sometimes i have to write when a subject is fresh in my mind. right now i'm in Recklinghausen, Germany and i'm having trouble sleeping because of jet lag. but that's not what's on my mind.
it's no secret that many people in europe and the world are at odds with the US. and that's ok. but what gets me is how supposed "news" organizations present the news as unbiased and whether overtly or inadvertently, that bias is shaping opinion.
i had been following the whole "climate-gate" crisis back in the states before i left. for those of you who live under a rock, a few emails were leaked from the leading climate scientists where they discuss how they fixed the raw data to support their cause for global warming. anyway, at the time only fox news was carrying the story - and let me say that fox news is no angel. they are not very fair and balanced. but anyway, in the past few days the story has grown legs and the networks could no longer afford to ignore it. when jon stewart reported on it, they had to cover it.
over here in germany i've been watching the only english speaking channels available which are CNN World and BBC World. what has been interesting is the discrepancies between the US coverage and the world coverage. fox news has been gloating about this. why are they gloating? because it's right. it proves their point and casts doubts into what many are now seeing as junk science. on the other hand, when the world news reports on it, they focus on the fact that the emails were "stolen" or "hacked" without even addressing the fact that what's in the emails are damning. it's like a guy demonizing his girlfriend because she found out he was cheating by checking his cell phone texts. ya, it's wrong, but the actual deed far exceeds the method of acquisition. the world news networks go on with sound bites from 5 or 6 proponents of climate legislation and two lines from a solitary skeptic. the whole newcast comes off as an annoyance and clearly shows any neanderthal who is watching what the "correct" viewpoint is. the devil is in the details. and they are very clever with the details. for instance, even if the report itself is completely unbiased, sometimes the mere fact that they are reporting it shows bias. if i were to claim that i could fly and the news started doing reports where they ask rhetorical questions like "can this guy really fly?" "is there truth to his story?" the fact that they are talking about it over and over gives credence to the issue. and guess what has been the number one report that has been replayed over and over the past 4 days? the climate change summit in copenhagen. christiana amonpour just did a promo saying "the summit is being hijacked by skeptics, but can they put a dent in the science?" hmmm...i wonder where she stands on the issue. she attacked the issue from two sides. first she vilifies the skeptics for the audacity of requiring scientific evidence and for "hijacking" the summit. and also by asking if they can "put a dent" in the science is subtly telling you that even if it's true, it's not very substantial. notice how she very slyly minimizes and undermines what is actually a clear contradiction to the holy writ of climate propaganda.
so you can obviously see my bias on the issue (at least i'm not trying to hide it). but just to be clear, here's what i think. is ice melting and has the climate gotten slightly warmer? yes. did we have anything to do with it? WE DON'T KNOW. is it a good idea to make efforts to lower emissions? yes, i'm seriously considering installing a solar cell system in my house to save energy and money. but should we make new restrictive and far-reaching laws when the basic premise of said legislation has yet to be settled? absolutely not.
many people claim that the advent of the industrial revolution coincides with the start of the warming trend. but if you look at the data, the warming started before then. there was also a period where the earth warmed in the 1500's and then cooled down. there's also evidence that the earth has natural warming and cooling periods that we can't control. are we causing it? maybe. i'll admit the notion is possible. but we truly do not know. it's like the beginning of shawshank redemption where tim robbins has mountains of circumstantial evidence to convict him even though he isn't guilty. just because certain evidence points one direction, you cannot jump to conclusions before you have all the evidence. cause if you do then the climate will hide under a Rita Hayworth poster and dig its' way out and send evidence of our corruption to the paper and we will have no choice but to shoot ourselves in the face like the warden. ok, maybe i'm stretching that metaphor. it's just that it's probably the best ending to a movie ever. (take that, M. Night Shyamalan!).
Tim Robbins: new lows in stretching metaphors
so anyway, don't believe everything you see on TV.
it's no secret that many people in europe and the world are at odds with the US. and that's ok. but what gets me is how supposed "news" organizations present the news as unbiased and whether overtly or inadvertently, that bias is shaping opinion.
i had been following the whole "climate-gate" crisis back in the states before i left. for those of you who live under a rock, a few emails were leaked from the leading climate scientists where they discuss how they fixed the raw data to support their cause for global warming. anyway, at the time only fox news was carrying the story - and let me say that fox news is no angel. they are not very fair and balanced. but anyway, in the past few days the story has grown legs and the networks could no longer afford to ignore it. when jon stewart reported on it, they had to cover it.
over here in germany i've been watching the only english speaking channels available which are CNN World and BBC World. what has been interesting is the discrepancies between the US coverage and the world coverage. fox news has been gloating about this. why are they gloating? because it's right. it proves their point and casts doubts into what many are now seeing as junk science. on the other hand, when the world news reports on it, they focus on the fact that the emails were "stolen" or "hacked" without even addressing the fact that what's in the emails are damning. it's like a guy demonizing his girlfriend because she found out he was cheating by checking his cell phone texts. ya, it's wrong, but the actual deed far exceeds the method of acquisition. the world news networks go on with sound bites from 5 or 6 proponents of climate legislation and two lines from a solitary skeptic. the whole newcast comes off as an annoyance and clearly shows any neanderthal who is watching what the "correct" viewpoint is. the devil is in the details. and they are very clever with the details. for instance, even if the report itself is completely unbiased, sometimes the mere fact that they are reporting it shows bias. if i were to claim that i could fly and the news started doing reports where they ask rhetorical questions like "can this guy really fly?" "is there truth to his story?" the fact that they are talking about it over and over gives credence to the issue. and guess what has been the number one report that has been replayed over and over the past 4 days? the climate change summit in copenhagen. christiana amonpour just did a promo saying "the summit is being hijacked by skeptics, but can they put a dent in the science?" hmmm...i wonder where she stands on the issue. she attacked the issue from two sides. first she vilifies the skeptics for the audacity of requiring scientific evidence and for "hijacking" the summit. and also by asking if they can "put a dent" in the science is subtly telling you that even if it's true, it's not very substantial. notice how she very slyly minimizes and undermines what is actually a clear contradiction to the holy writ of climate propaganda.
so you can obviously see my bias on the issue (at least i'm not trying to hide it). but just to be clear, here's what i think. is ice melting and has the climate gotten slightly warmer? yes. did we have anything to do with it? WE DON'T KNOW. is it a good idea to make efforts to lower emissions? yes, i'm seriously considering installing a solar cell system in my house to save energy and money. but should we make new restrictive and far-reaching laws when the basic premise of said legislation has yet to be settled? absolutely not.
many people claim that the advent of the industrial revolution coincides with the start of the warming trend. but if you look at the data, the warming started before then. there was also a period where the earth warmed in the 1500's and then cooled down. there's also evidence that the earth has natural warming and cooling periods that we can't control. are we causing it? maybe. i'll admit the notion is possible. but we truly do not know. it's like the beginning of shawshank redemption where tim robbins has mountains of circumstantial evidence to convict him even though he isn't guilty. just because certain evidence points one direction, you cannot jump to conclusions before you have all the evidence. cause if you do then the climate will hide under a Rita Hayworth poster and dig its' way out and send evidence of our corruption to the paper and we will have no choice but to shoot ourselves in the face like the warden. ok, maybe i'm stretching that metaphor. it's just that it's probably the best ending to a movie ever. (take that, M. Night Shyamalan!).
Tim Robbins: new lows in stretching metaphors
so anyway, don't believe everything you see on TV.
5 comments:
When do we get the fire it up video?
i don't know. i haven't seen the first edit yet. hopefully soon
I'm no expert on this, but it is suspicious how quickly all of this has moved. When you look at how quickly all this has come about in the big scheme of things its suspicious. Jesse Ventura (of all people) made a good point the other day. He said he didn't know where he stood on global warming until the concept of Cap and Trade came about. All the sudden there's a way to make money on global warming. Now he doesn't believe in it.
The media is a mouthpiece of this administration. Whatever they want to push, it will get coverage. Unapologetic, aggressively biased coverage.----dale
Any idea when you guys might be adding some more shows to the myspace listing? Trip down south by chance (MS, AL, LA)???
Post a Comment