Is this journalism or propagandising?
April 11, 2008
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/an_age_of_warming_bias/
I've said before that The Age will not re****t both sides of the debate
on global warming.
Now The Age's staff confirm they are not allowed to:
In a statement accompanying the resolution, staff said the Earth Hour
partner****p placed basic journalistic principles in jeopardy: "Re****ters
were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a
schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers."
The Age is not re****ting, but propagandising.
What else is it refusing to tell its readers about global warming - or
anything else?
UPDATE
That Age re****ters are encouraged not to tell the full truth about Earth
Hour - or, indeed, global warming - can also be deduced by these emails
from Fairfax bosses, congratulating staff for "promoting" Earth Hour and
asking them to "participate (in) and observe" it.
And the fix is in, as you can tell by a green group directing the Age
editor-in-chief on the placement of stories, evidence of Earth Hour's
"success" being grossly exaggerated or invented, and inconvenient truths
being left unre****ted.
The conclusion isn't just that the Age readers cannot trust their paper
to inform them of the relevant facts about global warming. It's also
that all Age re****ters writing about global warming must - fairly or
unfairly - be considered propagandists until there is evidence that they
are free to re****t all sides of this debate.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"How does a small increase in a very small component [of CO2] have such
a large apparent effect [On Climate]? The truth is that no one has yet
shown that it does." Don Aitkin
|
