Guess how accurately cable news networks cover climate change?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Apr 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

    For some of us, this is just more confirmation of things we already know: CNN's credibility suffers because in their attempts at "fairness" they host cranks as well as experts; Fox leans heavily towards ignorance; and MSNBC gets their facts straight more often than others, though they also sometimes go overboard.

    But I bring this up because in discussions, whether here or elsewhere, there's always one guy who says something like, "All the networks are the same," or "Fox is the only fair and accurate news source." Might wanna point them towards this study, then.

    That is, if they believe scientists....

    And I do have to say, the one surprise here is that one show on Fox, The Five, seems to account for so much of the climate ignorance on that channel. Never seen it, but that must be some show. :rolleyes:
     
  2. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #2
    Because they cover it more doesn't make it more accurate. Everyone of those numbers should have a link to a scientific study.

    You posted some facts of coverage then converted citation to an opinion about how you hate fox. You then ended your opinion with a specific fox segment... "The Five".

    I can make a news website that posts 50 climate change articles a day, either for or against it. This would increase the amount of climate change coverage for my site but does not provide anything meaningful.
     
  3. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #3
    I saw a little bit of The Five one time. Five people sitting around a table ranting. At the end of the show, if you watch closely, you see someone come in will a big towel to wipe all the drool off the table.
     
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    The facts clearly state that MSNBC offered the best coverage.
     
  5. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    If you read even the brief part I quoted correctly, you'll see that they not only quantified the coverage, but described what percentage that was accurate. By all means, if you wish, ask them to cite specific facts and studies that support that accuracy, if you suspect they're cooking the books.

    And in point of fact I do thoroughly distrust Fox, with good reason. It's not as if this is the only study that has faulted Fox's journalistic credibility. And don't take it so personally. I dinged CNN as well, and I'm not so stupid as to think MSNBC is perfect.
     
  6. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #6
    So a group of left leaning liberal scientist think MSNBC is doing a great job at pushing their agenda forward. I'm shocked. :eek:
     
  7. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #7
    What is a "liberal scientist?" Science is based in fact, evidence and research, not political ideologies.

    P-Worm
     
  8. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #8
    I'm so sorry that reality doesn't conform to your political worldview.
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    Have you seen their mission statement ...?

    I don't think you can get much more liberal than that.

    ;)
     
  10. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #10
    Neil deGrasse Tyson defines scientists thusly:

    Nothing particularly liberal about that.
     
  11. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #11
    Good scientists = those that give us new abilities and freedoms
    Bad scientists = those that take away abilities and freedoms
     
  12. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #12
    Haha, what? Science is the pursuit of truth. Whether truth ends up taking away freedoms or not has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. A good scientist is one that pursues truth where ever it may be and finds it.

    P-Worm
     
  13. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #13
    Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't speaking of scientists, I was speaking of the perception of scientists. See global warming debate for examples.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    As others have noted, the study includes the quality of coverage as well as the quantity of coverage. Please read the study.

    Yep, scientists tell us that we can covert steam into electricity, they're heroes of the modern age.

    Scientists tell us that burning gigatons of carbon is affecting our atmosphere, they're purveyors of an agenda.
     
  15. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #15
    The truth does tend to have a liberal bias, most of the time.
     
  16. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #16
    Those are words that should never be put together by any responsible news organization. Unless new evidence appears to the contrary, the debate is over. Calling it a debate merely lends false dignity to those stubborn persons who'd rather cling to their ignorance rather than face an, er, inconvenient truth.

    I might add, the word "debate" should also not be paired with vaccinations or evolution. Those believers need to be consigned to the fringes where they belong.

    Remember the Scripps news organization's motto? "Give light, and the people will find their own way." Today's problem is that the media generate heat, not light. And it's making our nation dumber.
     
  17. tshrimp, Apr 9, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014

    tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #17
    This is a website that consists of a group of scientists that support the theory of Global Warming (Now climate change). I would doubt their "experts" were unbiased in their observations of each news source.

    See link below

    http://www.ucsusa.org/about/

    ----------

    We are seeing a cooling trend, so the story had to be changed to global climate change.

    My favorite story yet was the boats that went to see the melting of the polar ice caps getting caught in the ice. You have to admit this was ironically funny.

    Also found this that was funny.

    http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

    All these scientists we trust said that the Arctic ice cap would be gone by summer 2013...yet it has grown. Hmmmm. Just baffling.
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18


    There's no evidence of bias from your obvious ad hominem.

    There's as much fiction in this sentence as there is in The Hobbit.

    Ironic, I agree. Though, it doesn't prove your above point at all.
     
  19. Thomas Veil, Apr 9, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014

    Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    It's no longer considered just a theory if 99.5% of experts accept the research, methodology, and results.

    This appears to be a popular meme now among junk science/right wing websites. Skepticalscience explains it a lot differently.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. citizenzen, Apr 9, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    It's actually both.

    ----------

    Could you source that?

    I have the feeling it's not quite as simple as you think.

    Never mind. I found it ...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

    Huh. It might be as simple as you think.

    I'm going to do a little more digging.

    See what I find.

    ...

    Reporting back ...

    It looks like you were right.

    It was a projection that didn't turn out as expected.

    What do you think that tells us?
     
  21. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #21
    Would you mind providing a link from a neutral source that shows 99.5 % of scientist believe in global warming caused by human intervention. I actually believe there is climate change, I just happen to find in my research that it has been occurring way before we humans were putting the beat down on the environment. I don't doubt climate goes in cycles. I am not sure how old you are, but I still remember way back when all the scientist touting global cooling and we would be extinct by now :). Was popular on the news, newspapers, and magazines. And we were all worried about the next ice age. This might also be where some of my skepticism comes from.
     
  22. lannister80, Apr 10, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014

    lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
  23. tshrimp, Apr 10, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014

    tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #23
    Thanks lannister80, I enjoyed your first link.

    So what differentiates the "experts" Al Gore refers to here to the ones in your link, and other links I have seen in the past? According to the "experts" Al Gore referred to we should no longer have any polar ice caps, yet they have grown as we see here?

    Kind of a side question...

    Even though I think we have minimal impact does not mean I think we should be flippant. With that said does anyone know of a good gas mileage SUV (or truck)? I think Ford made one that got like 30MPG in the past, and was wondering if there is something affordable that any of you guys know of, or better yet owned yourselves?

    Edit: When I say SUV, I am not referring to something like a RAV 4 (mini SUV), but a midsize or large SUV. (More on the large size). Might not be the place for a post like this, but since so many here subscribe to Global Warming I figure you all must have researched and owned more of the higher gas mileage vehicles.
     
  24. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #24
    I honestly don't know. I'll have to do some research.


    I have an online Consumer Reports subscription, I can check for you. Are you looking at new models only?
     
  25. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #25
    Looking around, I see a Ford Ranger in UK that can get around 28MPG combined (I converted that from the 35mpg number they report, which is based on 5-quart gallons). It is diesel, though. They do some pretty good stuff with diesel vehicles in Europe, stuff you cannot obtain easily in the US.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page