Tag Archives: media-matters
The good, the bad, and the ridiculous: How media covered the National Climate Assessment
Right-wingers’ efforts to derail media coverage of the National Climate Assessment backfired not once, but twice.
First, the Trump administration tried to bury the National Climate Assessment by releasing it on Black Friday, but that tactic bombed. It turns out that “Trump tries to bury a new climate report” is a much sexier headline than “Scientists release a new climate report.”
Then climate deniers fanned out on TV networks to spread lies and deceptive talking points about the report, but they got far more criticism than they expected, and that criticism kept climate change in the news.
Overall, the report got loads of media coverage in the days after it was released. The quality was decidedly mixed — some good, some awful — but the good coverage appears to have outweighed the bad.
The good
At least 140 newspapers around the country featured the National Climate Assessment on their front pages the morning after it was released, according to the Columbia Journalism Review. That included The New York Times and The Washington Post, which have teams of climate reporters, and also smaller papers all over the U.S., including 20 in California. Some highlighted the ways that climate change is affecting their regions, like the Portland Press Herald in Maine:
MSNBC aired some strong segments. In one, host Ali Velshi mocked President Donald Trump’s claim that his “gut” told him the report is wrong. Then Velshi interviewed climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a co-author of the assessment, who explained the report’s findings and how scientists arrived at them.
CNN served up some highly questionable coverage (more on that below), but it also did some good interviews with climate scientists and with three senators who are serious about addressing the climate crisis. CNN took a novel approach to real-time fact-checking when the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, lied about the report during a press briefing. The network showed live video of Sanders, paired alongside a text bar labeled “Facts First” that corrected some of her false claims:
All of the Sunday morning political talk shows discussed the report on the weekend after it was released. It was the first time this year that every one of them addressed climate change on the same day. That’s how rarely they cover the crisis.
The bad
Unfortunately, we would have been better off without some of that Sunday show coverage — particularly the segments that gave airtime to rabid climate deniers. One of the worst ran on NBC’s Meet the Press and featured Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank supported by the Koch brothers. She employed a favorite denier line — “I’m not a scientist” — and then proceeded to spout pure nonsense about the globe is getting cooler.
Egregious drivel about climate change also cropped up on CNN’s State of the Union, which asked not one but two climate deniers to weigh in on the report. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, offered a bland, lukewarm serving of climate denial: “Our climate always changes and we see those ebb and flows through time.”
Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum one-upped Ernst by praising the Trump team’s attempt to bury the report and claiming that the scientists who wrote it were “driven by the money.”
Santorum was roundly mocked on Twitter for making such a completely bananas claim. Many of the climate scientists who worked on the report were not paid at all for their efforts, and professors working in the field don’t earn more than their colleagues in other disciplines. You might have thought the widespread mockery would discourage other deniers from following suit, or at least discourage CNN from giving them a platform. You would have been wrong.
The following Monday, CNN hosted two more right-wingers who made the same ridiculous claim that climate scientists were in it for the money: Tom DeLay, who resigned as Republican House majority leader in 2005 after being convicted of money laundering and conspiracy, and Stephen Moore, a Trump-loving “economist” who’s worked for Koch-funded groups.
Then on Tuesday morning, CNN seemed like it was trying to redeem itself. It ran one segment in which CNN political analyst John Avlon fact-checked and thoroughly debunked the claim that scientists are getting rich by studying climate change, and another in which climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe explained that she and the other co-authors of the National Climate Assessment were paid “zero dollars” for their efforts.
But a few hours later, the bonkers claims were back. Both Santorum and Moore returned to CNN to repeat the lie that scientists are driven by a multi-billion-dollar climate change industry that has manufactured a false crisis. CNN’s Anderson Cooper found time to air Santorum’s warmed-over lie on his show, but failed to air an interview that he had conducted with Hayhoe. Cooper’s Hayhoe interview was only posted online.
Oh, and CNN also failed to note that Santorum, Moore, and DeLay have all received copious amounts of cash from the fossil fuel industry.
The backlash to the bad
Other media outlets bashed CNN and NBC for featuring climate deniers, leading to even more more coverage of climate change and the National Climate Assessment, mostly for the good.
The New York Times published a fact-checking piece titled, “The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money,” which cited and debunked statements made by Santorum and DeLay. PunditFact, a project of the fact-checking site PolitiFact, looked into Pletka’s claims and labeled them “false.”
Get Grist in your inbox
Always free, always fresh.
The Beacon The Weekly
Ask your climate scientist if Grist is right for you. See our privacy policy
The New York Times’ media columnist Jim Rutenberg published a story titled “News Networks Fall Short on Climate Story as Dolphins Die on the Beach,” which highlighted the false claims made by Pletka and Santorum and put them in the context of how climate change has hit Florida. The Washington Post‘s media columnist Margaret Sullivan then tweeted Rutenberg’s story.
Climate scientist Hayhoe published an op-ed in The Washington Post that debunked the myths propagated on CNN by Santorum and DeLay, among others.
WNYC’s On the Media hosted yours truly in a conversation about coverage of the National Climate Assessment, including the problem of featuring climate deniers on air.
Politico‘s Morning Media daily newsletter, written by media reporter Michael Calderone, highlighted problems with press coverage of the National Climate Assessment on four different occasions after the report came out.
The ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd was just one of many influential media figures who tweeted their disapproval of segments that featured climate deniers:
The fact that some members of the media screwed up their coverage so royally meant that others kept reporting on the story longer than they might have otherwise.
Fox opts for footwear coverage
Meanwhile, the folks over at Trump’s favorite network were living in their own universe, as usual. Fox News gave the National Climate Assessment very little airtime. A few straight-news segments covered it, but the most popular Fox shows didn’t. CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter pointed out that on the day of the report’s release, Fox spent more time discussing the shoes of Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat from New York, than it did discussing climate change.
Considering what Fox’s top personalities would have been likely to say about the report had they bothered to cover the National Climate Assessment, it’s probably just as well that they kept quiet.
Lisa Hymas is director of the climate and energy program at Media Matters for America. She was previously a senior editor at Grist.
View original –
The good, the bad, and the ridiculous: How media covered the National Climate Assessment
Hillary Clinton Continues to Not Be a Shady Character
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Reporters sure are desperate to demonstrate some kind of shadiness on Hillary Clinton’s part. Here’s a headline in the LA Times today:
House Democrats mistakenly release transcript confirming big payout to Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal
Sounds shady! I clicked immediately, wanting to know who gave Blumenthal a big payout. The answer, it turns out, is Media Matters, for which he works. This is in no way shady and in no way connected to Hillary Clinton anyway. And here’s an AP headline from this weekend:
Clinton’s State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries
This also sound shady! But no. It turns out that on Hillary Clinton’s official State Department schedule, she sometimes had private meetings and didn’t list the participants. “No known federal laws were violated,” the article says.
Sheesh. Is this the best they can do? I know that we’re all desperate for balance given the tsunami of lies and sleaze coming from the Trump campaign, but surely there’s something a little more concrete we can lay at Hillary’s feet? This is lame.
View this article:
Obama Just Called Out Fox News For Making the Poor Out to Be "Leeches"
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Via Politico, oh snap:
President Barack Obama criticized Fox News on Tuesday, accusing the network of portraying poor people as “leeches.”
In a discussion at Georgetown University, Obama said the media made an effort to “suggest the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving,” and he then singled out Fox News for special rebuke.
From the White House transcript:
There’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead. And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leaches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And, look, it’s still being propagated.
I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu—they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, “I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone”—or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative, right? That gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress—which is much more typical—who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.
And so if we’re going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.
Amen.
Here’s the video, courtesy of Media Matters:
(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)0; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));BOOM. President Obama just called out Fox News by name for their awful coverage of poverty in America and for regularly pushing false stereotypes about poor people. Watch:
Posted by
Media Matters for America on Tuesday, May 12, 2015
View post:
Obama Just Called Out Fox News For Making the Poor Out to Be "Leeches"
NY Times Fails To Disclose Oil Funding Behind Pro-Oil Op-Ed
back
NY Times Fails To Disclose Oil Funding Behind Pro-Oil Op-Ed
Posted 12 March 2015 in
In a recent New York Times op-ed, the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce falsely characterized the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as an expensive “tax” and repeated debunked myths from Big Oil, including that renewable fuel can damage car engines (this has been proven wrong) and is bad for the environment (ethanol’s lower greenhouse gas emissions are better for the climate). Worse, the New York Times failed to disclose Bryce’s ties to the oil industry, specifically the millions of dollars that the Manhattan Institute has received from the oil industry over the years.
Read the full story from Media Matters for America.
Fuels America News & Stories
Fuels
Read more:
This Is the Predictably Awful Way Fox News Reacted to the CIA Torture Report
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
On Tuesday the Senate released a long-awaited, scathing report condemning CIA torture methods during the George W. Bush administration. The report outlines horrible abuses including “rectal feeding” and “ice-water baths,” but only the geniuses over at Fox News could see what it was truly about: Obamacare.
The hosts of Fox News’ Outnumbered were convinced the report was made public in order to distract from Jonathan Gruber’s testimony on Obamacare this morning. Jesse Watters, who says he would have rather remained in the dark, because after all people do “nasty things in the dark” all the time, said he found the timing of the report’s release “ironic,” which it is not.
Watters then went on to compare the torture report to Rolling Stone’s botched sexual assault reporting at the University of Virginia, because why the hell not?
“They didn’t even interview any of the CIA interrogators who do the report,” Watters explained. “It’s kind of like how Rolling Stone does their stories—they only get one side. And to say this is about transparency at the CIA, the Democrats didn’t care about transparency when they were destroying hard drives at the IRS.”
View post:
This Is the Predictably Awful Way Fox News Reacted to the CIA Torture Report
Fox News’ Parent Company Is Really Worried About Global Warming
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
The day after Superstorm Sandy devastated much of the East Coast, Al Gore issued a statement linking the storm to climate change. That’s when Fox News went on the attack.
“These global warming claims have been debunked time and time again,” declared Eric Bolling, a former crude oil trader who is now one of the network’s most inflammatory hosts. “Look, it’s weather. Weather changes. Things happen. It has nothing to do with global warming.”
But Fox’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, sees things differently.
Earlier this month, a London-based organization called CDP released hundreds of questionnaires it collected from corporations—including 21st Century Fox—that had agreed to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and outline the risks global warming could pose to their business. In its submission to CDP, 21st Century Fox noted that climate change “may increase the frequency and power of tropical cyclones” and that the resulting storms could hurt its bottom line. And the company cited Sandy as a prime example:
In the current reporting year, 21st Century Fox was affected by Superstorm Sandy through filming interruptions, travel delays, facility and equipment damange sic and box office closings in the Northeast U.S. The storm showed that 21st Century Fox can be negatively impacted by climate-related weather impacts. Severe weather and climate change also pose physical risks to 21st Century Fox’s supply chain, such as the ability and timeliness with which products and services can be delivered to and from the company.
An entertainment colossus with businesses that include everything from right-wing cable news to blockbuster movies to satellite television, 21st Century Fox is one of two media companies led by Rupert Murdoch. The other is News Corp, which controls newspapers worldwide and which split from 21st Century Fox last year. In its own response to CDP, News Corp also cited Sandy, similarly warning that climate change could disrupt its business by potentially increasing the “frequency and power of tropical cyclones.”
Indeed, Sandy cost Murdoch’s media empire more than $2 million in “damage and filming delays,” according to the documents.
The storm caused significant damage and shutdowns at News Corp plants, and it reportedly disrupted delivery of the Wall Street Journal. (According to one of the documents, “weather-related missed deliveries” of the Journal have been increasing over the last three years.) Murdoch’s entertainment business also took a hit. For example, 21st Century Fox reported that Sandy “reduced sales in a key market” and cited estimates that the storm was largely responsible for a 12 to 25 percent drop in box office sales. And flooding in Brooklyn damaged the set of the The Americans—a TV drama produced by Fox Television Studios—forcing the company to postpone filming. (A Fox spokesperson said the delay lasted “less than two weeks” while the necessary repairs were made.)
Of course, News Corp and Fox were far from the only businesses impacted by Sandy. Delta Airlines, for instance, told CDP that it lost $75 million in revenue. Abercrombie & Fitch lost more than $10 million in sales. And utility giant Con Edison shelled out more than $500 million to fix damage caused by the storm.
But the Murdoch companies’ statements linking Sandy’s devastation to climate change represent a striking contrast to the global warming commentary that often appears in their news outlets. Fox News, in particular, is a hotbed of climate denial; a recent Union of Concerned Scientists study found that fully 72 percent of the network’s climate segments contained “misleading” statements. A Fox editor once directed reporters to cast doubt on temperature data showing that the Earth has warmed.
On the newspaper side, the Wall Street Journal regularly publishes editorials and opinion pieces skeptical of climate science. And according to a report last year from the Australian Center for Independent Journalism, News Corp’s Australian papers are a “major reason” why that country’s media is “a world leader in the promotion of scepticism.”
Fox News, two weeks before Superstom Sandy Screenshot: Media Matters/Fox News
This tension is nothing new for Murdoch’s companies. In 2011, Fox News hosts were attacking climate scientists even as Murdoch was announcing that News Corp had become carbon neutral. Media Matters (my former employer) wrote at the time that the “contrast between what News Corp’s chairman says and what its employees actually do is a stark illustration of the company’s attempt to play both sides of the climate issue.”
The companies’ concerns about possible climate disruptions go far beyond Sandy. “To the extent that any increase in frequency of extreme events can be correlated to a trend like climate change,” writes 21st Century Fox in its CDP submission, “there is a continued need to prepare for business disruptions.” It warns that “extended and severe droughts” could worsen wildfires in Southern California, where much of its entertainment business is based. And it cites recent wildfires in Russia and floods in Australia that “disrupted film and TV productions and caused property damage.”
News Corp has similar concerns about increasing wildfire risk, writing that its Australian businesses operate “in regions with bushfire risks, and 2013 saw the extreme fire season start earlier than previous years.” And the company points to another—less obvious—threat from climate change. As droughts become more frequent and more severe, writes News Corp, there could be unpredictable consequences for the forestry industry that produces the paper its newspapers are printed on. But don’t worry: The Wall Street Journal’s climate-change editorials are available online.
This article is from:
Fox News’ Parent Company Is Really Worried About Global Warming