On the one hand, I was very pleased to see CNN's Howard Kurtz mention on Sunday's "Reliable Sources" the recent decision by the BBC to cancel "Planet Earth," a proposed daylong special to focus attention on anthropogenic global warming.
On the other hand, I was surprised when Kurtz chose not to include one of the key reasons this project was scrapped, namely, the failure of Al Gore's Live Earth concerts.
Here's what Kurtz said on the subject:
Yes, Howard, but you forgot to mention what British press outlets such as the Times felt was a key reason for this cancellation (emphasis added):How far should the media go in spotlighting climate change? The BBC had planned to air a day's worth of programs to highlight concerns about global warping. Not unlike when NBC carried the Live Earth concert sponsored by Al Gore. But in this case, two of the network's top TV news executives objected. With Peter Barron, editor of its "Newsnight" program saying "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet."
The BBC has now bowed to the criticism, canceling the day of environmental programs.
The BBC has now scrapped the concept. Negative reaction to this summer's flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, was cited as a factor.
Even the BBC, in its own report on the subject, addressed this connection (emphasis added):
Is [sic] is believed that poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert may have confirmed the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change.
With that in mind, as Kurtz did mention Live Earth and Gore, why did he choose to omit this connection?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
With that in mind, as Kurtz
September 9, 2007 - 23:04 ET by MidAmericaWith that in mind, as Kurtz did mention Live Earth and Gore, why did he choose to omit this connection?
It was an inconveniant truth.
Cream of the Crap Journalism
September 10, 2007 - 00:48 ET by Captain RepusKurtz is nothing more than a non-drooling clone of Chris Matthews or a clone of Olberman, but with an IQ slightly higher than plant life. His only claim to fame is the fact that he is able to speak with his mouth and lips out of sync with the words that come out.
Neither he nor CNN even attempt to appear as anything less than a conduit for the DNC. One exception is Jack Cafferty from the Situation Room who has amazingly included some conservative sounding rants this past week. Do you suppose that has anything to do with the fact that his book is being released tomorrow? Hmm.., gotta remember those half-dozen or so conservatives who buy books on occasion.
Anyone who gets their world view from Kurtz or CNN is far too shallow to be consuming my oxygen.
And speaking of "far too
September 10, 2007 - 09:25 ET by BuxomAnnieMcGreggorAnd speaking of "far too shallow"... I didn't realize how much Kurtz looks like Jamie Farr from M*A*S*H
The Goracle
September 10, 2007 - 06:24 ET by PopularTechKurtz is obviously a follower of The Goracle and does not want to make his chosen idol look bad. Notice the quote he uses, comes off snidely: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet." It sounds like he is appealing to all the environuts. Since they all believe the planet is going to burn up and how stupid to say it is not everyone's job (including the BBC) to join the religion and "save the planet".
Maybe CNN should do what the BBC did and simply admit they are biased:
BBC report finds bias within corporation (Telegraph.uk)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Carry the agenda.
September 10, 2007 - 16:01 ET by Gary HallPerhaps the entire point of how flawed the media has become is found right here:
It's not the media's job to promote the agenda of any item, including saving the planet. IPCC says the planet is going to die. Fine. Report that. Scientists come out and say the IPCC is a bunch of agenda driven kooks. Fine. Report that. Then get the two of them together and let em knock skulls.
The media's job is to report the news. Yes, then historically we have accepted their right to comment on the news and on issues. Even then, we would expect the media would farily present commentary on all sides of issues.
Kurtz's comment that the BBC had "bowed to the criticism," is evidence of Kurtz's view that the media is to carry an agenda for activists.
PS. Noel. Frankly I'm surprised you were surprised. Kurtz not making the connection, to me, is a given. It seems to be the rule, for the MSM; that connections are made when it serves the agenda, and omitted when it does not. Ya think? (;~>