It's Not News Unless It's Reported By a Mainstream Journalist

By John Stephenson | December 24, 2007 - 01:42 ET

First, the following article was written by my co-blogger, Jon Jay Ray.  He gets all credit, I just thought it fit in at Newsbusters.

The Leftist "Media Matters" is scandalized because Fox News reported an anti-Greenie story that was originally put on the net via a blog rather than by one of the mainstream news organizations. Fox was reporting — HORROR — that a group of 400 scientists have rejected the "consensus" view that the world is warming up. The scientific "consensus" on global warming has unravelled and we can't have that!

How pathetic they are. They couldn't question the truth of the story — because it is true. The only thing to criticize that they could find was who reported the event. We must bow down to the Leftist media and let them tell us what to think, apparently. We are naughty children from whom some information must be kept hidden. They are in for a lot of disappointment from now on, I would say.

The blog concerned was run by the GOP side of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — which makes the squawk from Media Matters all the more absurd. How did putting the info on a blog differ from putting out a press release? I suppose the difference is that the media have the chance to ignore a press release. An important difference to be sure.

——-

The Greenie site called "Grist" is also in mourning. Excerpt:

"One final (depressing) note: How effective is Inhofe's media outreach compared to that of the entire community of climate scientists? Well, according to technorati (PDF), as of today, Dec. 21, the IPCC Synthesis report has had 278 blog reactions since its release November 17, whereas Inhofe's "report," issued just yesterday (Thursday), has already had over 300 blog reactions."

Grist was also sad that the NYT ran the "consensus-shattering" news — a sort of "betrayed by our own" feeling, apparently.

The only substantial point in the Grist article was what we have come to expect of the Green/Left — attempts to discredit the personalities concerned. They said that some of the scientists were not "prominent" enough — even though some of them were very prominent indeed.

That the Grist post was a "watermelon" (Green on the outside, red on the inside) effort was shown by its footnote: This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund

Another typically abusive Leftist response here

(For more postings from John Jay Ray, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and TELSTRA/BIGPOND. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

 

—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So somehow findings from an

So somehow findings from an ex vice president have more validity than that of scientists. It would be easy for conservatives to attack proponents of global warming (i guess that i just did) But science speaks for itself.

Check out this scientist Bjorn Lomborg, tell me what you think of his opinions

"give me a break!" - John Stossel

Wikepedia

Here is the start of the Wikipedia entry  for Bjorn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is an Adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. After the book's publication, members of the Danish and international scientific community accused Lomborg of "scientific dishonesty", although Lomborg is not trained in the natural sciences, and he does not claim to be.[1] These allegations were investigated by appropriate arms of the Danish government and in the end, no official charges were left standing. However, there are scientists who remain critical of Lomborg's work.[2]

 The Wilkipedia article discusses the controversy of Lomborgs work but utterly fails to describe his work in any detail.   It is a shame, even Wikipedia is polluted by green rage.

Wickedpedia?

That is one of the most intellectually corrupt bunch of jack_sses anywhere on the net ... you find me one d_mn conservative among their 1000's of "administrators" and I'll give you a million bucks ... the conservative viewpoint is either bleached from or buried under liberal "facts" on every page I've ever visited ... makes me sick.

 

What about those 400 experts?

It's absolutely bizarre that the MSM is so bowled over by Al Gore and the alarmist propaganda  that the only part of this that becomes a story is how the facts were released to the public!

As a former responsible journalist, I would welcome the enormous news opportunity to start interviewing the 400 scientists, all of whom I presume have respectable academic pedigrees and great stories to tell.

Far better to hear their story than that of the politically-corrupted, bought-and-sold climate "science" coming from the IPCC.

Well, there's an old rule

Well, there's an old rule of litigation that says:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law
If neither is on your side, pound the table.

What's weird is this is a

What's weird is it's a long discredited blog that purchased their domain at K-Mart saying this.

If only Einstein had a media outreach program!

"How effective is Inhofe's media outreach compared to that of the entire community of climate scientists?"

Science is about the furtherance of knowledge, not packaging. It's about being right, not popular. It's about proving theories, not selling them.

Most prestigious academics rely on securing grants for their universities. The only way to get grants is to make your research look sexy to a bunch of folks who don't know research from a hole in the ground. The more worthless your study, the more makeup you have to put on it. Despite putting nearly all of Avon's stock of eyeliner and lipstick on this pig and securing billions of dollars in federal and private grants, most American's can still identify this as a pig.

Inhofe's "media outreach" is probably one-billionth the size of the AGW media monopoly. And yet the Watermelons are afraid--afraid of the truth.

winglet -- I agree with the

winglet -- I agree with the gist of your post on scietific advance, but

It's about proving theories. 

Actually, according to Sir Karl Popper, the scientific method is predicated on disproving or refuting a theory or hypothosis.

This is how science is built upon that which went before. How Einstein went beyond Newton by disproving elements of Newton's theories and advancing his own theories.

Which themselves have faced refutation.

It is only that which is open to refutation which can be called scientific.

Which is why it is amusing to hear ignorant buffoons claim (in all seriousness) that the science is "closed." That's bunk.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

To a point I agree. . .

You are correct in pointing out that Popper required that theories be falsifiable and the notion that no theory is ever truly proven is correct. However, I was using "proving" in the general and acceptable sense. In a court of law, someone can be "proven" guilty even though they may be innocent. "Proven" merely means that there is a preponderance of evidence to support the claim beyond a certain limit of doubt. This is true in science too.

Don't Question The Magician

Valid science also requires "reproducibility" and the constituent data and methods utilized be open and available for scrutiny.

AGW has not had some of it's crucial data nor its methodology transparent and available for scrutiny, until after NASA climate "scientist" James Hansen massages the data, results and methodology before essentially forced (ie embarrassed) to publish.

Good science holds its own under intense scrutiny and need not be defended by refusal to debate or covertness. 

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

Allow us to Die

How many manmade-global warming folks also believe generally in evolution/natural selection?

alot?

Allright then... shut up and let us kill ourselves via our CO2 emissions and all the other crap we are guilty of.

Somebody is ACTUALLY

Somebody is ACTUALLY complaining FNC got a story from a Blog?

Um, if it weren't for certain "blogs" MSNBC wouldn't be "reporting" anything ...

BTW, I get MOST of my war news from blogs ... Milblogs by troops that are, or have been, in theater, or blogs by independent REAL journalists who leave the comfort of the Green Zone, pay out of their own pockets to fund their trips, and get the real stories firsthand ... because the MSM either refuses to do this, or is too damn stupid to.

Keith Olbermann reports as

Keith Olbermann reports as "news" on his little make believe news broadcast just about everything that Media Matters puts on its web page. If you watch closely you can see David Brock's hand behind Olbermann's back during the show.

And now Media Matters is complaining that a news organization uses information gleaned from a blog?

Sorry, Mr. Brock, the complaint department is closed for the holidays.

SMG 

 

 

Journalists?

"Journalist"---what's that?

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

History

It is something we read about in history.To bad with the msm that none have taken a course in it.Now we only have people that pose as journalists.It is like haveing halloween year long.When you have AP and Reuters pusing their bias better for folks to go to blogs to get the facts.Always fact check information.Something the msm doesnt practice religiously.It violates their most honor tenet of their faith which is.Never use the truth when a lie will do.

Deniers same as Racists

Seems like being called a "Denier" is as bad as being called a "Racist", according to these people. Everything I read is peppered with that awful, awful word. Sheeeessh.

As a reminder about consensus, here are some excerpts from an article I read a while ago: "To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.....Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But, they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. 'A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale', warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences."

This report is important because it was published in Newsweek, April 28 1975, and warns us of the impending disastor of Global Cooling. As you can see, there was Unanimous agreement at the time. Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber