On Mar 9, 8:18 pm, "BZN00" wrote:
Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor

A study from the Business & Media Institute

10 Mar 2008

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...balWarmingCens...

Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians,

Rock Stars and Men-on-the-Street for Science

Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate
change "debate's over." It isn't, but the news media clearly agree with
him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and
when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like "cynics"
or "deniers" thrown in to undermine them.

Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS
and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it's mankind's
fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several
tactics - omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like
polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying
predictions.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories
about "global warming" or "climate change" between July 1, 2007, and
Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned
there were any alternative opinions to the so-called "consensus" on the
issue.

. Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly
outnumbered those with dissenting opinions.

Just like in real life.

On average for every skeptic
there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job
with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS's ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.

. Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global
warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians,
celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There
were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change
hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

. What's It Going to Cost?: All "solutions" have a price, but the cost
of fighting global warming was something you rarely heard on the network
news. Only 22 stories (11 percent) mentioned any cost of "fixing" global
warming. On the rare occasion cost came up, it came from the lips of a
skeptic like Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch (D), who said one climate
change bill in Congress "would cost $6 trillion."


It seems only the denialists are trying to scare people here.

. CBS the Worst: Journalist/global warming advocate Scott Pelley helped
CBS be, by far, the worst network. Pelley argued in 2006 that he shouldn't
have to include skeptics in such stories because "If I do an interview
with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to
find a Holocaust denier?"

And?

In 2007, he helped ensure only four skeptics
were included by CBS - and not a single one was a scientist. Compare
that to the 151 people used by the network to promote global warming
hysteria.

Again, look at the real world.

The wildly one-sided outcome was not surprising given remarks
by some of its other journalists. Harry Smith declared that "There is,
in fact, global climate change" on the Aug. 7, 2007, "Early Show."


Like "there is, in fact, gravity."

. ABC the "Best": Despite its over-the-top climate hypocrisy of
jet-setting journalists around the world to cover climate change, ABC
included more skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than either NBC
or CBS. Still, the network has plenty of work to do. Bill Weir made the
outrageous claim during the Nov. 18, 2007, "Good Morning America" that
"all these scientists" urge immediate action to stop global warming.
Weather personality Sam Champion even referred to the most recent U.N.
climate report as "unequivocal" and "definitive.


Just the facts.

To improve coverage, BMI recommends:

. Report the issue objectively: Reporters have a professional
responsibility to remain objective and avoid inserting their own
opinions into their reports. Many in the media have sorely missed that
mark when it comes to reporting on global warming and climate change.


Include those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and that you
can cure cancer by driving out evil spirits too.

. Include skeptics: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of
Ethics states journalists should "Support the open exchange of views,
even views they find repugnant." It is the media's job to inform the
public, not persuade them by leaving out alternative viewpoints.
Particularly, networks should give skeptical scientists the opportunity
to share their findings - just like they include scientists who say
manmade global warming is negatively impacting the planet.


Again, look at the ratio in scientific journals.

. Show Me the Money: If the U.S. government passes legislation to
address global warming, it will carry a cost and American taxpayers have
a right to know what it would be. The media need to do a much better job
by asking about or including cost estimates of climate change
"solutions."

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg