Last week, the online news section of the Columbia Journalism Review ran this very useful reaction to Senator Inhofe's attack on journalists covering global warming, referencing the analysis posted here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Yesterday, Senator James Inhofe, Chair of the Committee on Public Works & the Environment, issued a challenge to journalists to stop what he called the "media hype" over global warming. Inhofe compiles a list of what he considers exaggerated distortions of global warming from recent and past…
With political leaders like Senator James Inhofe and ideological safe zones like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, is it any wonder that only 23% of college-educated Republicans accept that human activities have contributed to global warming, or that among Republicans the issue…
Where once it was the province of against-the-establishment rebels and citizen media types, major institutions are now taking wide advantage of blogging technology to promote their message or to expand their audience. And it's not just major media outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times…
YouTube is quickly emerging as a new tool for strategic communication. Uses include promoting documentaries by posting trailers and news clips (see this post on Jesus Camp), reaching bigger audiences with community-based or advocacy media (see this clip by PR Watch), amplifying the views of…
Matthew
Both links are to the same page, your Inhofe discussion.
Thanks for the heads up. Corrected
Actually, it was a load of crap. It repeated lies like "Most of his tirade was based on the MSM's coverage of alternating scientific predictions of global warming and cooling over the last 100 years." (referring to Greg Easterbrook). It didn't mention the fact that the MSM had given very nearly balanced coverage to the scientific consensus, and a small band of dissenters. It didn't mention the 'think tanks' which have spent considerable effort casting doubt upon the science.