Log in | Jump |

CEJournal

News & Perspective from the Center for Environmental Journalism
This item was posted on January 9, 2011, and it was categorized as Climate Change, Keith Kloor, climate change coverage.
You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

Keith Kloor has put together a terrific post at his Collide-a-Scape blog consisting almost entirely of comments by readers of blogs on opposite sides of the climate change wars. Despite their bitter differences on climate, they seem to agree on one thing: utter disdain for the news media.

This is in keeping with some of the things I’ve been saying here at CEJournal lately. So here is a little taste of Keith’s post:

It turns out that readers at popular climate blogs on opposite ends of the spectrum have similar complaints about the media.

From a commenter at WUWT:

The LA Times has been a socialist rag, suitable mostly for lining the bottom of a parrot’s cage, for decades. When their marketers used to call to ask me to subscribe, I’d just tell them, “I don’t need the Times; I subscribe to Pravda and get everything a day earlier, including your editorials!”

From a commenter at Climate Progress:

Our mainstream media is clearly hopeless…for whatever reasons- mostly money, of course- our major media outlets are staffed by hopeless whores, beyond contempt and incapable of communicating facts that are central to the public interest.

From  a commenter at WUWT:

Why should we be surprised that the ‘journalists’ at the NYT do not understand basic physics or science?
They believe in climate apocalypse, after all.

From a commenter at Climate Progress:

We’re in big trouble if the nation’s best newspaper [NYT] is scientifically illiterate, with the Washington Post, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune no better.

There’s much more over at Keith’s blog, so click here now and head on over.

Share
This item was posted by .


You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

This thing has 2 Comments

  1. Steve Bloom
    Posted January 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Charlie Petit really nailed it in endorsing one of your recent posts:

    “(…) the volatile, astoundingly well-informed Joe Romm on the left who goes off like a Nile crocodile snatching wading gnus on everybody who displays the slightest inclination to give contrarians any slack, and the astoundingly well informed, and gifted as a writer, yet (to me, just an opinion here as I hear he’s quite charming) pigheaded Anthony Watts on the smug and immobile right.”

    Forty years in science journalism and Charlie Petit actually thinks the solar nut Watts is astoundingly well informed, just as much as Joe Romm? There’s your problem, Tom. You don’t do much if any of this sort of thing, but it’s stock-in-trade for Keith and to a lesser extenbt Andy, and they being your friends and you being a nice guy you can’t admit it. All I can do is think of Okrent’s Law and giggle a bit, however cynically. (Actually I don’t think Charlie believes any such thing, but the point is that he wrote it anyway as part of an exercise, however tongue in cheek in terms of the phrasing, as part of a very real effort to convey to readers that Romm and Watts are equivalent.)

    Also, don’t you think the timing of Keith’s piece is a little ironic given the current larger-scale effort (including at the NYT) to tag the left and right with equal responsibility for the AZ shooting. (Reality to Matt Bai: The phrase “dead to me” carries no implication of actual death or even violence, in rather sharp contrast to putting someone in a rifle sight. But of course the vaunted NYT fact checkers knew that and it ran anyway since it supported the desired meme.)

  2. Steve Bloom
    Posted January 9, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Oops, there should have been an unblock tag after the quoted paragraph.

Comments are currently closed