If you watched any television newscasts Friday, or read a paper Saturday, you were bombarded with claims of doom and gloom as a result of the August unemployment report showing 4,000 fewer people on American payrolls than in July.
Yet, what media largely ignored were shifting sociological population dynamics indicating this summer's poor jobs gains could be caused by the smallest percentage of teenagers seeking work since such data started being collected in 1948.
In fact, though the "civilian noninstitutional population" of persons sixteen to nineteen-years-old reached 17 million for the first time in history last month, only 5.665 million of these teens were employed, the fewest for any August since 1965 when the population of such young adults was only 13 million.
Isn't this newsworthy? Well, there's much more that was ignored in this report for those actually interested in facts rather than excessively bearish, pessimistic spin.
In the past couple of days, the media have reported "grim" melting of ice in the Arctic while disgracefully ignoring the history of the region prior to 1979 and explorations of the area as far back as 1903.
As the Washington Post reported Friday (emphasis added):
The Arctic ice cap is melting faster than scientists had expected and will shrink 40 percent by 2050 in most regions, with grim consequences for polar bears, walruses and other marine animals, according to government researchers.
Unfortunately, like the Post, most press outlets conveniently ignored a crucial element of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration study being cited. As reported by the Seattle Times Friday (emphasis added):
You better put down your drinks, and make sure there's nothing in your mouths, for the New York Times's David Brooks made a comment on Friday's News Hour that is guaranteed to evoke uncontrollable fits of laughter from those on the right side of the aisle.
*****Updates at end of post include similar opinions from conservative bloggers, as well as a video of a CNN correspondent saying roughly the same thing, and a response from the Kos Kidz.
After introducing regular guests Brooks and Mark Shields, host Jim Lehrer asked their opinions concerning the just-released Osama bin Laden video.
Brooks was second up with this absolutely marvelous observation (final warning to put down your drinks, video available here):
Much as when the organization he leads quietly made changes to the United States historical climate record at the prodding of Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies finally released critical computer codes scientists have wanted for years, but did so with absolutely no official press release.
As a result, not one media outlet covered this occurrence that years from now could be seen as a huge turning point in the climate change debate.
Despite the secrecy, there was great celebration amongst anthropogenic global warming skeptics that have wanted these closely held codes to be able to identify how NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration make adjustments to raw climate data collected by weather stations.
One such skeptic is Anthony Watts, who happily reported Saturday (emphasis added):
While media carped and whined about the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina devastating New Orleans, a judge in Gulfport, Mississippi, ruled on a lawsuit filed against oil, coal, and electric utility companies that could have significant implications on future litigation involving greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, not one press outlet found the judge's decision at all newsworthy. Not one!
To set this up, NewsBusters reported on August 15 a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of a number of Mississippians claiming that the greenhouse gas emissions of a very long list of companies doing business in the Gulf exacerbated the strength of Hurricane Katrina thereby making them responsible for the citizens' financial losses.
On Friday, LexisNexis Mealey's Legal News reported (very grateful h/t NBer Par for the Course):
Two months later, the BBC has scrapped "Planet Relief," a proposed day-long special about climate change, specifically citing the failure of Al Gore's international concerts as one of the reasons for the cancellation.
As reported by England's Times Online Wednesday (h/t NB reader Chris Stacy, emphasis added throughout):
As the media focus continued attention on supposedly receding glaciers in Greenland, they conveniently ignore those right here in America that are actually expanding.
Adding insult to injury, as prominent California congresswomen House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) travel abroad to laughingly see evidence of global warming, they could drive north of their residences in the San Francisco Bay Area - with an entourage of gushing media sycophants of course - to see evidence that goes counter to their alarmist theories.
In fact, as reported by Sacramento's CBS affiliate Sunday, glaciers on California's Mount Shasta have grown by 30 percent in the past 50 years (video available here):
I bet you can't say the following without laughing hysterically: the media were much kinder to George W. Bush during the 2000 election campaign cycle than Vice President Al Gore.
As absurd as this statement might seem, such was the premise of an article in October's Vanity Fair written by contributing editor Evgenia Peretz and marvelously entitled "Going After Gore."
In it, Peretz - apparently with a straight face - claimed: "The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other top news outlets kept going after [Gore], with misquotes (‘I invented the Internet'), distortions (that he lied about being the inspiration for Love Story), and strangely off-the-mark needling, while pundits such as Maureen Dowd appeared to be charmed by his rival, George W. Bush."
Makes one wonder what the color of the sky is in Peretz's world. Regardless, for your entertainment pleasure, here are some of the absolutely hysterical lowlights (emphasis added throughout):
Now here's a story the climate change obsessed media can really sink their teeth into: a Berkeley, California, based environmental group claims that dams all around the world are adding to global warming.
If you're keeping score, this means we can't use heating oil or coal to produce energy to heat and/or light our homes. They killed nuclear power. Now they want to ban all hydroelectric facilities.
Just how far back into the Stone Age must we go to save the planet?
While you ponder, Australia's News.com reported this astonishing claim Tuesday (emphasis added throughout):
Here's a story a climate change obsessed media are sure to ignore: a Congressman from Southern California has actually suggested America spend financial resources to fix the endangered entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid rather than to solve global warming.
I don't imagine Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be doing a segment on this tonight, do you?
Regardless, Rep. John Campbell (R-California) published a must-read op-ed Tuesday entitled "Global Warming Heresy" (emphasis added throughout):
It might not have been instant, but the bad karma a former British tabloid editor got calling President Bush "an idiot" for falling off a Segway in 2003 got him four years later as he broke three ribs when he accidentally hit a curb driving a - wait for it - Segway (h/t Say Anything via Glenn Reynolds).
As reported by Access Hollywood on August 21 (emphasis added):
Piers Morgan may be a great judge of "talent," but clearly, riding a segway is not one of his own.
The "America's Got Talent" judge broke several ribs this weekend as a result of a Segway accident, and may not be able to appear on tonight's season finale.
Hysterically, on June 14, 2003, the tabloid Morgan was then editor for, the Daily Mirror, ran a headline "You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you Mr President," along with a rather disparaging article with these pictures of Bush's accident (emphasis added):
On Monday, the Washington Post broke the news of another major Hillary Clinton campaign finance fiasco that seems destined to be ignored or downplayed by media in much the same way previous instances of such behavior by the former First Lady avoided press scrutiny.
Now, as reported by the Post, there's a third scandal involving the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination which, given past precedent, might also not receive the kind of attention the press would give the matter if Hillary had an "R" next to her name (emphasis added throughout):
If a survey found that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe lawmakers are using global warming hysteria to raise taxes, would the climate change obsessed media report it?
Highly doubtful, wouldn't you agree?
Well, Britain's Daily Mail published an article Monday that seems quite unlikely any major U.S. press outlet would dare cover for fear of contradicting the media meme of the debate being over concerning this controversial issue (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):
If CBS's Katie Couric is beginning to believe the surge is working, it seems that even the most liberal media member could be convinced.
With that in mind, Couric was Bob Schieffer's guest on Sunday's "Face the Nation," and after spending some time touring Iraq with Gen. David Petraeus, felt the General will be quite optimistic when he reports to Congress next week.
In fact, after Schieffer asked what Petraeus would say to lawmakers upon his return to Washington, Couric seemed quite impressed with what the General had showed her during her tour (video available here):
If you needed any more evidence as to how little actor Alec Baldwin actually knows about politics, it was provided Saturday evening in the second sentence of his article at the Huffington Post (emphasis added):
"Even though [then Rep. Larry] Craig voted to censor Barney Frank for Frank's tryst with a male prostitute."
To begin with, Alec, the term is censure.
Adding insult to injury, a vote on censuring Frank never happened, for as reported by the New York Times on July 20, 1990 (emphasis added):
If it turned out that any of the major Republican presidential candidates had not only taken contributions from the recently surrendered fugitive Norman Hsu, but also had received donations from a felon during a prior campaign, do you think it would be reported?
Probably on front pages and newscasts for days, correct?
Well, although ABC's Brian Ross did mention during Friday's "World News with Charles Gibson" that Hillary Clinton's "kickoff senate fund-raiser in 2000 was organized by a convicted felon," not one news agency has mentioned since Wednesday's Hsu revelations the name of this individual, all the particulars, or that there is still a lawsuit pending against the Clintons concerning the matter.
For those interested, the New Media Journal did a seven-part series about Peter F. Paul last March with information about Hillary's largest benefactor which the media have almost completely ignored for seven years (emphasis added throughout, videos describing the details also available here, here, and here):
When I saw the New York Times headline "As Her Star Wanes, Rice Tries to Reshape Legacy," I really wasn't prepared for the amount of vitriol about to be heaped on the current Secretary of State.
In the end, I was sorry I even looked.
Helene Cooper's piece on Saturday began by addressing a May 25 article in the Stanford Daily, the newspaper of Stanford University, which discussed the possibility that Condoleezza Rice could return to the highly-regarded institution when President Bush's second term is over in January 2009.
Rather than citing one word from the article, Cooper instead shared reader reactions to it (emphasis added throughout):
You're a former First Lady, a two-term Senator from the great state of New York, and the front-runner to win the Democrat nomination for president of the United States in 2008, and yet, a national business magazine still believes a media mogul who got her start doing a ladies' talk show in Chicago is more powerful than you.
That can't be good for the ego, can it?
Yet, there it was in the just-released special report by Forbes entitled "The World's 100 Most Powerful Women":
You know, if you saw this at some small time newspaper, or a blog without multiple levels of editors, you'd be quite forgiving.
But when the supposedly most respected newspaper on the face of the planet, with a large office building filled with writers, editors, and staffers, mistakes a key phrase from the Declaration of Independence as a "constitutional right," one has to wonder what's going on with the Old Gray Lady.
On Tuesday, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration announced that "Greenhouse gases likely accounted for more than half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States last year."
Yet, NOAA ignored the fact that the primary GHG global warming alarmists point to as the cause for rising temperatures, carbon dioxide emissions, actually declined in 2006.
How did they miss that little detail?
Regardless, let's first look at the announcement from NOAA (emphasis added):
As members of Congress debate sweeping legislation to address climate change, shouldn't it be newsworthy that of the roughly 25 percent of the weather stations analyzed by independent, non-government volunteers, more than half appear to not meet federal guidelines involving their placement?
Well, meteorologist Anthony Watts, the owner of Watts Up With That, speaking at a climate conference in Boulder, Colorado, on Tuesday, presented his findings concerning the examination of some of the weather stations across America that monitor the nation's temperatures. The news was quite disturbing.
Yet, from what I can tell, outside of a newspaper in Northern California, even as global warming matters are highlighted on a daily basis by a sycophantic press, not one major media outlet thought this was newsworthy.
As reported by the Chico Enterprise Record Thursday (emphasis added, h/t Marc Morano):
A new survey about to be published by the journal Energy and Environment finds that less than 50 percent of the scientific papers written about climate change since 2004 have endorsed the view that man's activities are causing global warming.
Think Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be discussing this tonight?
As reported by DailyTech Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):
Here's something you don't see every day: an environmentalist bashing an environmentalist.
Yet, such was the case Wednesday when Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, slammed the new Leonardo DiCaprio film "The 11th Hour" as the "latest climate-change rant" representing "another example of anti-forestry scare tactics" which sadly indicated that "we're losing sight of some indisputable facts."
As a result, "[t]his film should be a good,clear reminder for us to put the science before the Hollywood hype."
As reported by The Vancouver Sun (emphasis added throughout, thanks to all who brought this my attention):
In the past couple of days, there have been two articles written about how the media are covering global warming.
In one, the author contended that the press are acting to inhibit free speech by exclusively reporting one side of the climate change issue as they castigate skeptics as deniers and operatives of the oil industry.
By contrast, another article suggested that the press in their attempts to appear objective are not doing a good enough job stressing the dire nature of global warming, and should be taking a much stronger position as advocate for the supposed consensus.
Presenting the inhibiting free speech view was Christopher Lingle, a research scholar at the Center for Civil Society in New Delhi and professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added):
For those that aren't familiar, S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
He is also one of the world's leading anthropogenic global warming skeptics.
With that in mind, he gave a lecture concerning climate change at Hillsdale College on June 30 which has been adapted as an article at the Hillsdale Imprimis (h/t Marc Morano).
What follows are some of the key highlights, although I highly recommend reading the entire piece (emphasis added throughout):