CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website in the world. Subscribe today!


Climate Change news-corp-list

Published on September 29th, 2012 | by Andrew

18

Guess What: 93% of Fox News, 81% Wall St. Journal Reporting on Global Warming Just Plain Wrong

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

September 29th, 2012 by  

 
The Internet puts vast, overwhelming amounts of information at our fingertips. It’s a truly great thing, and more and more of us not only have the time to search, surf, and troll through this ever-growing digital repository, but we’re also compelled to do so to earn our livelihoods.

With this and the ever-growing complexity of modern life, we come to form opinions about an ever-growing mass of topics, some of which we come emotionally attached to (at times too strongly attached to), despite a lack of significant direct exposure or experience. More and more conditioned to fast-moving events and never-ending change — change in information/communications technology, in particular — we’re compelled to form opinions, perhaps even take actions, on an ever-growing range of topics at an ever-faster pace.

Climate change is certainly one issue that seems to generate strong, deep, often emotionally driven responses and opinions. Now, suppose you learned that the sources of information you’ve been relying on to form your opinions about climate change, or any topic for that matters, were erroneous… bunkum…. Not just some of the time, but more than 80%-90% of the time!

Would you: a) acknowledge this, reject those sources, and search for new and better news and information sources upon which you could reformulate better informed opinions, or b) hold fast to your comfortable opinions and preferred news and information sources and deny that they’re wrong?
 

 

Astounding Disrespect for the Public and the Truth

Well, an eye-opening study of primetime news coverage on global warming by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that 93% of primetime Fox News’ discussions of global warming are inaccurate, LiveScience reports. Examining the same at the venerable Wall St. Journal, UCS found that an astounding 81% is just plain wrong!

Can you imagine? Millions of Americans rely on these news agencies’ reporting and analysis to inform themselves and form opinions, and now we find that they’re leading people badly astray on a critical issue of our times! It’s not only shameful, it’s dangerous.

“It’s like they were writing and talking about some sort of bizarre world where climate change isn’t happening,” study author Aaron Huertas, a press secretary at UCS, told LiveScience. “It’s clear that we’re not having a fact-based dialogue about climate change.”

If Fox News and WSJ had any self-respect and felt any sense of public, civic responsibility or obligation to inform the American public accurately and comprehensively, they should promptly issue a public apology and change their ways, if not do the decent thing and resign their positions and close up shop, or at least that part of the shop that deals with this issue. Worse than their own shamelessness is that this shows even less respect and responsibility to American and other viewers, not to mention a simple but crucial item: the truth.

In conducting the study on climate change reporting, UCS researchers sifted through six months of Fox News primetime programs from February to July 2012 and one year of WSJ op-eds from August 2011 to July 2012 for discussions of global warming.

“The most common climate mistakes on Fox News involved misleading statements on basic climate science, or simple undermining and disparaging of the field of climate science,” LiveScience reports. “For example, on March 23, one on-air personality referred to global warming as a ‘hoax and fraud.’ (The analysis did not look at non-primetime broadcasts or FoxNews.com.)”

UCS’ aim in conducting the study “is not to shut down legitimate debate on the appropriateness of various climate policies,” the news report continues.

“It is entirely appropriate to disagree with specific actions or policies aimed at addressing climate change while accepting the clearly established findings of climate science,” according to the report authors. “And while it is appropriate to question new science as it emerges, it is misleading to reject or sow doubt about established science — in this case, the overwhelming body of evidence that human-caused climate change is occurring.”

Oh, one more item of significance. Both Fox News and the Wall St. Journal are part of Rupert Murdoch’s sprawling global news and media empire, News Corp. Yes, the same globe-spanning news agency that used to publish the UK tabloid News of the World and whose most senior executives have been criminally indicted for illegally tapping cell phones and publishing the information it gathered. It seems that shameless disrespect for themselves, their obligations as a news organization, the public, and the truth are fundamental values upon which Murdoch’s globe-spanning news and media empire are based. To the extent and degree that people still choose to watch and read what it broadcasts and publishes, we’ll all be the worse off for it.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

I've been reporting and writing on a wide range of topics at the nexus of economics, technology, ecology/environment and society for some five years now. Whether in Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Americas, Africa or the Middle East, issues related to these broad topical areas pose tremendous opportunities, as well as challenges, and define the quality of our lives, as well as our relationship to the natural environment.


Related Posts



  • Ed

    If what you are saying about climate change is true, why did the IPCC have this issue called climategate about “cooking the books” of data to support their idea’s. Maybe Fox and the WSJ are the only chance that we do have of hearing some truth. There are scientists who believe that global warming is not man caused and is but a part of the natural cycle of the earth and that throwing money at it is only a waste of time and money. This money would be better used elsewhere. Someone has to expose the frauds. Follow the money and you may find an answer. You don’t think that these green energy companies would not pay to have this scandal perpetuated?

    • Bob_Wallace

      ” issue called climategate about “cooking the books” ”

      Climategate was when someone stole private emails and took bits and pieces out of context in an attempt to say things that simply weren’t said in the emails. Multiple high level investigations found that climategate was a piece of crap.

      “There are scientists who believe that global warming is not man caused and is but a part of the natural cycle of the earth”

      There are basically no climate scientists who believe that global warming is part of a natural science. There are millions of people who call themselves scientists but simply because they know something about earthworms or metal alloys does not mean that they know jack about climate science.

      If you think money is playing a role in the game, look to the Koch brothers and fossil fuel industry.

      I’m guessing that you get your “science” from Fox. Someone has fed you a bunch of BS.

      Are you perhaps aware that people who get their news from Fox are less informed that people who watch other news sources? I’ll give you a link to the article at Forbes – a very conservative, business/financial publication.
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

      If you’re interested in knowing what is happening in the world you might want to turn off the Fox. It will rot your brain….

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      I think the number of independent investigations now that have found no scientific wrongdoing is 9 or 10. 0 credible investigations have found the opposite.

      Climategate was a crime. Someone stole private emails and that same person or someone else published them completely out of context in order to frame scientists. Even the non-bought press, looking into the matter a little bit, could see that was the case.

  • klem

    This study was conducted by the Union of Concerned Activists…I mean scientists, that’s right…sorry..

    • Bob_Wallace

      You didn’t expect the Fox Department of Misinformation to turn out something truthful did you?

      Gotta go with scientists. Any day. They are the smart kids in the classroom that you tried to get to do your homework. And they, unlike news reporters, corporate executives, and other folks actually get fired for lying.

    • Andrew Burger

      Some people just have a hard time accepting facts…

  • Mike Smith

    It is hard to imagine that the audience of Fox News and the readership of the Wall Street Journal are unaware of the truth of Global Warming. They have access to the internet science reports the same as the rest of us.

    These people have a reason for not wanting to believe in Global Warming i.e. 1) they or their relatives are connected to the Coal, Gas or Oil Industries and need the money 2) they live in a state where tax revenues depend on the Coal, Gas or Oil industries 3) they have other reasons (e.g. anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Arab, anti-taxes, pro-military) for following the Republican line which includes anti-science on Global Warming.

    So Rupert Murdock tells them what they want to hear and these news outlets find a market.

    • Andrew Burger

      Too right…and too bad…

    • mjonesx

      Hard to imagine? Do you surf the internet? Unaware? One has to select internet science reports to be aware of them! Get real Mickie, most regular types go either to the sports or “Hollywood” news sites. Believe it or not Murdock’s has such a monopoly that in Australia he controls 70-80% of the media there. Also how many papers does he controll here in USA, NYT’s, New York Times to name a few. You did not mention all thge denier sites and articles that are posted on the web and all the trolls that comment afterwatd on those science reports. Wake up will you?

      • David S. Leaton

        You’re both right to some extent. Most people do not have the time, energy, training, and/or motivation to discover the science. Heavy industry and the fossil fuel energy sector have paid a lot of money to create a network of doubt. They have no integrity to protect, and the target audience doesn’t know any better, so they can say just about anything they want and get away with it. The so-called “climategate” is an excellent example. It was a brilliant piece of rhetoric, and all it cost was the money paid to the person who copied the emails from the UEA servers. Deliver a simple set of allegations that you know your target audience doesn’t have the chops to question, and let them do the work for you. Massive amplification across the blogosphere and friendly news sites. What effect did “climategate” have in the scientific community? Zero. Mann and Jones are still doing their jobs, and the scientific community clearly has no doubts about their integrity. Yet the repetition of the message goes on in the mainstream.

        People, if you haven’t looked at the actual science or the summary of that science created by the 600+ unpaid scientists of the IPCC, then watch out. Watts, Heartland, SPPI, and the other doubt generators think you’re stupid. They rely on it.

      • Andrew Burger

        Indeed; it’s a perversion of capitalism that he, and other moguls have been allowed to concentrate so much in the way of media assets in their own hands…Where are the anti-trust regulators??

      • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

        you certainly have good points here. but so does Mike. i’ve been in countless discussions with deniers when reporting on climate science. i’ve dropped them countless facts and scientific papers. largely, it is one of the 3 reasons Mike mentions that keeps them from learning anything from it.

    • Ross

      Perhaps the pro-military part of that list should be updated to neocon military adventurism. The US military itself seems to have progressive views on the adoption of renewable energy.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Very well said.

      Unfortunately.

  • Pingback: Misinformation Has Big Psychological Advantages... Unfortunately - CleanTechnica

  • bradfregger

    It is important when reading about studies like this one to understand the agenda of the group doing the study. With their major emphasis being environmental is it any wonder that they would interpret their study as they have. Here it is in their own words:

    “… Devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems.”

    There are many questions concerning the human pact on global warming and the progressive instance on blaming humanity with very little actual scientific proof feels enough like a hoax to call it such.

    The truth is, the science of climate change is in its infancy and making major governmental policies based on the relatively pweak hypotheses developed to date is foolishness in the extreme. There is little doubt that the unintended consequences could be significantly worse than the “worst case scenario” presented by the United Nations.

    • Andrew Burger

      It is important not to throw more BS on top of BS of groups, esp global news oligopolies…I could not find the text cited above in the UCS report at all…Moreover on the first, main page of its Global Warming section, UCS states,
      “The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs.
      Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and
      severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common
      across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders
      are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions.”

      The only “agenda” here is getting the actual facts and truth out, and holding news media orgs accountable for doing so!

    • David S. Leaton

      Brad, I believe I responded to a very similar message you posted on another thread, and I’ve yet to receive a response to that one. Climate science is not in its infancy. Its 200 years old. The theory of AGW was developed over a century ago. See Spencer Weart’s history of the science at the AIP website: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

      Where is the evidence that the basic theory is weak? Are challenging the ‘greenhouse’ gas theory? Are you challenging the mass balance argument and isotope studies that support the “A” in AGW? Where does the theory weaken for you?

Back to Top ↑

© 2014   Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc.



Back to Top ↑