The Climate Mirror
It turns out that readers at popular climate blogs on opposite ends of the spectrum have similar complaints about the media.
From a commenter at WUWT:
The LA Times has been a socialist rag, suitable mostly for lining the bottom of a parrot’s cage, for decades. When their marketers used to call to ask me to subscribe, I’d just tell them, “I don’t need the Times; I subscribe to Pravda and get everything a day earlier, including your editorials!”
From a commenter at Climate Progress:
Our mainstream media is clearly hopeless…for whatever reasons- mostly money, of course- our major media outlets are staffed by hopeless whores, beyond contempt and incapable of communicating facts that are central to the public interest.
From a commenter at WUWT:
Why should we be surprised that the “˜journalists’ at the NYT do not understand basic physics or science?
They believe in climate apocalypse, after all.
From a commenter at Climate Progress:
We’re in big trouble if the nation’s best newspaper [NYT] is scientifically illiterate, with the Washington Post, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune no better.
From a commenter at WUWT:
Newspaper journalists when they graduate are told their purpose is not to report the news, but to make the world a better place. If this means lying about global warming being manmade to accomplish this purpose, then so be it.
The Editors of Time Magazine and other “news” outlets spewing this global warming baloney must not be allowed to continue without our comments. For every article published there must be a blizzard of letters sent to the Editors questioning the accuracy of their stories.
From a commenter at Climate Progress:
People who intentionally do harm for pay are gangsters. These people aren’t journalists: they’re gangsters. They aren’t going to be shamed into suddenly seeing the light. We should pursue other rhetorical means.
From a commenter at WUWT:
At one time, long ago, reporters tried to tell both sides of the story and stick to the facts, but today, many are proud to be an advocate for their cause. In reality, once they do that, they are no longer reporters, but have become speakers of propaganda and deceivers.
From a commenter at Real Climate:
The NY Times? Good lord. I haven’t seen any good science reporting out of there in a decade. In its effort to be “fair and balanced,” dot Earth has become an anti-science cesspit.
Menth posted this on a previous thread: Wikipedia-Hostile Media Effect.
It’s the reverse psychological phenomenon of confirmation bias.
There are two ways such data is commonly interpreted:
1. I piss both sides off, therefore I conclude I am doing a good job
2. Everyone tells me I annoy them, maybe I really do suck.
Which version do idiots reporters that strive for an automatic balance, that claim to be neutral, objective, unbiased, usually choose?
Mr. Miyagi says : Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later [makes squish gesture] get squish just like grape.
Those are representative comments from WUWT and CP that I plucked out (regarding attitudes towards the media). The respective hosts feed into it. At RC, there is much more rationality, but still plenty of wild-eyed comments that go unchallenged by the hosts, which to me, sends a tacit message of agreement. (Eric Steig’s inline comment here seems to be the rarity.)
You might look at perceptions of journalism over time–except for a halo effect after Woodward and Bernstein, is there really much new here? People who tell you news you don’t want to believe or even hear are not going to be perceived as the good guys.
Pack o’ yella jurnalists, alla ya.
When people in the WUWT universe start praising you, you can be sure you are doing something wrong.
One journalistic piece doing a faux balance and allowing some denialist drivel as an artificial counterweight can destroy 10 good pieces that give a correct assessment of the situation. I always notice this when some Dutch denialist manages to break through to the mainstream media (which is quite often now in the post-Climategate-PR era) and not soon after friends or relatives tell me that they heard that ‘the globe hasn’t warmed in the last 10 years’ or that ‘the snow is proof that there is a mini Ice Age coming’.
This is because denialists are telling people what they want to hear. I think it’s also true that journalists want their customers to be happy, because otherwise they might be out of a job. Don’t forget about their employers and advertisers (which are one and the same more often than not in this globalized world dominated by multinational corporate power).
“At RC, there is much more rationality…”
Like the people who no matter what the subject of a thread is about, relate everything to a Gazprom fueled conspiracy?
Also instructive is the amount of vitriol leveled at people who believe in AGW but have the audacity to:
-Question certain aspects of the science
-Question how society should deal with the problem (Roger Pielke Jr)
-Question whether skeptics should be treated with civility (Judith Curry)
-Not have the apocalypse hysteria dial set to 11 all the time (Romm’s attacks on Revkin)
I for one, would like to live in a society where people can have differing opinions without becoming “Koch funded anti-science denialists” or “Soros funded socialist hoaxers”.
Menth, you are spot on.
I for one, would like to live in a society where people can have differing opinions without becoming “Koch funded anti-science denialists” or “Soros funded socialist hoaxers”.
Too late for that I fear. AGW is a serious threat (Keith agrees), it’s not the only global problem (Keith agrees), and most if not all the global problems are caused by the fact that the big driver of our Western economy, and by proxy culture and society, is an economic concept that states that growth is always good and therefore must and can be infinite (Keith doesn’t agree, but has decided to ignore me on this point, as has Romm).
And as long as you do not ditch this concept you will continue to have an increasing polarization as limits to the symptoms (AGW, diminishing resources, deterioration of ecosystem services, disappearing wealth and minimum standards) start to impose themselves more and more, combined with powers that want to preserve the status quo (that the mantra of infinite growth proscribes) by using this polarization as a divide-and-conquer tactic. And coincidentally, polarization is something that’s very lucrative to the media (which are in large part owned by the status quo powers), so don’t expect them to ignore the nagging and whining cranks.
You can forget about the polarization getting less and you can forget about the society you would like, as long as you do not ditch that economic theory for something more rational and more sustainable.
Thanks Keith.
Neven, I enjoyed your reply and will respond when I get a chance (it’s beautiful outside and I’m gonna take my kids sledding!).
Much better idea! Take your time! 🙂
Neven,
Is there any problematic issue facing society that can’t be blamed on infinite growth? Or maybe you aren’t motivated to comment on those topics. IRL, do you bring up infinite growth in every conversation? Do people then start to fidget and look at the time?
That’s ok! I have been guilty of obsessing on Climategate. Over a year later, I recently unsubscribed to half of the RSS feeds from climate blogs in my reader.
PS. Feedly for Chrome is awesome now that the bugs have been fixed!
Off the top of Eli’s head, malaria for starters
None of this means that one side isn’t correct, of course. Leftists and paleocons claimed the media was pro-war and big-C Conservatives held that it was anti. The former were clearly more reasonable.
“Like the people who no matter what the subject of a thread is about, relate everything to a Gazprom fueled conspiracy?’
AFAICT, that’s *one* person.
And btw, Keith, if letting wild-eyed comments go unchallenged constitutes tacit agreement on the part of the moderators (rather than, say, budgeting of limited moderator time), what are we to make of such comments at Dot Earth and here?