After the computer break-in that revealed so-called 'damaging' emails in the East Anglia Climate Research Group, after all the media hysterics and errors and misrepresentations, now at last some newspapers are coming out and admitting that they screwed up. Any idiot could just look at the released emails and see that they didn't call the substance of the data into question, but the media took the profitable way out and fanned the flames of denialism.
It's rather like the Andrew Wakefield story. Take a very weak story, puff it up a bit to appeal to fringe kooks, and before you know it, you may be selling newspapers, but you're actually hurting people.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Ben Swann, anchor of the evening news for the local Atlanta CBS affiliate and the face of his Truth In Media series of videos, thinks himself an investigative journalist and a truth teller, but much of what I see him reporting more closely resembles reporting as though done by a cross between Ted…
Actually, Journalists do take some of the blame for the death of newspapers:
But why is the business model dying?
Competition is a factor, and blogs are obviously part of that mix. But again, if I'd started a business and someone else opened up down the street and offered a more appealing product,…
It's quite likely, if you're reading anything else on the internets besides this blog for the past few weeks, that you've already gotten your fill of ClimateGate. But maybe you've been stuck in your Cave of Grading and missed the news that a bunch of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU)…
What does it take to get an advocate of pseudoscience to change his or her mind? Many are the times I've asked myself that question. Over the years, I've covered the gamut of techniques, going from what some might call "militant" or even insulting to being as reasoned and calm as can be--and…