! FILE: media.html <! <! DESCRIPTION: Climategate in Review: <! * Media Reporting On Climategate <! <! NOTES: * File must have .shtml extension or else have <! permissions of 755 to execute SSI directives. <! <! UPDATED: 01-01-20 <! <! AUTHOR: C. Jeffery Small (email@example.com) <! <! Copyright 2009-2020 by C. Jeffery Small <! FILE: header.html <! <! DESCRIPTION: Climategate in Review: page header <! <! NOTES: * Filename must either have .shtml extension or else have file <! permissions of 755 to allow SSI directives to be processed. <! <! UPDATED: 01-15-23 CJS <! <! AUTHOR: C. Jeffery Small (firstname.lastname@example.org) <! <! Copyright 2009-2023 by C. Jeffery Small
Climategate in Review
Another possibly more important question is why has most of this information which challenges the AGW orthodoxy not been reported by American main stream media outlets? Reviewing the reference sources below, it becomes clear that almost every report originated either in the UK, or from independent internet reporters. American newspapers, radio, television and major magazines have remained virtually silent on the subject of Climategate, with a few minor exceptions, while National Public Radio (NPR) continuing its active propaganda machine in service of the government's takeover of the entire US economy as the only possible solution to avoiding an Armageddon that is not coming. There is an agenda operating here, with the media organizations having transformed themselves from the role of reporter of the facts, into organs for government policy indoctrination. The failure to report on the ongoing Climategate story clearly demonstrates why these established media outlets deserve the rapid death they are currently experiencing. They have failed in their purpose of objectively reporting verified facts, and can no longer be relied upon as a source of unbiased information.
As reported by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, one very clear example of the media bias in action can be seen in the difference between The New York Times' response to the release of the leaked material from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit as compared to that released by WikiLeaks, concerning the U.S. Embassy and war efforts.
"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all
manner of private information and statements that were never intended
for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."
New York Times, Nov. 20, 2009
"The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands
of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field
intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. ... The
Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest,
illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of
American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."
New York Times, Nov. 29, 2010
|Back up to:||Index|
|Next Section:||The Philosophy of the Environmental Movement|