At a recent screening of the new documentary Merchants of Doubt at Columbia University, journalists took to the stage to argue that “climate deniers” should not be given any more press.
“It is a lie to say that global warming poses no danger,” said New York Times reporter Justin Gillis. “Journalists care about the truth – that’s my only care in life, to find the truth. To act as if the evidence is half and half is to tell a lie. I refuse to perpetuate that lie.”
Other news personalities in attendance agreed. Wendell Potter of the Huffington Post said that newspapers owed it to their readers to develop a “propaganda beat,” where reporters would devote their careers to showing deniers as the frauds they are. And Emily Southerd of activist group Forecast the Facts insisted that getting “accurate information about climate change is a human right.” That information, of course, can only be considered accurate when it agrees with her views on the issue.
The idea of shutting out the other side of the debate is not a new one. On his PressThink blog, Jay Rosen recently wrestled with how reporters should handle political candidates who expressed doubts about climate change. He proposed that journalists had four options: 1, they could treat climate skepticism with neutrality, reporting only the fact of the candidate’s position; 2, they could ponder how such a position would affect their campaign; 3, they could remind readers that the candidate’s views were incompatible with the scientific evidence; or 4, they could go after the candidate directly and expose their “stupidity.” Though you might think the first option would be the de facto choice for any journalist who cares to maintain objectivity, Rosen recommends option 3.
And You Wonder Why We’re Skeptical?
These liberals simply can’t understand why so many Americans refuse to buy into the climate change arguments. Well, that’s not true. It’s more accurate to say that they won’t understand, because the reasons are obvious. One, scientific “consensus” has been wrong many, many times before. And two, the agenda behind the claims is so crystal clear. The environmental left doesn’t even bother to hide it anymore. They want to systematically destroy capitalism and the industrial sector, and they are willing to make any outrageous claims they have to in order to see that goal come to fruition.
If our country’s newspapers and television news programs no longer believe in objective integrity, they may as well not exist. Every journalist has a responsibility to leave his or her personal feelings at the door when they report the news. Instead, we have journalists actively conspiring – with no shame whatsoever – to let an ideological agenda control their presentation. And since they are the filter through which the vast majority of Americans learn about climate change, how can they possibly be surprised that so many of us remain skeptical?