Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blogroll
«  
  »

Won’t Anyone Think of the Penguins?

One of the best examples of media bias can be found quite regularly these days, and it’s the issue of “climate change.” I put it in quotes because that’s what they call it this week. Last year, it was global warming. Before that, acid rain. And before that, global cooling. The issue is never ever ever questioned by the media. Any press release from any two-bit organization that has a recylcing symbol as part of its logo is reported, as news, unflinchingly and with no equivocation.

While I do believe that something is going on, we should take better care of the environment, and there’s nothing wrong with being overly cautious, I really hate when some huckster tries to put one over on people.

The story on MSNBC is about the North Pole. There are no penguins there.

Don’t tell MSNBC that, though…

I mean, really. Is that the idea? You have to drive home the point by using footage of the South Pole because there weren’t enough “victims” of “climate change” in the North Pole?

If you want to say people aren’t paying enough attention, or something is going on, cool, but if you want to see why people don’t believe the hysterics and stupidity coming forth from the mouth of climate change advocates, start here. Your case is weakened when you lie.

It’s that simple.

via STACLU

Bookmark and Share
May 5th, 2008 | Category: Liberal Bias
  • The Masked Rye
    Amen to that.
  • Patrick
    Humans are the world's greatest parasite....
  • The Masked Rye
    Right, but my point is we don't know what will actually solve the problem. And you're not really focused if you're bringing in foreign oil, cleaner environment, economy, etc. We could fix our oil issues and our economy issues without even discussing global warming.

    We need someone to direct us, and currently we have mass confusion... headless chickens. And my point is, "we" will not do what needs to be done. "You" might. "I" might. But "we" never will, unless "we" are forced to by the government. Hell, most of us will live with a toothache until it becomes unbearable before we even consider going to the dentist, and then it's only because our wives force us to (or maybe that's just me).

    Human Beings will live with things getting worse. It's in our nature. Now, if you told us that we had 1 week to all get new lightbulbs or the world would explode, we could probably manage to get a good portion of us to comply (of course, not all of us, even with the risk of impending destruction).

    We need a specific goal, a specific timeframe and specific consequences. Without that, it's all just a bunch of hippies making noise. And to me, I understand the need to act, but I can't afford to install solar power, and I can't afford to buy a hybrid (and I've heard the EPA overestimates their fuel efficiency and that battery issues cause significant problems). And I want real problems and real solutions, but the media just wants a story, so we see sad penguins, which as Vin pointed out, do not live at the North Pole.

    People buying hybrid cars are not getting the mileage they were promised, because EPA standards are off, the batteries can have problems, etc. Nuclear power is viable, but no one wants it around. And on top of it all, we can't trust the media to give us the real scoop on this stuff. And I'm too busy sorting my recyclables to research it myself. That's what they get paid for.
  • We're 100% in agreement on that.
  • Patrick
    Really, though, acting to solve the problem, even if we aren't causing it, (although a great majority of scientists and even the Bush administration say we are) could only be a good thing. By acting to solve the problem, we could relax or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, we could enjoy a cleaner environment, and our economy would likely see a long term boost as a new market would be created by the demand for a/the new energy source. There are so many incentives...
  • Just to make the point one more time though, I think the least credible group is the group whose strategy has been to simply deny the existence of a problem and smear those who claim there is one for the past couple of decades.


    I agree. It's one thing to say that the problem and its causes are open for debate and discussion. Denying a problem altogether is downright ridiculous.
  • "How much of that is posturing?"

    I would say an unbearable shit load of it. You're right. If you really care about though, I'd say go straight to the source. Honestly, I haven't watched a network news program in 3 years. As Vinny has just demonstrated, they're garbage. There are plenty of scientific organizations that, while they still have their biases, I would guess give you climate change information in a much purer form.

    Just to make the point one more time though, I think the least credible group is the group whose strategy has been to simply deny the existence of a problem and smear those who claim there is one for the past couple of decades.
  • The Masked Rye
    Oh, I'm a fan of the environment. I enjoy my air, I enjoy normal temperatures, not frying in the sun, I enjoy the plants, animals, bugs, etc. My problem is I don't know what the truth is because everyone's got an agenda. Every study seems funded by oil or peta or whatever. I'm not saying I don't believe in Global Warming, however, I am saying that everywhere you go things are saying "green" this and "green" that. How much of that is posturing? What are the real ramifications of switching to environmentally friendly factories? Why doesn't the government ban the mfg and sale of new gas powered vehicles and the old lightbulbs?

    If the situation is as dire as it's made to seem, then in my opinion, we as a planet need to work overtime to make a dent at all. The problem is, that doesn't work in real world economics. Countries won't take the steps necessary and if we have to rely on individuals, then the world is fucked. Plus, are we able to stop the climate issues, or only postpone them? If we can postpone them 100 or 200 years, ok... if all of these changes are only going to stave things off for another 20, is it really worth the effort (because in the end, unless you force compliance, the majority of people just wont do it)?

    Look, I'm looking to get on board, but I'm not sure where the train is headin'. I do my small part now, but I can't get crazy about it. And for that I blame corporate greed, political posturing, and the media.

    ...oh, and god, for not giving us an instruction manual.
  • Patrick
    Eh...I'm a pretty big fan of the environment. It's done so much for us over the years.

    But I'm confused, Vinny. Is this discussion about media bias or is it about Global Warming?
  • That just means people like Frank Luntz are really good at their jobs. Get enough people to call it "climate change" and everyone is going to do it. The way you frame an issue is important.

    "I don't believe a thing anymore."

    Take heart, buddy. Tomorrow might be a better day.
  • The Masked Rye
    I got fed up with the whole thing once they started changing names. Either it's getting too hot, too cold or the weather is getting screwy. Once they make up their minds, maybe I'll start following things again.

    It's so stupid... every hot day that's not in August, everyone starts saying "Say... global warming is real!" and then when it's cold out all I hear is "Global warming my ass!!!".

    And with this penguin crap, who the hell knows what to believe. I don't believe a thing anymore. I don't try to eat super healthy, I don't go nuts in my house about all that "green" crap. The soon as you do one thing, they tell you it's not as good as you thought. And conservatives blame liberals, liberals blame conservatives. Life has become such a joke, and it seems to be the media's fault.

    When someone finds the instruction manual for life and the planet, I'm in. Until then, it seems to change as the wind blows, so I don't go overboard on anything.
  • Oh yeah, because Air America and NPR are known for following in the conservative marching orders.
  • I'm pretty sure people call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" because of a concerted effort by conservatives to frame it as "climate change". It sounds less menacing that way.
blog comments powered by Disqus