anthony
As if you needed any further evidence of the editorial policy of The Grauniad this post by Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, took my breath away, reading it as I did, at the height of phone tapping scandal in the UK…
the malodorous stench of hypocrisy pervades every phrase
“Gail Combs says: March 9, 2012 at 9:30 am
It looks like the only rebuttal allowed is through WUWT and other blogs. ”
Good thing wUWT has more readers 🙂
I like the rest of your ideas. I think that “this call is being recorded for journalistic integrity” would be more effective than “no comment”. They would probably hang up and go change their undies.
The Guardian is the parish paper for a cult of “watermelon” true believers.
No media policy can be effective with blinkered fanatics, but Anthony’s proposal in the update will at least allow a factual record to be built.
From a comment I made at Bishop Hill recently on the backgrounds of three of the Graun’s crack climate reporting team….
……..if you look at the background of the Graun environment team, they’re all green activists pretending to be journalists.
One of Hickman’s early efforts, which he doesn’t care to be reminded about too much now, was a blatant green propaganda book aimed at small schoolkids and titled “Will Jellyfish Rule The World?” (that’s after all the humans have been burnt to a crisp, presumably):-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Will-Jellyfish-Rule-World-Climate/dp/0141323345/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331061613&sr=1-1
John Vidal wrote a book supporting the green activists involved in the McDonald’s libel trial :-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/McLibel-Burger-Culture-John-Vidal/dp/0330352377
Damian Carrington, of course, was chosen by the 10:10 fanatics for the Guardian’s “exclusive preview” of the appalling “No Pressure” kiddy snuff movie.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
The Guardian crew also pop up variously at activist demos such as Climate Camp and the like – there’s a blog post by a green activist who shared a tunnel at the Manchester Airport extension protest with Vidal:-
John was actually commuting between The Guardian’s office in Manchester and the Cakehole tunnel in Flywood, where he liked to play his classical music underground. He was rather upset when he had to fly to Brazil at the crucial moment and couldn’t actually be there to be evicted.
http://thesnufkin.blogspot.com/2009/01/pixie-of-wild-garlic.html
So never confuse the Guardian environment team with journalists, their priority is spreading the message – not seeking the truth.
With regards to the PCC disbanding itself, would that government boondoogles that had proven themselves ineffective be so easy to shut down. Instead, they seem to live, zombie-like, forever, no matter how useless they have turned out to be. (And further draining the treasury all the while.)
Anthony – please contact Carter-Ruck: http://www.carter-ruck.com
The UK newspapers need to prove themselves innocent of maliciously maligning their victims (such is the system there) and Carter-Ruck will take a case on a contingency basis.
tarran says:
March 9, 2012 at 9:22 am
I have to disagree. You’ve gone from stating a reasonably verifiable claim of bias to imputing a specific motive. It is sufficient to establish the paper does not follow its own standards. It weakens your case to claim the ability to discern what is in their minds.
Chris S says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:57 am
The Guardian has been hijacked by ideological extremists with no need for integrity. I’ve read the paper daily for more than 20 years, but will no more.
===========================================================================
You are not alone, according to this :
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48913&c=1
17.75% decline in circulation over the last 12 months, down to 215,000. Can you say “preaching to the converted”?
This comment made on a post from Autonomous Mind just over a year ago.
“Jonathan Stuart-Brown 18/02/2011 at 2:33 pm
For once you have severely over-estimated something.
The Guardian has fewer than 50 000 real purchasers.
It is bought on block in volume with public money by The BBC,
Charities, Quangos, Unions, Lobby Groups, Libraries, University Library and Departments (such as Law Departments for its legal reports), local authorities and local authority departments, the NHS, as well as political parties (which is not public money).
Its real readers are often just looking at the jobs adverts because of The BBC lock (and media cluster as a result) on Monday, then the union job adverts, local authority job adverts,
charity job adverts etc
It would be out of business but for being subsidised by the public purse to the tune of over 80% of its income.
It is still failing and falling. It is starting to axe staff. There is hope the dragon can be slayed.
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/01/as-20-year-tv-news-anchorman-peter-sissons-confirms-marxist-bbc-bias-against-britain-why-does-the-bbc-subsidise-the-guardian-to-the-tune-of-100-a-year-per-genuine-guardian-purchaser/”
The Guardian still seems to be hanging on by its fingernails.
It’s evident from the audio of the interview that Suzanne Goldenberg had only one thing on her hack agenda, which was to discover how much $$$ Tom Harris might have received from Heartland. Everything else bored her, and she ended the interview when she realized she was dealing with an experienced communicator.
No! I heart climate scientists? I am leaving for another planet…Venus is preferable.
“The PCC is closing down”
Oh boy did I misread that, got me all hopeful for a moment, danged varifocals.
Anthony,
Glad you decided on a more measured response. I hope others follow your lead. It is about time so called Journalists got their feet held to the fire on the matter of truthful reporting.
I am routinely ‘pre-moderated’ at the g but their level of stalinistic practices with respect to censorship is even more than portrayed here.
Many people will have a comment not only removed but ALL EVIDENCE of it even having existed will also be cast down the memory hole.
In the U.K. those, like me, who do enjoy a skim of the G content know how they work and it makes for fun discussion in other venues where free comment is, in fact, allowed.
There’s a catchphrase that the contrarians like me use when commenting……………….’comment macht frei’…………………………………..
One learns where the sensitive spots are. All sites/blogs will have them I guess…..The G’s is AGW/Israel/Multicult……
This sites ‘nerve point’ is any discussion of population control I’ve learned.
Tis OK , it’s just the way it is I suppose.
For those of you wondering what a grauniad is.
http://www.grauniad.co.uk
Rhys Jaggar says:
“There’s no way that can’t be case when you have James Delingpole calling warmistas everything under the sun without being censured for libel; only on the next day you have Geoffrey Lean writing such warmista drivel as to make you laugh out loud.”
True, and also that Delingpole’s items re Climate Change are only ever allowed as blogs and do not appear in the main paper, whilst Lean and Louise Gray (Environmental Correspondent or more accurately Green Parrot) get prime space …
I realise Rhys is making a general point, but to be clear in the thread context, that’s the Daily Telegraph, not the Guardian.
Since they engage in wholesale tax evasion, its interesting to see the guardians attitude to comments on this.
Any article on taxation and evasion, comments are disabled.
They don’t like people pointing out the hypocrisy.
When it was the Manchester Guardian, the Grauniad was almost a newspaper. Left of centre, yes but it wasn’t as bad as now and was widely read, despite the anagrams. (Ian Hislop used to refer to that well known anagram,)
My father took both the Grauniad and the Telegraph and I think the FT but my memory is poor on that. (It was 45 years ago!)
DaveE.
– Anyone going to telephone the ASA ?
the Guardian’s new three little pigs TV advert…states that they give the full story
, but fails to mention that the environment department is exempt from that rule & the editorial code (I see pieces with the pejorative “denier” in when they swore not to use it anymore)
I see a number of people have suggested who I could complain to next in the Guardian “Carletongate” affair. However, I have found complaining to press councils and politicians usually accomplishes little as they do their best to do nothing and just protect their friends.
I wonder if it is a better use of time to work, as Anthony does so well, to simply discredit the Guardian and similar propagandistic rags. After all, if, eventually, almost no one takes what they say seriously about environment, energy, etc., then what they say won’t matter any more than what the drunk down the street says.
“A newspaper’s primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted.”
Guardian is longer have soul. Guardian is have Marxism, instead! Much better than have soul.
@ Jones and @ Jimbo,
Glad to read I’m not the only one regularly banned 😀
For those outside the UK who wonder how a newspaper with such a tiny circulation can have such a huge effect on UK politics, this site: http://guardianlies.com/ is a *must* read. It gives the story of how the Guardian Editor and senior journalists lied under oath in order to discredit the John Major led Conservatives in the “Cash for Questions” row. The whole affair seems absolutely quaint in comparison with this and the last governments’ embezzlement, but it was a huge story at the time which directly led to Tony B-liar being elected.
Just think. If they hadn’t lied then possibly there would have been: No “sexed up” war documents (and thus possibly no Iraq war), no £squillion debt to be paid by the as yet unborn, no loony AGW policies, and no disastrous expansion of the state.
But don’t repeat this on the G’s site: You will be banned :-).
Anthony,
Re: Your final words in your article
If there is any similarity with Oz, I would share your doubts. Our national broadcaster, the ABC, has an official complaints process in a claimed autonomous department; Audience and Consumer Affairs. (A&CA). Furthermore, they are compelled to respond to all complaints. Additionally, there is the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a totally separate government authority, for appeals if complaints are not upheld by the ABC.
ABC radio’s flagship The “Science Show” has long displayed extreme bias, including for example twenty or more pro CAGW stories in a year, but NONE from the other side. I’ve made eight formal complaints to A&CA, on what I thought were the most outrageous, and to my amazement, all 8 were rejected.
One in particular contained five examples of very misleading claims, that I felt could not be dismissed as subjective or a matter of opinion. But, again, to my amazement, the ACMA basically ruled that these scientific facts were opinion rather than objective facts, and anyway it was not a requirement that the “Science Show” be accurate, as long as other shows on “the platform” such as different audience appeal “current affairs” had adequate balancing material. (which they did not).
Here follows a draft article on that complaint ruling, a process that has taken over a year:
http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/abc-radios-so-called-science-show-licence-to-mislead-the-public/
First comes lie then big lie after that comes stats and then Guardian or other newspaper.
As far as British newspapers go, I am partial to the Sun. Particularly impressive are the articles on Page 3.
OK, that was just plain snarky. I DO enjoy articles in the Telegraph, though. And I read Page 3 for the cartoons!
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Anthony says:
Instead my policy will be:
To always ask for all questions to be submitted to me in written form. I already do that in most instances due to my hearing problem and difficulty with telephone communications. When I reply with my comments in written form, I demand that they be used as is without editing.
Then at the same time I send comments to the media outlet, I shall post the record of questions and comments made here as a new story, even if the media outlet has not gone to press yet. This will ensure that my comments are not distorted, and that there is a record of the media interaction.
I urge others to follow my lead. Record and post your media interactions. Force the issue of accountability and fairness.
__________________________
Good call Anthony.
One of the dirty little tactics commonly used by acolytes of the “Cause” is to slime someone in the media, and then either deny them a chance for rebuttal (done to me in ~2002 by the Globe and Mail – “Canada’s National Watermelon Paper”) or to delay rebuttals interminably, while widely circulating the warmist lies (done to Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon by Eos in ~2003).
By independently publishing your replies online with no delay, you effectively neuter their slimy little tactic, and also give these dishonest rags the “respect” they deserve.
Anthony, no journalist will agree to publishing your comments in full and unedited. For a start, the journalist is not the sub-editor and has no control over how much of the article makes it into print or how it is edited. So you may as well leave that demand out of your policy – or preferably recast it as a demand that your comments not be distorted or misrepresented.
Anthony,
Don’t go there with the press commission complaints. One of the glories of this country is our unique First Amendment rights. Let them blather and bloviate all they want. We can refute them with logic, science and reason. And this blog does that daily. If they truly cross the line, there is recourse in the libel laws. But we don’t need government commissions regulating our press (or our blogs).
It’s not often that the Guardian apologises or correct stories but I’ve listed five times when it did so on my blog. Admittedly none are environmental issues. What it does show is that even on major stories it still has an agenda which is not to tell the truth.
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/guardian-gets-it-wrong-five-times/
Their current TV advert:
I thought it was funny. A national newspaper obsessed with reporting, and its readership obsessed with discussing, fairy stories!
Now, I admit that I have long hair, a beard, am partial to the occasional alternative cigarette and (possibly worst of all) am a vegetarian, and thus would undoubtedly qualify as a communist hippy in the view of at least one of Mr Watt’s regular posters. Oh, and I like yoghurt as well but have to admit that I can’t knit.
But, come on chaps, some of us read the grauniad (on t’internet anyway) for pure amusement. What’s not to love, for example, about the Moonbat’s insane ramblings, week after week (not to mention the comments of his acolytes), or Andrew Simms’ … ahem … fantastic series, 100 months to Save the Planet, which seems to have dropped that tagline, presumably when even he realised that the planet didn’t need saving, certainly not by him.
Along with previous posters, I too have had comments excised for failing to say the right (or, to be strictly accurate, the left) thing but I hold that as a badge of honour, as should everyone in the same position. The beauty of reading it on-line, of course, is that it won’t cost you a penny but can give endless hours of entertainment. It’s financial position, notwithstanding its dubious use of tax havens, means that it may not survive for much longer, so I urge everyone to drop in for a few minutes while you still can.
Writing in to get the Guardian, BBC or ABC (Oz) to report complaints is about as optimistic as writing to Pravda in 1950 to suggest that the gulag program was inappropriate.
The Grauniad, as their typesetters used to put, has always been a left wing wooly liberal broadsheet. Their spelling may have improved but little else.
I have found that the quickest way to get banned from The Guardian, is to use facts, to quash a debate with a commentator with a BLUE C (contributor)
RealClimate is part of The Guardian Environmental Network, and with the nasty comments against skeptics, they sound just like the climategate emails, and the the moderator answers in the realclimate blog, and wonder if they actually take part in the comments section of the paper.
It could be Gavin himself telling you, you are a moron.
for more bias and lies
see the ABC radio national (NON) science show of sat 1th march
accusations against everyone they can
support of gliek
and moonbat saying fuku outcomes good.
as the truth about contaminated areas is finally hiting msm
– I still think the strongest claim is going to the Advertising Standards Authority re the TV ad claiming they give the full story, if you can gather examples (not too difficult) of the environment pages not giving the full story. The ASA has been quite hawkish recently in drawing the line in advertising claims.
May I suggest that as a matter of policy you immediately publish after you have posted your replies and ask other bloggers to re-post on their websites. This way if you feel a complaint is warranted then it’s clear for all to see.
P.S. Post the complaint here also.
Alas, such low standards of behaviour are not unusual in the UK media. Like many others, I too feel sad when I see what The Guardian has become. It was one of only three national newspapers in the UK that I ever bought. This is ironic to many British readers because Guardian reporter Nick Davies is currently a star in the British media firmament. Davies recently won awards for his role in exposing crimes committed by reporters working for Rupert Murdoch [Murdoch is the media Baron behind Fox in the United States]. The exposure forced Murdoch to close The News of the World, a British newspaper of 168 years standing. I fear that having Nick Davies on the books has given the The Guardian an inflated opinion of it’s own self worth and integrity.
There is however, another person at The Guardian who I respect enormously. His name is Ben Goldacre and he writes a regular column called “Bad Science”. The scourge of fakes, quacks, charlatans and snake oil salesmen, he is practising physician and one of the finest writers on medical and health issues [but I do not know if he has ever written about the AGW issue]. He has a book by the same name which is worth every penny, though US readers will probably be unfamiliar with the names of the hokey people and institutions that attract his attention. The irony of this story is almost cruel, because Ben Goldacre has often written about the pathetic state of science education among mainstream journalists.
Basking in Goldacre’s aura, it would be easy for a bog-standard environment correspondent to award themselves an extra couple of dozen IQ points.
– When I think about it, the Guardian Enviroment section have themselves a nice little niche in supplying climate porn. The bogus stories come in daily straight off green activists press releases, so their reporters just sit in an office & just reprint it without altering any of the loaded words & emotional tricks and add a commentary, keeping the difficult parts in quotes to cover themselves legally.
– The “true believer” readers get their daily fix “ooh look, the glacier is melting there, the waters rising there”..”I feel good my dogma is confirmed” etc.
…Yeh, right, but we know they never come back in 3 months to see it full. (And the comments are switched off or censored to keep out difficult questions that threaten the narrative)
– In their parallel universe the Australia drought never ended Tim Flannery has been knighted for the forethought of getting desalination plants built.
-If the Guardian stops taking these stories at face-value,
1. The reporters would have to do some real work of fact checking “oh the Island isn’t going to be swamped by sea level rise” etc.
2. They won’t have any stories left to print
3. they won’t have their marketing niche anymore.
– Green activists have most of the big media sewn up The BBC & Guardian Enviroment sections & New Sci-activist are not interested in truth, as well as the niche it’s too complicated for the simplistic narrative they want to portray. However now that skeptical science has the biggest audience in blogs & books why not reach out into the other media formats like a regular Realist Podcast & maybe web TV ? Now you’ve got audience you’ll get the advertisers, although the activists will try their undemocratic bullying tactics to intimidate.
The reason is that the wind turbines, which do not save much CO2 and will inevitably cause more CO2 emissions in the future than without them, are nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’. http://www.hostalramos.com“>hostal en barcelona
Personally I think the bleating here about the number of birds killed is a touch husterical. Like you actually care! However, again the Greens are inconsistent. A coal plant killing that much wild-life would never get the go-ahead. http://www.dec-iluminacion.com
I agree with Gareth. Matt’s emphasis on energy rather than electricity is correct, since the stated strategy is to use electricity to replace as much fossil fuel as possible. According to http://www.ieawind.org/annual_reports_PDF/2010.html (see Table 3), the wind share of electricity generation is 2.3% for 2010. This is not insignificant but it is hardly a game changer and the actual lifetime cost data has yet to be nailed down. http://www.el-horoscopo-diario.com
This is now a common technique in the newspaper-turned-propganda-rag once known as The Guardian – tell a whopping lie in boldface and then retract it all the boring small print copy you know your readership can’t be bothered with. http://sites.google.com/site/webdirectorydirectorioweb/
I’ve only just noticed the following letter published by the Telegraph a week or so ago. Notable because buried among the list of signatories – Prof James Lovelock. http://sites.google.com/site/posicionateeninternet/
And if they go wrong – the manufacturer decides to go out of business and leaves a note saying not to put the brake on.. http://www.posicionamientowebtop10.com
Reeta Skeeter of Harry Potter fame I believe.