What could that those two items possibly have in common – the news that avowed non-Trump electoral college voter Chris Suprun may have falsified his resumé, and the ‘industry corruption’ accusation hurled at skeptic scientists? The devil is in the fine details of how such messages are handled by public relations firms. Continue reading
Yep. Continue reading
The origin of the accusation is critical, and begs for investigation because it is what put the accusation into existence in the first place. But the accusation would have died of neglect if it hadn’t gotten major media traction, and resulting additional interest and promotion from that. Where that particular media traction began is the epicenter, and the manner in which it came about, combined with the people surrounding it, is equally if not more worthy of deep investigation.
Citing irrelevant material as a means to question the credibility of an global warming expert’s science viewpoints is fundamentally unwise, particularly when the individual making the citation commits an inexcusable error in the process. But the credibility problem worsens when that person takes on the appearance of trying to inflate the number of sources for the irrelevant material, with a pair of ‘corroborations’ where one of them only cites the identical original source while the other only opens up a Pandora’s Box about the entire situation surrounding the – let me emphasize – irrelevant material. Continue reading
Credit Ross Gelbspan for apparently consolidating the brilliant 3-point set of talking points that have arguably kept the global warming issue alive all this time, (1) the science is settled; (2) skeptic scientists are paid by fossil fuel industries to ‘reposition global warming as theory rather than fact’; (3) journalists are not obligated to give equal time to those skeptics because of points 1 and 2. But that mantra would have been worthless without a network of associates spreading it wherever and whenever they could. First up on that list, Kalee Kreider. Continue reading
The March 26, 2006 ABC News quote I put in the main blog banner illustration above is a case study on how the news media repeats the basic accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and steers us to what is supposed to be devastating reporting by an unimpeachable source:
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries. […] To redefine global warming as theory — not fact — the industry funded research by “friendly” scientists…”
Perish the thought of the news media actually giving skeptics a fair shot at defending their science assessments, such as the way the PBS NewsHour has demonstrably excluded them from its program for 17+ years. Otherwise viewers might perceive a significant flaw with the “misinformation” accusation. But since we are talking about journalists who must aspire to do reporting worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, we have to wonder how they let Gelbspan’s “Pulitzer winner” label go unquestioned. Surely, if an ex-editor/reporter gains fame as a Pulitzer winner, we have a giant problem if he never won a Pulitzer, don’t we? Continue reading