No issue better illustrates the re-definition of objective journalism to mean "balanced journalism" -- journalism that presents both sides of an argument without challenging the rational basis of either -- than global warming. And none better reveals the real damage done by abandoning the search for objective truth.
Since taking office, the Bush administration and its propaganda troops have defended their irresponsible denial of the dangers of global warming by saying "the science is not definitive." They have been able to confuse the public about the relationship between the regulation -- rather, the lack of regulation -- of man-made toxic emissions and their negative effects on the earth's atmosphere, primarily through manipulation of the media's inclination toward "balance" over truth.
Read this column from the June 1, 2004 Boston Globe, an attack on the film "The Day After Tomorrow" and its depiction of catastrophic climate change due to global warming. The author is identified as James M. Taylor, editor of Environment & Climate News. The implication is that Mr. Taylor is an expert (read scientific expert) on environmental and climate issues. But who is Mr. Taylor, really? Read his own bio from the website of his employer, The Heartland Institute. Mr. Taylor is no scientist -- he's a lawyer and professional propagandist for the right.
Why did the Globe run this column? They must have felt the obligation to run a dissenting view from that conveyed by the film, in order to seek some balance in the messages and perspectives its readers were seeing and hearing. In doing so, they abandoned all sense of objective value of that perspective -- they gave a platform to a statement from someone who had no scientific standing.
They gave the standard of false balance primacy over truth. And this dynamic has been repeated again and again and again for years, in newspapers and over the airwaves, confusing the public about the level of danger that truly exists, and how our government's refusal to exert greater regulatory controls is endangering the future of humanity. (For the truth about what science says about global warming, read this summary from Science Magazine.)
What would a real commitment to objectivity mean? It doesn't mean that the Globe should run statements from the propagandists on either side of the political spectrum on the issue. It means the Globe should have investigated the science and told its readers, "To the best of our ability to understand, this is the scientific truth about global warming." That is the responsibility of a journalist -- find out the truth, and tell it.
Since taking office, the Bush administration and its propaganda troops have defended their irresponsible denial of the dangers of global warming by saying "the science is not definitive." They have been able to confuse the public about the relationship between the regulation -- rather, the lack of regulation -- of man-made toxic emissions and their negative effects on the earth's atmosphere, primarily through manipulation of the media's inclination toward "balance" over truth.
Read this column from the June 1, 2004 Boston Globe, an attack on the film "The Day After Tomorrow" and its depiction of catastrophic climate change due to global warming. The author is identified as James M. Taylor, editor of Environment & Climate News. The implication is that Mr. Taylor is an expert (read scientific expert) on environmental and climate issues. But who is Mr. Taylor, really? Read his own bio from the website of his employer, The Heartland Institute. Mr. Taylor is no scientist -- he's a lawyer and professional propagandist for the right.
Why did the Globe run this column? They must have felt the obligation to run a dissenting view from that conveyed by the film, in order to seek some balance in the messages and perspectives its readers were seeing and hearing. In doing so, they abandoned all sense of objective value of that perspective -- they gave a platform to a statement from someone who had no scientific standing.
They gave the standard of false balance primacy over truth. And this dynamic has been repeated again and again and again for years, in newspapers and over the airwaves, confusing the public about the level of danger that truly exists, and how our government's refusal to exert greater regulatory controls is endangering the future of humanity. (For the truth about what science says about global warming, read this summary from Science Magazine.)
What would a real commitment to objectivity mean? It doesn't mean that the Globe should run statements from the propagandists on either side of the political spectrum on the issue. It means the Globe should have investigated the science and told its readers, "To the best of our ability to understand, this is the scientific truth about global warming." That is the responsibility of a journalist -- find out the truth, and tell it.
posted by Tom at 9:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home