Spot Journalistic Bias and Manipulation (was Media Bias)

[Danoff]

I thought it might be fun to have a thread didcated to posting and debunking media bias. When you see an article that's supposed to be reporting fact and you see bias, post it here and explain why it's biased. Maybe you want to pick on Fox News, Al Jazeera, or the BBC. I'll start with CNN.

House repeals 'Big Oil' tax breaks
It also boosts royalty payments for drilling to $14 billion over 10 years, capping the Democrat's '100 hour agenda.'
January 18 2007: 6:49 PM EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The new Democratic-led House Thursday passed legislation aimed at "Big Oil" that would roll back some industry tax breaks and force energy companies to pay more drilling royalties, valued at $14 billion over 10 years.

Passage of the bill by a vote of 264-163 capped House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 100-hour agenda, which also included measures to raise the minimum wage, lower student loan interest rates and bolster homeland security.

The $14 billion raised from the additional royalties and repealed tax breaks would fund research for renewable energy sources. The measure still must be approved by the Senate and the president before it becomes law.

Going after major integrated U.S. oil firms like Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips has been a top priority for the House Democratic leadership, which says they have earned record profits at the expense of U.S. motorists paying high gasoline prices.
Oil dips below $50

"The oil and gas industry is extraordinarily well established and well off," said House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer. "It does not need the American taxpayer's help to be successful or to make a dollar."

About half of the bill's savings comes from eliminating a lower tax rate on oil companies, which will bring in about $6.5 billion from 2007 to 2016, according to a congressional estimate. The lower tax rate had been given to all U.S. manufacturers in 2004, including oil companies.
Gas prices may near $2 by February

The rest of money would come from a "conservation fee" on oil and gas production that the bill would impose on energy companies that refused to renegotiate faulty leases signed in 1998-99, which would raise about $7.6 billion.

Now, first of all I should point out that this article has been severely edited since I first saw it on CNN. Quite a bit of bias has actually been removed, but they didn't get it all.

The headline starts out by saying that "Big Oil" tax breaks are being repealed. By the time we get to the end of the article in the fine print we see that actually the tax break is on all US manufacturers, not just "Big Oil". One of the things that was removed from this article was actually one of the more useful pieces of information that we don't get here... context.

Apparently the tax reduction for US manufacturers was to help them compete with foreign manufacturers. Also included in the earlier article was a discussion of how the "faulty" leases were completely legal. The "fault" that lawmakers have with these leases is that they don't require as many royalties to be paid to the US government for oil revenues as are currently required.

We get opinion from the democrats "Oil companies are rich, they don't need help". Meanwhile we don't get any opinion from the actual companies that will be affected, or opposing views in congress.

We get another very carefully worded fact, that Oil companies "have earned record profits at the expense of U.S. motorists paying high gasoline prices". This "fact" is meant to make Oil companies look mean and greedy to help make it ok for congress to take those profits.

What I really hate about this story is the lack of any analysis. We get no interviews with economists to figure out whether this will actually affect the profit margins of companies or will just raise our prices locally. We get no history behind the tax breaks provided to US manufacturers "which ones? how many? why?". We get no discussion (at least, not in this version) about how this affects domestic oil competition with foreign oil.

We also get phrases like "raise money" referring to the legislation, instead of what it actually does which is "take money". It also says that this money is raised from the "Big Oil" companies instead of discussing how those costs can be passed along to the consumer.

Interesting way to spin a tax hike on oil if you ask me. So how about it? Got a "news" story full of bias?

 

[Tornado]

A thing about the title: I don't think the title having bias counts. The title of articles is usually more for grabbing you attention than presenting bias, and I feel it is the same in this case.

 

[Duke]

Any article ever presented in any popular newspaper or news magazine on the topic of personal tax reductions (income, CG, or inheritance) will show severe media bias against Republicans.

 

[Danoff]

Chairman: Bush officials misled public on global warming
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

...and the white house denied the allegations... oh wait that part isn't indicated. I like the use of "chariman" instead of "democrats" here too - that helps lend credibility to the claim.

The article continues...

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman said.

What documents? No clue. Are they appropriate documents to seek? No clue. Why were these documents recorded, what information do they have, what else might be on them? Got me. But the claim is that documents exist. It all sounds very credible... a chairman claimed that documents exist proving his accusation that Bush officials are trying to cover up global warming (which we all know the media is having trouble getting the word out about).

Administration officials were not scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change.

What's this now? The white house has been tampering with climate change reports? When? Which ones? What was changed? What permitted that kind of censorship? We get nothing.

We get nothing because there is nothing (or it would be a story in-and-of itself). We get no follow up because this statement is merely intended to back up the "chairman's" accusation that the White house is trying to cover up the truth about global warming (which we all know would be very clear if it weren't for the government's cover-ups).

Present Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Waxman said his committee had not received documents it requested from the White House and other agencies, and that a handful of papers received on the eve of the hearing "add nothing to our inquiry."

...and this adds nothing to our story. Oh, juicy part coming up. The proof!!

Two private advocacy groups, meanwhile, presented to the panel a survey of government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
Survey: Scientists pressured to downplay threat

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

Ok let me get this straight, 40% of the climate scientists surveyed said their scienfitic papers had been edited in some way that changed their meaning? Edited by who? Their supervisor? Changed the meaning how? To make it look like global warming is MORE or LESS serious a threat? We get no info. Only that 50% of the people (could be a different 50%) had to delete references to "global warming" or "climate change" at some point. Who told them to do this? Journal peer review? Sponsors? Was there good reason for the deletes? Perhaps half of them attempted to draw a link to global warming where one was not justified? Were ALL of the references asked to be deleted? Or only the ones that were most weakly substantiated? We get nothing. All we get is enough to implicate that the censoring body is, in fact, the White house, and that the censorship is in such a way as to hide the truth about global warming from Americans.

...and what are these "advocacy groups". Ah that's next.

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group. The report also was based on "firsthand experiences" described in interviews with the Government Accountability Project, which helps government whistleblowers, lawmakers were told.

Oh well, in that case it must have been a fantastic questionnaire, not biased in any way. The information in this paragraph is certainly enough to assuage any doubts that I had about legitimacy of this questionnaire. Clearly the questionnair shows that president Bush is censoring the scientific community... or is that not supposed to be the conclusion I come to here.

At the same time, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, sought to gauge her colleague's sentiment on climate change. She opened a meeting where senators were to express their views on global warming in advance of a broader set of hearings on the issue.

Ah, the democrats are the ones who want to give you all the information. Not like the republicans who only want to cover up global warming to prevent you from knowing about it. That's why you almost never hear the news report the latest most alarmist, extreme figures in every "scientific" report that comes out.

Among those scheduled to make comments were two presidential hopefuls -- Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois. Both lawmakers favor mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, something opposed by President Bush, who argues such requirements would threaten economic growth. (Watch why the president has proposed his own global warming initiative Video)

Mean-old Bush, worried about jobs and the economy.

U.N. climate change report expected soon

The intense interest about climate change comes as some 500 climate scientists gather in Paris this week to put the final touches on a United Nations report on how warming, as a result of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, is likely to affect sea levels. (Watch how global warming my be changing Asia' climate Video)

They agree sea levels will rise, but not on how much. Whatever the report says when it comes out at week's end, it is likely to influence the climate debate in Congress.

At the Waxman hearing, the two advocacy groups said their research -- based on the questionnaires, interviews and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act -- revealed "evidence of widespread interference in climate science in federal agencies."

...and clearly we should trust this accusation, because CNN deems it credible enough to report.

The groups report described largely anonymous claims by scientists that their findings at times at been misrepresented, that they had been pressured to change findings and had been restricted on what they were allowed to say publicly.

A scientist who thinks his findings have been misrepresented??? SHOCK!!! NO!!! The world is ending!!! Oh wait, CNN does that all the time. In fact, they've misrepresented survey findings right here in this story.

I also can't believe that anyone would restrict what scientists were allowed to say publicly... that's absolutely amazing to me. That their company could have some rules for press release is just astounding. It's not like every single freaking company or sponsoring organization does that.

The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department's of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at least some of their time on climate issues, the report said.

Hmmm... I wonder if NASA has any guidelines for what scientists can say to the press.... oh wait, they do. Imagine that. And they're not imposed by the white house? How can that be?


Disgusting. I can't believe this kind of nonsense passes as "journalism".

 

[Solid Fro]

I had my friend over earlier today to show off her new laptop with a Pentium T2060 and Vista pre-installed. The kitchen TV had NBC's Nightly News on and we could hear it from the living room. Brian Williams was preaching "global warming". He was implying that Humans are the cause of "global warming" and that is just not factually true. I had to explain to my friend that there is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise. I also explained that CO2 is a naturally accruing gas and not pollution and I ran down the list of cleaner burning fuels such as Ethanol, Bio-Diesel, and eventually Hydrogen.

Why must I educate when the news anchor fails to inform?

http://newsbusters.org/node/10559
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070202.asp#1

 

[Omnis]

I don't even have to begin to talk about the Boston "Bomb" Fiasco...

I wish I could post our local news stations' reports. They're horrible. All they show on TV is who got killed, what caught fire, what celeb is wiping their ass today, and what's going on in south beach or what party is where. To think they cover stupid crap like this, and STILL fail at delivering good reports and performing good journalism on the subject... It's bad.

It makes me sick to read your findings, Danoff. It's sad that even the assosciated press can't be trusted these days. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. From now on, I'll look more carefully for media bias and try to make others more aware of it as well. 👍 +rep.

 

[FoolKiller]

I wish I could post our local news stations' reports. They're horrible. All they show on TV is who got killed, what caught fire, what celeb is wiping their ass today, and what's going on in south beach or what party is where. To think they cover stupid crap like this, and STILL fail at delivering good reports and performing good journalism on the subject... It's bad.

1) You forgot pre-packaged product "news" that is basically advertisements in disguise.

2) It isn't just your local news. You should try doing my job (media research). I have to watch stuff from all over the country and sometimes I swear they are sharing scripts.

 

[Talentless]

1) You forgot pre-packaged product "news" that is basically advertisements in disguise.

2) It isn't just your local news. You should try doing my job (media research). I have to watch stuff from all over the country and sometimes I swear they are sharing scripts.

Script sharing, huh? I wonder how many people screaming about the inferiority of domestic vs. international media know many of the international ones use the same wire services as the domestics, and that both presentations of said wires are often essentially the same.

 

[Omnis]

Ah, I was wondering where this thread went.

So, I have a new one: Ron Paul.

If you haven't been following the presidential race, there is an insane amount of media bias towards Congressman Paul. Fox thinks his support is a joke. They think the internet doesn't matter. That their own polls don't matter. Anyway, I was watching George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning when he had interviewed both Gravel and Paul. The segment was "Longshots". He concluded both of the interviews with Gravel and Paul by saying, "You're not going to win," like a smug asshole. Now I know that ABC joined the bias-squad.

Here is another example, this time from CNN and the assclown known as Ben Ferguson.



I also think the media is using Giuliani's ignorant cop-out "rebuttal" as a tool to advance his neo-con agenda. I wish the media would hire more intelligent people like Roland who you will see in the clip. My problem is that Ben is trying to push ignorance on the viewer and Paula is cutting off the actual intelligent discussion. Giving the final word to someone like Ben is completely biased; Roland wasn't even given the chance to rip Ben's "thoughts" to shreds.

I'm sorry if this sounds like more Ron Paul propaganda, but it's the best example of media bias I can clearly see at this point. He just won the New Hampshire straw poll, yet big media is still writing him off. Bah!

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, you have to give Paula Zahn credit, while she did give Ben Ferguson the last word the question she asked him was to explain he he can possibly sit there and deny that American foreign policy doesn't play a role.

Unfortunately the story was basically handled as a "look at the crazy guy" segment.




On Ben Ferguson: He's an idiot and in his final word he did basically admit the policy does play a role by saying he won't play nice to keep from making them angry. Maybe they should have played all of Ron Paul's comments about how he does agree with most of the foreign policy, but thinks it should be looked at to see where we have gone too far. I don't recall him ever saying we should play nice to appease the terrorists and no one has pointed that fact out or given him the chance to fully explain that since the debate.



It's election time and we could load this thread up with bias stories. It's part of the election cycle.

 

[Danoff]

Wow! Where to begin...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/04/10/mixed.family.ap/index.html

 

[Denur]

Any article ever presented in any popular newspaper or news magazine on the topic of personal tax reductions (income, CG, or inheritance) will show severe media bias against Republicans.

We've got the same thing here in Holland, most media are accused of being left-wing (news papers, tv news shows, etc) and many are in my opinion. On the other hand, the most sold news paper is notoriously rightwing (somehow they were also quite friendly with the nazi's during the 2nd WW occupation, but that's another story). I must say that I'm not very fond of Republicans (words like religion-horny, low IQ, O-legs and NRA come to mind), but on the other hand, the Democrats are just too left-wing for my liking.

Reading on....

 

[arora]

words like religion-horny, low IQ, O-legs and NRA come to mind

I didn't know that Bin laden was a republican Seriously though, that is a closed minded stereo type.

 

[Denur]

I didn't know that Bin laden was a republican Seriously though, that is a closed minded stereo type.

I know, isn't that owfull! But that's the whole problem with a 2-party system: one person can so easily screw it up for the rest. I was actually describing J.W. Bush, who happens to be a republican. Having lived in the USA and having been close to may Republicans I can safely say that not all (not by a long shot) are like George. But I do dislike George, big time. And him being the most powerfull person on Earth does upset me a little bit.

Edit> talking about stereo typing, isn't this whole topic one big stereo type issue?

 

[Tornado]

Wow! Where to begin...

The title alone tells you how fear-mongering it will be.

Edit: Then I read it, and it got funnier. I saw no law anywhere that said he had to leave. And considering he is obviously intelligent and well versed in English, I doubt it will be too hard for him to become legal.

 

[frestkd]

That what happens when the U.S. citizens elect lawyers to run the country. Oh well ..

 

[Danoff]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/11/news/economy/loan_modification/index.htm

From the article:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Bush administration on Tuesday unveiled a new program to modify mortgages and stabilize the battered real estate market, but the plan stops short of providing direct government financial help to at-risk homeowners.

Also from the article:

Homeowners 90 or more days late in their mortgage payments, owe at least 90% of their home's current value, live in the home on which the mortgage was taken and have not filed for bankruptcy are eligible.
Their mortgage payments would be adjusted through lower interest rates or longer repayment schedules with the goal of bringing payments below 38% of monthly household income.

An adjusted interest rate to help enable easier payements IS direct government financial help. It's not a barrell full of cash delivered to their door, but it's direct financial help.


Economics people!

 

[Pupik]

An adjusted interest rate to help enable easier payements IS direct government financial help. It's not a barrell full of cash delivered to their door, but it's direct financial help.

Economics people!

Is that bias, or bad copy editing? Then again, it is CNN...

 

[Danoff]

Is that bias, or bad copy editing? Then again, it is CNN...

Both.

 

[wfooshee]

An adjusted interest rate to help enable easier payements IS direct government financial help. It's not a barrell full of cash delivered to their door, but it's direct financial help.

It's not direct from the government if it's the mortgage company eating the lower rate or longer payment schedule. I'm not sure what the motivation is to the lender to comply with that, but the word is direct.

If the governent simply pressures the lender to lower the rate or reschedule the payment, there's no financial involvement at all. If the government makes up part of the loss to the lender, then it's not direct assistance to the borrower, it's indirect. That would be financial help to the borrower, but not direct financial help. To the guys that write these things, that's an important distinction and makes everything all OK. No money is going to the borrower. The fact that arithmetically it's the same as giving the money to the lender so they can make the original schedue is irrelevant.

English and Arithmetic are two different subjects, right?

My question about the first of your quotes,

but the plan stops short of providing direct government financial help to at-risk homeowners.

is: are they presenting that as a good thing in the plan, or a point of failure in the plan?

 

[Danoff]

It's not direct from the government if it's the mortgage company eating the lower rate or longer payment schedule. I'm not sure what the motivation is to the lender to comply with that, but the word is direct.

In this case lender = government. Therefore, a reduction in interest rate is direct taxpayer assistance.

is: are they presenting that as a good thing in the plan, or a point of failure in the plan?

It's presented as something the plan could be doing (even though it is). But from statements like this one:

The fact that mortgage balances will not be reduced for the so-called underwater mortgages -- those in which a homeowner owes more than the home is worth -- will limit the use and impact of the program, according to some experts.

It's easy to conclude that they're focusing on what the plan isn't doing because they don't think it's drastic enough. Certainly one cannot find evidence in the article that the plan is too drastic.

 

[Vasco]

I had my friend over earlier today to show off her new laptop with a Pentium T2060 and Vista pre-installed. The kitchen TV had NBC's Nightly News on and we could hear it from the living room. Brian Williams was preaching "global warming". He was implying that Humans are the cause of "global warming" and that is just not factually true. I had to explain to my friend that there is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise. I also explained that CO2 is a naturally accruing gas and not pollution and I ran down the list of cleaner burning fuels such as Ethanol, Bio-Diesel, and eventually Hydrogen.

Why must I educate when the news anchor fails to inform?

http://newsbusters.org/node/10559
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070202.asp#1

Holy **** are you serious? While the terminology might not be right, the burning of the hole in the ozone layer about antarctica leading to the greenhouse effect is man made, which oil company's payroll are you on sir? There is plenty of scientific evidence, and it is a general consensus among the majority of scientists that it does exist, you'll find the only ones not disagreeing have some sort of connection to an company which may not want such a consensus to occur.

 

[Danoff]

Holy **** are you serious? While the terminology might not be right, the burning of the hole in the ozone layer about antarctica leading to the greenhouse effect is man made, which oil company's payroll are you on sir? There is plenty of scientific evidence, and it is a general consensus among the majority of scientists that it does exist, you'll find the only ones not disagreeing have some sort of connection to an company which may not want such a consensus to occur.

You're a victim of media bias.

 

[FoolKiller]

Holy **** are you serious? While the terminology might not be right, the burning of the hole in the ozone layer about antarctica leading to the greenhouse effect is man made, which oil company's payroll are you on sir? There is plenty of scientific evidence, and it is a general consensus among the majority of scientists that it does exist, you'll find the only ones not disagreeing have some sort of connection to an company which may not want such a consensus to occur.

Go find the Global Warming debate thread. There you will find a couple of scientists, or at least science professionals, who are not tied to an oil company and disagree with the findings.

The best these findings have are temporal coincidences and many of those are weak. Temporal coincidence does not make science. My wife believes that based on where the lunar cycle is when we conceive will determine the sex of a baby based on temporal coincidence in studies. It sounds insane because we know it has more to do with chromosomes than what the angle sunlight is hitting the moon at, but her studies show just as much accuracy as this definitive proof of global warming that people keep touting.

If you don't believe that media bias plays a role in global warming then why don't you ever look at why the moment someone sneezes proof it gets on every single news show, but the moment hundreds of scientists hold a conference to show there is a large number that do not see the studies as proof the media has something better to do that day?

 

[Solid Fro]

Holy **** are you serious? While the terminology might not be right, the burning of the hole in the ozone layer about antarctica leading to the greenhouse effect is man made, which oil company's payroll are you on sir?

ExxonMobil, obviously. They pay me to sit here to foward their cause for global domination with help from Halliburton and their PMC Blackwater. I have a Blackwater HMMWV parked in my drive way, it's pretty pimp.

 

[Austin343]

Sure, the media is biased on global warming. It rarely presents the point of view that it is not man-made. But there is a good reason for that: we value highly the opinion of the scientific community, whose general consensus is that global warming is human-caused. Sure, there are many scientists who disagree with the findings, but they are very much a minority, and science wouldn't be science if people weren't challenging the commonly held views, so there are dissidents in every field.

So the media is not brainwashing all of us by ignoring the minority. They would look stupidly indecisive if they presented both viewpoints equally (not that doing so is a bad thing) and would be perceived as going against science if they only presented the opposing viewpoint. So they are just presenting the opinion of a group of people we trust on the matter, and for good reason, because they are more educated than we are about it and have more detailed and sophisticated evidence at their disposal.

Besides, there is no harm in trying to get people to switch to using clean sources of energy; we're going to run out of fossil fuels to burn at some point in the relatively near future, something you cannot deny even if you don't believe in global warming. And if it has been proven (and I suspect it has) that carbon dioxide and methane do have the capability to absorb and re-emit infrared light energy as heat (the greenhouse effect), then it's obvious that at some point, our production of carbon dioxide will indeed warm the earth.

I really don't think you can blame the media here for a deliberate skewing of evidence.

 

[Danoff]

Sure, the media is biased on global warming.

Then they've failed at their job.

But there is a good reason for that: we value highly the opinion of the scientific community, whose general consensus is that global warming is human-caused.

In this case, I think we're a bit jumpy in deciding that science has reached a solid conclusion. The amount of data we have, and the amount of experience we have in the field just doesn't warrant the confidence we place in their findings. I don't think every new scientific theory, even one that hasn't been shot down yet, deserves the kind of attention the media has given global warming.

Besides, there is no harm in trying to get people to switch to using clean sources of energy;

Yes there is. To pretend otherwise is to ignore a good portion of the discussion.

And if it has been proven (and I suspect it has) that carbon dioxide and methane do have the capability to absorb and re-emit infrared light energy as heat (the greenhouse effect),

The greenhouse effect is proven.

then it's obvious that at some point, our production of carbon dioxide will indeed warm the earth.

Not proven.

I really don't think you can blame the media here for a deliberate skewing of evidence.

Media should never skew evidence. Consumers shouldn't stand for it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sure, the media is biased on global warming. It rarely presents the point of view that it is not man-made. But there is a good reason for that: we value highly the opinion of the scientific community, whose general consensus is that global warming is human-caused. Sure, there are many scientists who disagree with the findings, but they are very much a minority, and science wouldn't be science if people weren't challenging the commonly held views, so there are dissidents in every field.

Yet, the media fails to report that none of these studies can be replicated. They also fail to report when holes are found in the research. The best example of this is the hockey stick graph, which media outlets still love to show. The fact that the researchers were found to have very weak sources and that for years they refused to allow their research to go into peer review was almost never reported on.

They would look stupidly indecisive if they presented both viewpoints equally

But that is their job. Reporting half the story is bad journalism at best, and blatant bias at worst. The modern standard of good journalism is Edward R Murrow. Murrow went after Joe McCarthy, as he should have, but when Joe McCarthy presented a rebuttal Murrow allowed the video to air on his own show, despite knowing that McCarthy was stating false information about his own character. Murrow allowed his own character to be tarnished in order to present an unbiased report.

A good journalist does not attempt to just show what they believe are the facts. A good journalist presents all information, all sides and viewpoints, and then allows the facts to show themselves.

Media is supposed to be indecisive. The decision is to be left up to the audience. Anything else shows a lack of journalistic integrity.

and would be perceived as going against science if they only presented the opposing viewpoint.

That would also be bad. It is supposed to show both sides.

So they are just presenting the opinion of a group of people we trust on the matter, and for good reason, because they are more educated than we are about it and have more detailed and sophisticated evidence at their disposal.

Yet, when equally educated people point out issues with that evidence that does not meet the standards of scientific research it is not reported.

Besides, there is no harm in trying to get people to switch to using clean sources of energy;

There is when you fail to mention the economic impact it can have. Clean energy is not cheap energy and someone how the cost difference fails to be mentioned. Heck, the media even fails to mention that nuclear is the most cost-effective clean energy we have because they play into the hands of the NIMBYs.

we're going to run out of fossil fuels to burn at some point in the relatively near future, something you cannot deny even if you don't believe in global warming.

Define near. If you listen to the media that should have been in the 1970s and then every 5-10 years since.

And if it has been proven (and I suspect it has) that carbon dioxide and methane do have the capability to absorb and re-emit infrared light energy as heat (the greenhouse effect),

Yes, that is proven.

then it's obvious that at some point, our production of carbon dioxide will indeed warm the earth.

Despite nature producing much, much more than we ever could?

I really don't think you can blame the media here for a deliberate skewing of evidence.

If it is deliberate they have shown they lack journalistic integrity. If it is not deliberate then they have failed to properly do their jobs.

The job of media is not to present an outcome, it is to present all available information and allow their audience to come to their own conclusion.

A large part of my college degree was communications and we had to learn the history of a lot of media. There are the people like Murrow, who would risk their own reputations in order to maintain their integrity, and then there are people like Hearst who would fabricate entire wars to move their agenda forward.

The journalism we have today likes to credit Murrow, while acting like Hearst.

 

[Vasco]

You're a victim of media bias.

So what was it caused by then??? There is a general consensus on the issue, so I don't see how that's influenced by the media. They are reporting based on this.

 

[Duke]

No, there is general consensus in the media on this issue. The scientific community, while trending that way, is far from unanimous.

Unlike the media, who have already decided for us and only report that way.

Did you know there was a period about 100,000 years ago where the global temperature spiked about 7 degrees C over a period of a single decade? Pretty hard for manmade carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels to have caused that.