Unbiased Journalism? OR Climate Change Propaganda hiding as Journalism… You Decide

 

 

Dear Reader and Friend,

Here in my opinion is a blatant propaganda piece masquerading as unbiased journalism. Frankly it disgusts me how so called journalists, get away with this crap all the time. It’s time we Critical Thinkers start to challenge these crap slingers, and their opinion pieces (editorials) masquerading as solid un-biased journalistic reporting. It’s time to call the propaganda what it is, an underhanded attempt to cause the masses to be brainwashed into the propagandists (reporters) beliefs.

Let’s start with the title of the alleged un-biased piece…

With science undisputed, climate bill opponents turn to cost

Biased? or un-biased?

So I will analyze the article for it’s propaganda, and make some editorial comments as well.

But First, let’s review the SEVEN Propaganda devices…

1. Color Red: Name Calling — generally used to giving an idea a bad label which is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence.
2. Color Gold: Glittering Generality — associating something with a “Virtue Word” (a word that has several meanings or can mean something good, or bad to the people who hear it but is not quantifiable e.g. freedom it sounds good, makes us feel good, but it means different things to different people.) A Glittering Generality is generally used to make us accept and approve an idea or thing without examining the evidence. Or reject and not approve an idea, or thing without examining the evidence.
3. Color Blue: Transfer — carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
4. Color Maroon: Testimonial — this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad.
5. Color Tan: Plain Folks — is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience that he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the “plain folks”
6. Color Pink: Card Stacking — involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
7. Color Green: Band Wagon — “Everybody is doing it.” Or at least all of us are doing it. And with this thought and “proofs” the propagandist tries to convince us that all the members of the group we belong to or want to belong to accept his/her program and therefore we must follow the crowd and “jump on the bandwagon”

The article can be found at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/39908.html

It was dated: Posted on Wednesday, June 4, 2008

The byline is By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

[Card Stacking combined with Out and out lying]With science undisputed, [Card Stacking alone] climate bill opponents turn to cost

WASHINGTON — Opponents of [Glittering Generality]landmark legislation that would cut greenhouse gas emissions have taken a new approach this week as the Senate began debate on what could eventually be a huge reordering of how the nation gets and uses energy.

[Editors Note: The writer/propagandist of this piece is trying to imply that any “landmark” legislation must be good]

[Name Calling] Instead of challenging [transfer]scientific evidence of a warming world[transfer ends], they’ve focused on costs.[name calling ends] In the end, these opponents say, consumers would be hurt.

[Editors Note: there is a group of 31,000 + scientists right here in the USA broken down in the following professions: as of 6/6/08 there are 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. see Global Warming Petition Project

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

All signed a petition that states:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

All 31,072 scientists signed this very statement.]

[Card Stacking] ”One huge change from previous debates is that only one person has raised a question that (global warming) is a problem,“[end card stacking] [transfer]said Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, which works with large businesses.[end of transfer] ”The No. 1 thing to me is that it’s talk about how to solve it rather than whether to solve the problem.“

Under the global warming bill, or [glittering generality] Climate Security Act,[end of glittering generality] it would no longer be free for factories or power plants to emit carbon dioxide and other global warming gases into the atmosphere. Fees would be levied to curb such [name calling]pollution.[end name calling]

It’s not expected the bill will become law this year. President Bush has said he’d veto it if it passes. But with the presidential candidates supporting some version of the bill’s main ideas, it’s widely thought that emissions controls will be put in place in a year or so. For that reason, the debate now offers a hint of opposition to come.

Senators opposing the bill this week warned that the legislation could make the cost of gas go up. They’ve cited an EPA study that said that the bill could raise prices 53 cents a gallon over 22 years, or 2 cents a year, from 2008 to 2030.

[Editor's Note: What just 2 cents a year. Why we could afford that (said sarcastically)]

[Band Wagon] Several senators —Republicans Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire — said they agreed with the concept of limiting emissions and charging a fee for polluting, but wanted different ways to use the proceeds or a program on a smaller scale. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has said he wants more money for nuclear power.

Republican John Warner of Virginia is a sponsor of the bill, and Republicans Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Olympia Snowe of Maine also spoke in support of it. [end of Bandwagon]

But most Republican senators echoed the remarks of the president on Monday. Bush said the bill would impose “roughly $6 trillion of new costs on the American economy” and called it a tax increase. The president rejects mandatory regulation of emissions.

[Editor's note: why is it "Bush" why not President Bush... he is the president of the USA after all. They referred to Clinton as “President Clinton”]

Bush’s $6 trillion remark referred to the estimated amount of money the bill would generate by 2050 from sales of permits to emit pollution. The overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year.

[Editor’s Note: Notice how conveniently the writer neglected to mention the money SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in additional costs, while pooh poohing that objection with the lame excuse “overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year” That is NOT an answer to dispute the SIX TRILLION DOLLARS this un-necessary law would cost. If you want to dispute something, then actually dispute it. She may as well have said, in answer to the SIX TRILLIONS DOLLARS... the train stopped running past my house each day. Because that has as much bearing as “ overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year” neither address the cost, or attempt to dispute it. This is good journalism?]

The legislation spells out how money from the permits would be used, including $802 billion in a [glittering generality] tax cut for those who need help with higher energy costs and $955 billion for deficit reduction. Billions also would go to help develop cleaner fuels, improve energy efficiency and help wildlife. [glittering generality ends]

The legislation would “raise taxes, raise substantially gas prices, cause worker layoffs and hurt the economy, and leave us less competitive in the world marketplace,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Wednesday. He called it a “sneaky tax” that would drive up energy costs.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a sponsor of the legislation, said better fuel economy standards and alternatives to gasoline would drive down demand, end dependence on foreign oil and lower the cost of driving. She and other supporters argued that redirecting part of the proceeds from the sale of the pollution permits to renewable energy would create jobs and replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives.

[Editor’s Note: If Senator Boxer was truly concerned about lowering the cost of gas, AND reducing USA dependence on foreign oil... she would support drilling in Anwar — an area that was specifically set aside for drilling under Jimmy Carter’ presidency. She would also support drilling off the coast of Florida, in the mid-west, and Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. If this is really what Senator Boxer said. We don't know if she said the above claimed quote, as it is not quoted in quote marks by the writer.]

“The arguments they’re throwing at us are very shallow. In essence, not one of our opponents has ever even addressed the issue of global warming. They’ve just tried to get us off track on the fictitious attack on gas prices, which falls totally flat,” Boxer said at a news conference.

[Editor’s Note: notice Senator Boxer was quoted in the sentence above... with quote marks even!]

[Band Wagon] Boxer noted that The National Academies, the government’s top advisers on science, engineering and medicine, have reported that the Earth is warming and that most scientists agree [Band Wagon ends] that human actions that have increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are to blame.

[Editor’s Note: except for the 31,000+ USA scientists whose backgrounds include (detailed analysis of the signers' educations follows):

1. Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmospheric Science (114)
2. Climatology (40)
3. Meteorology (341)
4. Astronomy (58)
5. Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

1. Earth Science (107)
2. Geochemistry (62)
3. Geology (1,601)
4. Geophysics (334)
5. Geoscience (23)
6. Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

1. Environmental Engineering (473)
2. Environmental Science (256)
3. Forestry (156)
4. Oceanography (86)

4. Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)
2. Math (686)
1. Mathematics (575)
2. Statistics (111)

5. Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)
1. Physics (2,310)
2. Nuclear Engineering (215)
3. Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
2. Aerospace (585)
1. Aerospace Engineering (585)

7. Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry (3,156)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

8. Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (703)
2. Biophysics (65)

9. Biology (1,365)

1. Biology (985)
2. Ecology (72)
3. Entomology (57)
4. Zoology (145)
5. Animal Science (106)

10. Agriculture (791)

1. Agricultural Science (314)
2. Agricultural Engineering (111)
3. Plant Science (292)
4. Food Science (74)

11. Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)
2. Medicine (2,343)

12. General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)
1. Engineering (7,289)
2. Electrical Engineering (2,075)
3. Metallurgy (387)
2. General Science (241)

But GEE... I guess those 31,000+ scientists don’t count. It’s like they don’t even exist.

“That's really why our opponents aren’t debating us on this anymore, because they've lost all traction,” Boxer said.

[Editor‘s Note: Maybe they lost all traction because the press refuses to report on a side or report information that does not agree with their individual point of view and do their best to hide facts that point out the fallacy of their beliefs? Could that be it?

[Name Calling] Shortly afterward, the debate stopped altogether Wednesday afternoon. Republicans refused to accept the usual practice of debating a bill without hearing a full reading of it, saying the reason was to pressure Democrats to get more circuit judges approved. [end of Name Calling]

[Editor‘s Note: Oh, those dastardly Republicans.]

The result was that clerks took turns reading the 500-page bill for hours.

[Editor‘s Note: Well, at least we know someone read it. After all why have a piece of “Landmark Legislation” read? “Landmark Legislation” should be a simple one or two page bill... right???

It‘s irresponsible reporters and editors in the press like the one in this example that can help you understand why we are in the shape we are. How stupidity is triumphing over clear thought and critical thinking.

###

Dear Reader, think things through. Think critically. Just because an article is in a newspaper and not on an editorial page, does that mean it‘s not an editorial? Does that mean the article is not biased?

Try and find the writer‘s motives for writing the story, and what belief they are trying to persuade you of, if any.

Then verify for yourself what you read or heard. Don‘t let opinion masquerade as fact.

 

 

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.