Climategate Coverage: We're All Biased
I was glad to see YPNation Contributor Nikki Gloudeman share her thoughts on the "climategate" saga. It's hard to recall an event that has caused such excitement in conservative print media, and on talk radio and Fox News. And with some justification.
As Nikki points out, "the relevance of a story is often in the mind of the beholder." But if that is true of the individual, then why not the press? The media--in its various forms--may believe it is seeking the truth, but in reality they are subconsciously (and sometimes consciously) doing what we all do. We get selective and push an agenda. "Truth" is an abstract term.
But there is something strikingly American when it comes to accusations of media bias, with both sides uncomfortable admitting to their ideological allegiances. The media has been partial since the birth of the republic, so why are we still harping on this alleged imbalance? The irony of calling for greater media responsibility and then claiming that a report from liberal Newsweek (a magazine that claimed in 1988--and since then--that all scientists agree on man-made global warming) as "fact," is not lost on me.
Of course, not all environmentalists have supported the "there's nothing to see here" narrative. And it's been encouraging to see objectivity from some corners of the movement, in particular George Monbiot. This may be the first time we have ever agreed, but Monbiot was 100 percent correct when he said:
"I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging."
Monbiot further stated that the science behind climate change is compelling--enough to withstand this crisis, but he agrees it is a crisis nonetheless. Still, as we've seen, the media appears to be under no obligation to report "responsibly." In fact, it's under no obligation to report. It editorializes. Both sides do this.
If the media "reported," we would have seen MSNBC, ABC, and CNN "dig for the true story" on the day the 'scandal' broke. We didn't.
Why? I'm still asking myself that very same question.
(Image by ChrisO; C.C. 3.0)
Read more stories at YPNation, America's young professionals network.
the media bias co-opt
I really don't understand it when the right contends that our laws should reflect the "absolute truth" in the New Testament, but then in the next sentence pretends that all truth is subjective when talking about scientific fact (this isn't a knock on Ewan, perhaps he isn't religious and really is this epistemological). Apparently we're supposed to deprive millions of gay people the right to marry because a book written thousands of years ago by mortal men suggests that they didn't like gay people very much, but when the scientific community has a consensus on something, all of a sudden we're supposed to take critical thinking to the extreme.
How far do you take it? How sure is Ewan that scientists are also lying about evolution, relativity, and geocentrism? The only difference between those and anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is that the former facts don't hurt business's bottom line. But climate change might costs some businesses profits, so they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push back. Trust me, hundreds of millions of dollars can buy you a lot of doubt over something relatively uncontroversial.
How uncontroversial is it? Off the top of my head, I can name six GOP senators who believe that climate change is man-made and it is in our interest to limit emissions: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The latter one is particularly interesting--being from Alaska, which will be exceptionally hard-hit by climate change, Murkowski doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the Artic glaciers to completely melt before supporting action. Is it really possible that there's this global cabal of scientists across the entire world (a la the Elders of Zion) who have successfully convinced even the most conservative Republican politicians that climate change is real?
Is it a 100% proven fact that we're causing climate change. No of course not, the climate is far too complext for us to be able to predict with 100% certainty. In this case, we balance uncertainty against the costs of inaction. We're pretty sure that we're responsible for the rising temperatures, and we know that rising temperatures will cause catastrophic damage to our environment and our economy, and millions of lives will be put at risk. In this sense, one should think about reducing carbon emissions as an insurance policy--we pay now to reduce risk later.
Ethan, keep your pants
Ethan, keep your pants on...
Having read your, er, "contribution" I really don't know what to say. Somehow we've gone from me highlighting media bias on both sides of the political spectrum to the New Testament. And yes, I do notice that that you claim this isn't a "knock against Ewan", so I guess it's just a random rant against right wingers and the 'reply' option under my blog was close by. If that's the case, I'm really not sure how your comment mocking my use of subjectivity is at all relevant to your rant about the right and Christianity.
Again, I'm somewhat alarmed that you labeled my article "a cop out", when to be honest the point of my article was merely highlighting the fact that one contributor attempted to debunk the "partisan" reports in the media about climategate by citing a Newsweek article, a publication that is most certainly ideological. And I guess, given your very own ideological slant, you have proven my point. It wasn't a cop out, it was about media bias more than climate change. How is that a cop out?
To conclude, my point on subjectivity was that man made climate change is not "scientific fact". It's not. Yet, in the opening paragraph you claim it is, then in your concluding paragraph you state it's "not 100%". Jeez, if there ever was a cop out, eh? Given that it's not "fact" or even - as you claim - a "consensus", what is reported in the media - to a great extent - is most certainly subjective.
media bias
It's amazing and truly alarming how partisan and gullible some have become on the issues that effect all of us. Sure we like to pick sides and we all want to be right or on the winning end of a debate, and in our short sighted view we become ignorant.
Lest we forget we live in a represenitive republic in which ultimately the people decide (or should decide) the laws of the united states. As we have seen with Prop 8 and so many other states, the people think that marriage should be left as it has been for centuries. To suggest that a book written by mortal men "don't like gay people very much" is quite offensive to some, and not very well researched. I am no bible scholar but I assume from your suggestion, neither are you. I will not use the religious argument to debate my opinion on gay marriage, because it has no place in deciding the law. But there is a more enlightened prospect in their rebuttal to short sighted statements like yours. That being, the human species need a male and female to procreate and thus the family is born or created, true you can (and do) have families with two of the same sex. But they can never create a natural family and that I think is where the rub is. Be it God or evolution we were made this way for a reason. Same sex marriage will not lift the human condition to a higher level, just as incest , polygamy, and a man that wants to marry his horse will not. Let them have their holy matrimony " marriage". "Civil union " will do for the rest. American laws passed on a minority view point are almost always sure to breed contempt and partisan warfare for generations to come. One example is roe vs. wade, Norma McCorvey, the woman whose 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case helped make abortion legal in the United States. She herself has petitioned to overturn the historic Roe v. Wade decision. Should we repeat this, or should we let the people decide in our represenitive republic?
Anthropogenic climate change is still very much controversial, and need I say it, unproven. Where is the original data gone? Who has more invested in this alarmism, the "Joe the plumber Galileo's" or the "new church of environmentalist religion of green" same old story different century? Sure Galileo was a scientist and his heresy was not proven until much later, but blind belief is for fools right?
Politicians with an R or the word conservative near their name don't make for good evidence in your call for lower emissions. This does not make them scientists or more able to understand the complicities of our planetary climate. Politicians as a whole rank lower than used car salesman on trustworthiness. And yes the scientific community sees dollars signs if they could convince any of these self absorbed, power grabbing opportunists that it is the developed nations fault (who by the way pollute far less than the developing nations) that the earth climate is changing. If we look back on the worlds climate changes we find that most of the dramatic and species eliminating changes were not caused by humans, but by the "new GOD of the environmentalist" Earth itself, the sun, meteor, or some natural occurrence.
Speaking of natural occurrences, let us look at evolution. We are part of the natural evolution, and as we have made our way from the primordial ooze to the highest structure in Dubai we have sought to control and use the land air and seas to change our environment, so why now should we stop evolution and start hugging trees? It is our destiny to control and change our surroundings. It is part of our evolution.
Yes my friend it is not 100% proven and until it is let us not be in a panic, to alarm the children, to pass laws that will put America at a disadvantage to say countries like China, India ect. Should we balance uncertainty against the costs of inaction? Yes we should but the cost of uncertainty in the form of global carbon taxes is a tax Americans can not afford to pay, not in this economic climate anyway.
Post new comment