One of the key stories of the age, that future historians will puzzle over, perhaps from underground shelters.
What the hell happened to America’s journalism, and the “Free Press”?
Major U.S. newspapers ran front page stories about devastating California wildfires alongside reports on the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly-finalized Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s flagship policy to address climate change. Yet with only one exception, these newspapers’ wildfire articles ignored the documented role that global warming has played in worsening wildfires.
The Los Angeles Times Reported That Unseasonably Early Wildfire Growth Is “The New Normal” — Without Mentioning Why. The Los Angeles Times mentioned that a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection called the state’s unseasonably early wildfires “the new normal,” but the Times did not mention that climate change is driving the conditions that create this “new normal”:With the traditional fire season having only recently begun, the intensity of the Rocky fire, along with other major blazes burning throughout the state, has upended long-held expectations and predictions. The unrelenting drought that has parched the state for the last four years has altered the landscape dramatically.
USA Today Front Page Highlights 21 Large Wildfires Currently Burning In California, Ignores Climate Change. USA Today reported that one wildfire “has destroyed at least 24 homes and threatens another 6,300,” adding that there are currently “21 large wildfires burning statewide.” The article, which made no mention of climate change, included this infographic showing the vast extent of current wildfires in the West:
But it doesn’t have to be this way –
NY Times Featured Climate Change Connection Prominently In Wildfire Story. The New York Times‘ August 2 front page article featured an image of California’s wildfires on the top fold, as part of a report on how drought and heat are leading to worsening wildfires in the West and other places across the globe. The Times interviewed Peter J. Goldmark, Washington’s commissioner of public lands, who noted: “Our fire season started a month ahead, our crops matured weeks ahead and the dry weather we usually get in August, we’ve had since May … By heavens, if this isn’t a sign of climate change, then what is climate change going to bring?” The Times continued:
The entire region is under duress. It has been so dry for so long that federal officials have warned about the potential for more catastrophe in the months ahead, as drought and climate change push high temperatures higher, drying already-arid lands.
[…]
According to findings by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. Already, 2015 is challenging 2014 for the No. 1 spot on that list.
“It’s like a bank account you can’t balance,” said A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades, N.Y., who has studied the effects of climate change in living organisms. “You deposit moisture, but so much of it is withdrawn through heat and evaporation there just isn’t enough to meet the demand.”
Scientists have spoken of “climatological extremes” as the new normal, a trend underlined by this year’s El Niño pattern, which brought extraordinary rainfall to the Southwest, causing deadly floods in Texas while wiping out short-term drought conditions in eastern New Mexico. [The New York Times, 8/2/15]
Below this front page story was its report on the Clean Power Plan, which the Times noted will “sharply cut planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s power plants and ultimately transform America’s electricity industry.” The article also included President Obama’s quote: “Climate change is not a problem for another generation, not anymore.” [The New York Times, 8/2/15 via front pages, 8/2/15]
Reports: Media Rarely Connect California Wildfires To Climate Change. Previous Media Matters analyses have found that local and national media coverage largely overlooked the role of global warming in California’s wildfires. For example, California newspapers mentioned climate change in only 11 percent of their stories during a three month period in 2014, and only seven percent of their stories during a similar timeframe in 2013. And in 2013, major nationally-circulated newspapers mentioned climate change in just nine percent of their wildfire coverage, while national television outlets mentioned climate change in just four percent of their wildfire coverage.
Who owns those newspapers and TV stations that are not making the connection between wildfires and AGW? Are they tied to the fossil fuel interests and the corporations/plutocracy? Are they just doing their master’s bidding?
Car companies advertize, so do the fossil fuel companies. Plastic companies advertise too.
None of them want to have their sales impacted. The story choice reflects that. It’s not like there’s an independent media anymore. I think it’s 5 or 6 companies that own all of the major media in the USA, in other nations that number is lower. Our local papers used to be owned by two companies, now they’re all owned by one company – along with all the other large papers in Canada. (there might be a few independent papers now, but not where I live)
There’s a reason that the anti-war crowds aren’t covered as much as the pro-war crowds too. The companies that own the media also own the MIC.
You’re kidding, right? The same MSM that can’t bring itself to criticize President Obama on numerous social issues or even bring itself to mention the party of congresspeoples when Democrats are caught in some scandal, but are only too quick to label ’em Republicans when that label applies?
Meanwhile: “Ross Gelbspan: It’s truly incredible how the mainstream outlets (at least on TV) have ignored any significant mention of the impacts that are sprouting all around us.” https://www.facebook.com/ross.gelbspan/posts/10207477716128234?comment_id=10207479653016655
The man is clearly oblivious to reports out of the PBS News”climate-change-is-our-middle-name”Hour which by my detailed record keeping just crossed over the 500th time (going back to 1996) in which they specifically discussed global warming or mentioned it in significant way, without a solitary mention of any semblance of science points from the skeptic side of the issue.
Or else he knows full well about the NewsHour’s bias…. and just doesn’t want it to spoil his narrative. And when exactly have we seen any of the other alphabet commercial news outlets give runaway fair balance to skeptics? Hmmmmm?
Luv, “d.o.g.” above, his 911Truther/ChemTrail believer-style conspiracy thinking is a gift that keeps on giving.
The Whore for Heartland is back, glibly spouting his BS and hoping folks will be gullible enough to suck any of it up. No, Russell, I’m not kidding, and it’s nice to see you trying the same old right wing-nut trick and trying to get people to believe that the MSM is “liberal” and “left wing”. Russell obviously didn’t even read this post, which makes it pretty clear that the MSM is NOT behaving as the “lefty” AGW proponents would like, and is therefore NOT “liberal”—-it is in the pockets of the conservatives, corporations, and fossil fuel interests, and is trying to downplay the AGW connection, just as I said.
YOU are the one that is “clearly oblivious”—–to the fact that NOT ONE of us gives a rat’s ass about your continuous babbling about Ross Gelbspan. Nor will you ever get any agreement from us that ANY news program should give equal time to deniers and whores like you. We value science and facts, not the lying denier BS you are paid to peddle.
Actually, Russell, YOU are the one who is a kindred spirit with the looney-tune “911Truther/ChemTrail believer-style conspiracy thinkers”. The Gelbspan Files is nothing but a tired conspiracy site, and it’s laughable that you try to project your nuttiness on me.
Glad to have helped you earn your whore’s dollar yet again. The fools at Heartland will continue to pay you for whatever crap you post—nice that they have all that Koch and ExxonMobil money to burn.
(And please stop giving yourself a “thumbs up” when you post a comment and giving a “thumbs down” to anyone with a brain—-it’s pretty obvious that you’re doing it, since it’s the only thumbs up you ever get here, and the thumbs down is the only one the rest of us get).
Funny you stick to your claim in the face of the formerly fair-and-balanced MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour all but turning into the equivalent of the Mother Jones NewsHour, along with being totally unable to rise to the occasion of pointing to an abundance of instances where your beloved MSM bent over backwards to give fair balance to skeptic climate scientists’ highly detailed reports.
In case you never caught it, the “reporters shouldn’t give fair balance to crooked skeptic scientists over the settled science of man-caused global warming” is probably one of the most brilliant propaganda tactics ever invented. Who was the first to push it, and who pushed it to successfully that you-all regurgitate it without question? http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1886
“… Gelbspan Files is nothing but a tired conspiracy site …” Really? I have little doubt Peter Sinclair would gladly allow you to guest post an entire piece on all the ‘lies’ and ‘obvious misinformation’ I spew there. Problem is, after all this time of visiting with you here, you have yet to come up with one example of that. One point of particular amusement for me is that “…. and on page 269 of Merchants of Doubt, there is a spelling error that invalidates….” line you felt compelled to bless us with. Pulled that page number out of thin air, did you? Ironically, look what her last paragraph on that page says. Then read my linked piece above. And this one, too, while you are at it, written years before you ever heard of me: http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/
The irony of it all, you fixate on ‘thumbs’ voting are enslaved to lampooning me with fake outrage while literally being unable to dispute a word I say on the sheer baselessness of every angle of the smear of skeptic scientists. That just eats you alive, doesn’t it?
Think positive, friend, the mounting piles of doubt in your mind on all the political rhetoric you’ve received over the years can be put to good use. Try some critical thinking for a change, ask yourself why your heroes’ narratives never line up right. Embrace the “Helen Keller/Barry Goldwater” moment when it comes, a new world will open up for you when you realize what it means to fully comprehend a situation you’ve missed this whole time.
Here’s Russell, practicing the use of florid prose. Perhaps he thinks floridity can substitute for the lack of substance and distortions of truth that characterize his endlessly repeating loop of paid denier BS?
He actually thinks that anyone should point out “instances where the MSM bent over backwards to give fair balance to skeptic climate scientists’ highly detailed reports”? Why? First, the “skeptic climate scientists” he speaks of are not scientists but DENIERS who lie about the science. Second, we hope the MSM at least tries to avoid giving support to lies and untruths, and therefore must ask why liars should be given “fair balance”? That would be equivalent to giving bank robbers “fair and balanced” access to the money in one’s bank account.
Russell says—– “reporters shouldn’t give fair balance to crooked skeptic scientists over the settled science of man-caused global warming” is probably one of the most brilliant propaganda tactics ever invented”. Since when is telling the truth and exposing lies a “propaganda tactic”, Russell? Are the Ten Commandments a propaganda tactic? .
“… Gelbspan Files is nothing but a tired conspiracy site …” Yes, it REALLY is! I’m sure Peter would be glad to let me post an entire piece on all the ‘lies’ and ‘obvious misinformation’ you spew there. I wouldn’t waste the time, and as I have said, spending too much time on your site is damaging to one’s intelligence and mental health.
What amazes me is that you keep posting links to the crap on your site and inviting people to view your stupidity. Anyone who reads what you post there will find that you put up reams of information that actually support AGW just so that you can point to an occasional and obscure “page 269” that you think makes some kind of point in your favor. NOT a very smart tactic, Russell, but then you ARE just a guy who walked in off the street and knows no science, so you’re unaware of how often you shoot yourself in the foot in the G-files. (And when will you ever get the “page 269” joke? I pulled that number out of thin air simply to mock you, and even made sure it had the juvenile “69” in there so that folks would know. All Crockers know that, why don’t you?)
The real irony of our exchanges is that you are unable to break away from the rigid little fable that you have constructed and just keep playing THE.SAME.ONE.NOTE.TUNE. You keep insisting that you “live in my mind rent-free” and that I am “unable to dispute your BS” and that “just eats me alive”. Yep, you ARE a denier, Russell. Keep acting like a denier and repeating all that until it magically becomes true, but don’t ever expect me to waste any time beyond “lampooning” you for laughs and pointing out your logic fails.
The floridity, cluelessness, and utter mindlessness of your closing paragraph is stunning. I can’t find the words to respond, except to say that your pimps at Heartland will likely be impressed with it, unlike those of us at Crock—-we have brains, your pimps don’t..
PS I’m still waiting to hear why you are on the addressee list of Fred Singer’s damning emails as exposed by desmogblog. Are you going to answer my question of ignore it, as you have on the MANY occasions I’ve attempted to get you to talk about Arctic sea ice decline? You are All Hat, No Cattle, Russell (although you ARE good with the “cattle manure”)
You guys need to lighten up a bit. Can’t blame me for giving this post a “thumbs up”, can you? One of my Twitter followers has it as an avatar, so I had to find one for ya:
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/4/6241773_18d6d28b59.jpg
Go away, Russell. You waste our time with your attempts at humor. You are one of the UN-funniest people ever to visit Crock.
Joe Romm echoing similar concerns on the the New York Times and their glowing profile of the Koch Brothers.
Recently the usually unbiased Independent featured the “Ice age is coming” recycle of the solar minimum .. Wish they would educate their reporters better . . .
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/04/3686673/new-york-times-gullible-puff-piece-on-kochs/
More Joe Romm and “seriously New York Times” on Obama’s Clean Power Plan..
“At one time, the New York Times was considered the pinnacle of “serious” journalism, the “paper of record.” But consider their Politico-style analysis of Obama’s Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants — a plan that he was legally obligated to put forward, a plan that is objectively the bare minimum the United States can do in the global fight to prevent catastrophic climate change from ruining the lives of billions of people for decades and centuries to come.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/03/3687289/worst-media-response-epa-clean-power-plan/
A story about government climate change action sharing the front page with a story about a particularly destructive wildfire, in its subtlety, might more effectively nudge people’s awareness up a notch. Those publications do write articles linking record breaking wildfire seasons and climate.
Google “los angeles times wild fires climate change”
Google “washington post wildfires climate change”
Google “usa today wildfires climate change”
Google “wall street journal wildfires climate change” (oops, never mind)
Excellent Washington Post reporting on the grim future of wildfire fighting today, even those from the vocal minority who deny any change is taking place should take note of . . . .
There are (not so hidden anymore) social costs in continued venting of carbon from fossil fuels . . . . . .
“With a warming climate, fire seasons are now on average 78 days longer than in 1970,” the document reads. “The U.S. burns twice as many acres as three decades ago and Forest Service scientists believe the acreage burned may double again by mid-century.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/04/u-s-forest-service-says-two-thirds-of-its-budget-could-go-to-fighting-wildfires-by-2025/