Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Award winning journalist Wendy Bacon is intensely disappointed that not even The Guardian seems interested in her efforts to root out climate heresy.
Data proves decades of lies in Murdoch media climate change coverage
By Mia Armitage
March 17, 2021Mia Armitage & Sean O’Shannessy
When the proof is in the pudding and the spice is climate change, it can leave a bitter taste: after all, it’s no surprise to learn data shows Murdoch media bias.
…
Acclaimed Walkley Award-winning investigative journalist Wendy Bacon has delivered the goods, having released similar yet smaller in scope studies since the turn of the millennium.
For her latest opus, she led a team of more than twenty trained volunteers in a mission tracing through decades of Murdoch media headlines, opinion pieces, columns, news articles and letters from across Australia.
The results show for more than the past two decades, 45 per cent of Murdoch media climate coverage and references have been at least sceptical or at worst outright denial of the phenomenon happening all around us.
Wendy Bacon said none of the fifty-five Murdoch publications studied at one point were ‘good’ on climate change coverage but the worst was The Daily Telegraph, traditionally Sydney-focussed.
…
The significance of her findings had been undermined, Ms Bacon said, by mainstream media coverage.
‘It’s almost greeted with silence, not a word on the ABC about it,’ she said, ‘not even the Guardian, and that was disappointing’.
…
Read more: https://www.echo.net.au/2021/03/data-proves-decades-of-lies-in-murdoch-media-climate-change-coverage/
Wendy’s research is available here. From her research paper;
- The total of relevant items was 8,612. (Section 4.1).
- Nearly half of all items (44%) were in The Australian. (Section 4.1).
- Information-based reportage (news and features) was 38% (Section 4.2). Nearly two-thirds (62%) of the coverage was commentary (editorials, opinion, and letters). The strong influence of commentary on the overall message about climate change is evident, both in volume, and in seeding and shaping ideas and analysis.
- All of the four News Corp publications produce substantial amounts of material that is sceptical about the findings of climate science. Overall, 45% of all items either rejected or cast doubt upon consensus scientific findings. (Section 4.5).
- The Daily Telegraph is the most sceptical of the News Corp publications, with 58% of content discussing climate change being sceptical (Section 4.5).
- Most News Corp reporters do not actively promote sceptical views. Reportage (news and features) was less sceptical than commentary (editorials, opinions, and letters), with 89% of reportage accepting climate science findings. (Section 4.5).
- Commentary items (editorials, opinions, and letters) drove scepticism in all News Corp publications. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of opinion pieces were sceptical towards climate science (Section 4.5).
- Out of a total of 2,309 opinion articles, the top ten opinion writers accounted for 44% of content. All of these opinion writers are either climate change sceptics, promote scepticism in their articles, or are negative towards climate action/efforts. The top five were Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Peta Credlin, Peter Gleeson, and Chris Kenny, all of whom are occasional or regular Sky News presenters. (Section 5).
The Guardian might have failed so far to properly publicise this effort to root out climate heresy, but never let it be said that WUWT ignores research of Wendy Bacon’s calibre.
“Most News Corp reporters do not actively promote sceptical views. Reportage (news and features) was less sceptical than commentary (editorials, opinions, and letters), with 89% of reportage accepting climate science findings.”
So what she’s kvetching about is opinion or editorial pieces. Apparently, we are not allowed to have opinions contrary to those Wendy holds. Shocking!
Einstein would have been helpless against ether enforcers with award winning witch hunters like this.
How can people be so dull and obtuse that they fail to recognize how brilliant and relevant Wendy is? No doubt, some day the world will look back and regretfully lament, “if we had only listened to Wendy. Sigh.”
AH Ha ! Wendy’s article proves that nobody cares what she thinks !
I just stopped by Wendy’s and got a bacon cheeseburger…..and fries.
Get ma Dave’s double next time you are there, easy on the sauce
Please and thank you
“I’m right and you are wrong.
And the fact that you disagree with me proves you are wrong.”
Liberal logic.
Speaking of climate heresy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/18/texas-montana-lead-21-gop-run-states-in-suing-biden-admin-over-keystone-xl-suspension/?sh=47fd64595f6a
The wheels are coming off the climate bus.
I’ve noticed that commenting on one blog in the Murdoch press gets so heavy handed and unbalanced moderation that it’s pretty much one far leftwing comment after another on some days, with a few rightwing comments that either have to be ultrapolite or poorly written to get through. And the leftwing comments are clearly from a small number of paid social media influencers. Criticism of global warming doesn’t get published unless it’s a silly rant.
It’s all about stopping misinformation, supposedly. This was even passed around to the troll farm so that one comment in March was unfairly rebutted. Someone had paraphrased something that they read about Covid, and described it as it’s a single molecule of protein that is easily destroyed by washing hands. The nasty reply didn’t quite get the virology right, either, but it’s claims of costing lives was stupid as this comment pointed out what the WHO and CDC forgot to shout from the rooftops because they were preoccupied with politics.
The opinion writer jumped on it and wrote the first article in Australia in a newspaper pointing out that virus can be destroyed by washing with soap and water or an alcohol based hand sanitizer. He obviously didn’t discover this. He just discovered how important it was to get the message out, one that the left thought was dangerous just because someone from the right thought of it.
What is “scientific consensus findings”? I don’t recall ever hearing about that when I was taught the scientific method in school. Perhaps I missed out on the definition since I didn’t major in “journalism”.
There are more than 4 News Corp publications in Australia…
…an investigative journalist who is also a political activist
And every bit as impartial as the BBC, no doubt. I thought the url most amusing echo.net.au
You can’t make it up.
It was an intriguing project from the outset. For a non scientific journalist to self proclaim wisdom and then embark on a derivatives count on derived articles is an exercise of the greatest folly. Those volunteers must be ruing their own lost opportunities/time as a result of the putative trawling exercise unleashed by Wendy Bacon. Rue the day.
Being an investigative journalist she’s actually missed the biggest fraud event of her life.
The word “good” is a subjective adjective, i.e. meaningless in science
So nearly 2/3rd of it is double plus wrong-think.
Burn ’em. Burn ’em all!!!!!!!
Wendy Bacon is retarded
The dangerous human caused global warming theory has become a religion after 30 years of brainwashing in the media by ignorant journalists. Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist, what a joke! I’m a climate blasphemer and a climate heretic according to her, because this has become a religious concept. Here’s my answer https://youtu.be/UJOEr964GpI
‘Elevator speech’ time.
What is she actually saying?
That Murdoch’s publications do not provide adequate coverage of those who question climate catastrophist views?
This just goes to show the forces of evil behind those who wish to take control of our lives.
It is well known that CO2 change always occurs after temperature change due to temperature determining the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2 so it is impossible for the later CO2 change to be the cause of the earlier temperature change.
If there was such a thing at the Greenhouse Effect and as 52% of the Sun’s rays are in the infrared spectrum, part of the incoming radiation would be back-radiated into space before it could warm the Earth. That would cause the Earth to cool with increasing CO2 concentration. Thank goodness that the Greenhouse Effect is a lie.
Because the force of gravity decreases with distance, the atmospheric pressure, arising from the weight of the atmosphere, is greatest at the surface. The ideal gas laws tell us that this means the temperature is greatest at the surface but the UN IPCC said that this was due to the fictitious Greenhouse Effect and completely failed to mention the gravity induced temperature-pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
So much for award wining journalism when the recipient has no scientific knowledge or could it be that she has a monetary or political motive?
The CO2 induced global warming proposition is the greatest fraud yet devised by mankind.
Claim: “All of the fifty-five Murdoch publications studied … were ‘good’ on climate change”
Fixed the error…
She graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree but apparently stopped practising? She was also from memory a notorious student activist.
Of course in climate hoax science people will experience extremes of weather, dams will not fill and then will fill, summers will be hot and then not so hot, winters will be cold and then colder, extreme weather events will increase and decrease, it all depends on what the spin doctors want people to believe.
Meanwhile Earth Cycles continue, naturally.
“none of the fifty-five Murdoch publications studied at one point were ‘good’ on climate change coverage but the worst was The Daily Telegraph”
Boy is this going to make Tim Blair (editor of the Telegraph) happy to know he is the worst of the worst on climate change. His head was swelled enough already, but now it probably won’t even fit in his bmw clownshoe.
Like they did in the good ole’ days in the dark ages…burn the heretics and the blasphemers and “deniers” as enemies of the climate change church.
Beware The “Watermelons”
https://mises.org/library/watermelon-summit
An environmentalist is a totalitarian socialist whose real objective is to revive socialism and economic central planning under the subterfuge of “saving the planet” from capitalism. He is “green” on the outside, but red on the inside, and is hence appropriately labeled a “watermelon.”
“Watermelons” are as numerous as flies on a herd of cattle and will never give up on their pipe dream of a centrally planned socialist world economy…
This is research? Of course it is biased, and thankfully! I am surprised it was only 45% negative on climate change, every Sky News Australia vid I see mocks climate change mercilessly, as it should be.
I hope Neils new GB TV will be the same!
funny as a daily reader of 2 murdoch papers online I see their soft on green iems
and myself n hundreds of others then have a field day ripping into em on comments
way more general public are anti warming when ALLOWED to post!!