Media’s Goal: Comforting Distressed Liberals
[Guest post by DRJ]
Bradley J. Fikes quotes from an article by Michael S. Malone, who considers what motivates the mainstream media to ignore stories like ClimateGate:
“I’ve puzzled over this for a long time. I don’t entirely buy the argument that it is politics, pure and simple. I think it is more than that: that newspapers and their editors want to give their declining pools of readers what they want to read – and when the news, no matter how juicy, is not just going to be upsetting (that’s usually okay), but challenges their sense of the way the world works, the story has to be spiked, dribbled out carefully, or swathed in more comforting ‘analysis’.”
Bradley has more thoughts at the link on what this means for the legacy media.
So if you are looking for last-minute Christmas gifts, not only are newspapers great for use by conservatives as dog trainers, they also make fine gifts for liberals who need their intellectual Snugglies.
— DRJ
I particularly liked his paleolibs line – and also the continuing idiocy being exemplified by reporters who neither understand this science and/or do not wish to even question it.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/17/2009 @ 2:55 pmLiberals have so much to be distressed about, someone’s gotta do the dirty job of comfortin’ em.
chaos (9c54c6) — 12/17/2009 @ 3:02 pmI may have recently caused a surge of optimism in the circulation department @ the Sacramento Bee. I purchased two fat Sunday editions as my son had to do a paper mache project @ school and I didn’t want to steal a pile of free shoppers.
Old Coot (d2bd0f) — 12/17/2009 @ 3:06 pmHuh…so do the Cleveland papers leave out the NFL scores?
MunDane68 (54a83b) — 12/17/2009 @ 3:18 pmNot last week they sure as hell didn’t…
=(
chaos (9c54c6) — 12/17/2009 @ 3:21 pm=(
=(
Dmac,
Thank you.
And special thanks to DRJ for linking to my post.
Here is a good example of paleolib mythology dismissing Climategate by distraction, claiming it’s just some “elitist emails.” and making fun of Sarah Palin.
Compare that with this post on Climate Audit, and you can see why the alarmists are in trouble. The emails do not survive close scrutiny, and anyone can get them to judge for themselves.
I have read more than half of the emails, and keep finding evidence, amid the outright fraud and deception, that these are not apolitical scientists, interested only in the facts.
From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 12/17/2009 @ 6:27 pm1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions. ..
Your articles are excellent, Bradley. It’s my pleasure to link them.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/17/2009 @ 6:50 pmGlobal warming isn’t a child of science – it’s always been a child of media. They’re not going to abort their child … remember how the dirty socialist whores at NPR did a YEAR LONG propaganda series in the service of climate change fraudulence? That’s a huge investment. And these whores have endless millions more to follow.
Our whore class of journalists know what side their bread is buttered on I think.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:05 pmThe American media has mostly ignored the story of climate change, period, so a scandal within an already-ignored story will also get ignored. The Copenhagen conference is followed by us political junkies, but it has received maybe 5 percent of the coverage of Tiger Woods.
Climate change stories do not drive ratings. If the disasters Gore et al. predict will happen actually do happen, then the media will tune in to cover the carnage. Corporate concerns drive national journalism coverage just like they drive Washington. It might surprise you to know that not everything in the world is a liberal plot. I would think most corporations — including media holdings — are owned or managed by suits with a more conservative world-view. (Look at the stink the Whole Foods guy got himself into with his GOP-like views on health care, which conflicted with many of his crunchy customers. That tool. 🙂 )
If the leftists in the media love the Democrats so much, why did they pursue Clinton-Lewinsky like rabid dogs? Occam’s Razor: It made money. And if Obama should find himself in a personal scandal, he will also wonder where all the media love went, a la Tiger.
Money will always win in the end. That’s the god referred to on the dollar bill, imo.
Myron (998393) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:28 pmyou did not click my link Mr. Myron… the first one
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:29 pmClimate change is the Tiger Woods of modern day media. It has a gilded image everyone knows is a lie, but it makes so much money noone is going to be the first to break it until it crashes into a tree at 2 AM.
Mr. Pink (bb8267) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:30 pmThe only thing missing from your comment Myron was calling the “media” the “corporate media”.
BTW saying the media has ignored climate change is probably one of the most retarded things I have read on the internet. Jesus christ man you ever heard of Earth day or NBC’s green week?
Mr. Pink (bb8267) — 12/17/2009 @ 7:35 pmThe American media has mostly ignored the story of climate change, period,
Head, meet Arse.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:09 pm“The American media has mostly ignored the story of climate change, period,”
Myron – I guess you didn’t watch that same endless parade of prime time specials about the earth burning up that I didn’t watch.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:19 pmMyron must not have looked at any environmental story from the last 20 years. Global warming seems to be blamed for everything.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 12/18/2009 @ 8:01 amThe American media has mostly ignored the story of climate change, period, …
Unbelievable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/18/2009 @ 8:33 amInstead of the popular nickname of “Moron,” I propose we call this thing Lord Haw Haw, in honor of a person who resolutely refuses to see with his eyes nor hear with his ears. Ignorance is bliss with Lord Haw Haw.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/18/2009 @ 8:41 amActually, Myron, the leftists in the media did their best to ignore Clinton-Lewinsky. Newsweek had all the data and spiked it and didn’t run the story. But once it hit the Drudge Report (and this was Drudge’s first megascoop) they were dragged kicking and screaming into covering it.
luagha (5cbe06) — 12/18/2009 @ 11:17 am