The Coordinated Climate Change "Narrative"

[Jack Hays]

Here we have a superb example of noble cause corruption -- the belief that a cause is so worthy that advocacy for it may cross ethical boundaries that would otherwise be respected as a matter of course.


A National Narrative for Media on Climate Change

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen Those of you who closely watch the media — newspapers, broadcast & streaming news, national magazines, national public radio — may have noticed that all the news about climate change is beginning to sound the same — regardless of outlet (there are a few sensible exceptions). This is no…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]. . . Don’t be fooled, they are not planning any real journalistic attempts to explain the complexity of the wicked problem called Earth’s Climate and the current controversies surrounding the issues involved. They are planning an intensive propaganda campaign across as many media outlets as they can convince (or shame) into signing on to participate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have laid out my position on the Climate Question here at WUWT ( here and here ). I encourage climate realists, especially those with a broader reach into mainstream media, to begin now to plan for their own counter-campaign to help neutralize the propaganda blitz envisioned by CJR/The Nation/The Guardian cabal for September 2019. We too are journalists, even if in just a small way. I for one will be following the Covering Climate Now propaganda campaign and will update the readership here with details from their promised propaganda ”handbook”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The science is very plain on such issues as US wildfires, hurricanes (US and worldwide), US flooding, so-called heat waves and weather extremes. Opinion columns and essays in national newspapers and magazines (both print and online) and video commentary for broadcast and streamed news stations, laying out the simple truth, with graphs, numbers, and images, can and will help cut the ground from under the alarmist propaganda effort.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If we, the readers and contributors here, don’t make the effort to counteract this planned act of ideological sabotage of the American mind, who will?[/FONT]

 

[COTO]

I believe there was a time, many, many long decades ago, when newsmen prided themselves on objectivity.

Today they hawk books, cook polls, and openly confer on how to spin in perfect synchronicity.

It's curious. As far as I know, not even the USSR had to resort to propaganda "blitzes" to inspire compliance in the proletariat. But I guess not even a slow, steady diet of the stuff is powerful enough to make the GND seem sane.

 

[PoS]

Yup. this is true on so many levels. The amount of misleading information spewed out by the MSM with regards to CC is staggering. It practically dwarfs what the Nazis and the USSR were doing in their heyday.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

I believe there was a time, many, many long decades ago, when newsmen prided themselves on objectivity.

Today they hawk books, cook polls, and openly confer on how to spin in perfect synchronicity.

It's curious. As far as I know, not even the USSR had to resort to propaganda "blitzes" to inspire compliance in the proletariat. But I guess not even a slow, steady diet of the stuff is powerful enough to make the GND seem sane.

You believe, do you? So, you don't know.

Actually it was probably WORSE back in the day.

When the BBC did fake news | Media | Al Jazeera

Read this. From al Jazeera about when the BBC helped take down the leader of Iran.

 

[nekrodev]

ayy more science denialism propaganda

maybe you should find more than one source for your bs and it would seem more believable.

 

[Steve Case]

ayy more science denialism propaganda

maybe you should find more than one source for your bs and it would seem more believable.

Yes, is it science or propaganda? You don't have to go any further than the IPCC reports to figure
out that things aren't on the up and up. There are some glaring examples that can be found there.

 

[uptower]

Do we believe scientists or industry funded mouthpieces?

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Do we believe scientists or industry funded mouthpieces?

Really shouldn't be believing anything.

Really should try and know things.

 

[COTO]

You believe, do you? So, you don't know.

Actually it was probably WORSE back in the day.

When the BBC did fake news | Media | Al Jazeera

Read this. From al Jazeera about when the BBC helped take down the leader of Iran.

I was actually thinking quite a few more decades before this. The turn of the 20th Century. Before Freud and Bernays and the mature science of persuasion.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

I was actually thinking quite a few more decades before this. The turn of the 20th Century. Before Freud and Bernays and the mature science of persuasion.

Yeah, massively corrupt then too.

People just often think things were better because they ignore a lot of what was actually happening.

 

[Jack Hays]

You believe, do you? So, you don't know.

Actually it was probably WORSE back in the day.

When the BBC did fake news | Media | Al Jazeera

Read this. From al Jazeera about when the BBC helped take down the leader of Iran.

Actually, the fake news is the Al Jazeera article. Mossadegh would have been overthrown even if the CIA and MI-6 did not exist.

[h=3]What Really Happened in Iran - Foreign Affairs[/h]
[url]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2014.../what-really-happened-iran
[/URL]

Jun 16, 2014 - Conventional wisdom about the 1953 coup in Iran rests on the myth that the ... RAY TAKEYH is Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the ...

 

[COTO]

Yeah, massively corrupt then too.

People just often think things were better because they ignore a lot of what was actually happening.

If you look at the newsmedia pre-1920 and observe its metamorphosis into the post-1950's newsmedia (and countless historians have done this), you'll observe a distinct shift away from disciplined objectivity to careful persuasion. The early 20th Century is really when the science behind mass persuasion came into its own right (as a rigorous science), and new technologies multiplied would-be propagandists' options. It's not a coincidence that the world witnessed the rise of communism, fascism, and Nazism in this same period of time.

Looking at the style of pre-1920's journalism (for example, coverage of the great molasses flood in Boston, the sinking of the Titanic, and even instances of journalistic activism such as the campaigns against William Tweed and Elbridge Gerry), the contrast to modern-day outlets like WaPo and The Guardian is like night and day. The goal then was to present all the facts and let people reach their own conclusions. Newsmen had faith the truth would speak for itself. The goal today is to select a narrative (and apparently open, industry-wide conspiracies aren't even worth covering up anymore), present only the facts that support this narrative, and for good measure tell readers what their conclusions about these facts must be. I'm not going out on a limb to suppose such a conspiracy would be unthinkable pre-1920 for anything except possibly national war.

As if this wasn't enough, we're now staring down propaganda blitzes being coordinated in open daylight. I guess at some point the US can expect two solid weeks of wall-to-wall stories about climate change drowning puppies, closing elementary schools, and funding terrorism.

While it's not a good thing that public trust in journalism has cratered in our lifetimes (the slow demise of the Fourth Estate should concern us all), there is a good reason for it.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

If you look at the newsmedia pre-1920 and observe its metamorphosis into the post-1950's newsmedia (and countless historians have done this), you'll observe a distinct shift away from disciplined objectivity to careful persuasion. The early 20th Century is really when the science behind mass persuasion came into its own right (as a rigorous science), and new technologies multiplied would-be propagandists' options. It's not a coincidence that the world witnessed the rise of communism, fascism, and Nazism in this same period of time.

Looking at the style of pre-1920's journalism (for example, coverage of the great molasses flood in Boston, the sinking of the Titanic, and even instances of journalistic activism such as the campaigns against William Tweed and Elbridge Gerry), the contrast to modern-day outlets like WaPo and The Guardian is like night and day. The goal then was to present all the facts and let people reach their own conclusions. Newsmen had faith the truth would speak for itself. The goal today is to select a narrative (and apparently open, industry-wide conspiracies aren't even worth covering up anymore), present only the facts that support this narrative, and for good measure tell readers what their conclusions about these facts must be. I'm not going out on a limb to suppose such a conspiracy would be unthinkable pre-1920 for anything except possibly national war.

As if this wasn't enough, we're now staring down propaganda blitzes being coordinated in open daylight. I guess at some point the US can expect two solid weeks of wall-to-wall stories about climate change drowning puppies, closing elementary schools, and funding terrorism.

While it's not a good thing that public trust in journalism has cratered in our lifetimes (the slow demise of the Fourth Estate should concern us all), there is a good reason for it.

Problem is, you might only be seeing the journalism of a few journalists. Some of whom might have been honest but many wouldn't have been.

Here are examples you might want to look at.

10 Examples of Fake News from History - The Social Historian

Fake News circa 1700: Memory and Manipulation in Eyewitness Views - Medium

What The 1700s Teach Us About Today's Fake News Epidemic - Worldcrunch

The Long and Brutal History of Fake News - POLITICO Magazine


Back then it was much easier to hide fake news, because there wasn't any internet, there was poor education and the like.

 

[COTO]

Problem is, you might only be seeing the journalism of a few journalists. Some of whom might have been honest but many wouldn't have been.

Here are examples you might want to look at.

10 Examples of Fake News from History - The Social Historian

Fake News circa 1700: Memory and Manipulation in Eyewitness Views - Medium

What The 1700s Teach Us About Today's Fake News Epidemic - Worldcrunch

The Long and Brutal History of Fake News - POLITICO Magazine


Back then it was much easier to hide fake news, because there wasn't any internet, there was poor education and the like.

It's quite the ill-posed question since we'd have to quantify "degree of objectivity" then versus now, across all media outlets. I somehow doubt we'll manage to do this while chewing the fat on DP.

Thank you all the same for the links.

Incidentally, I don't consider climate change news--be it propagandized, emotionalized, sensationalized, coordinated, blitzed, or otherwise--to be "fake news" in most cases. Just "unashamedly biased news". News whose primary purpose isn't to inform but instead to persuade or instruct, roughly analogous to religious evangelism. "This is the way; walk you in it."

 

[Frigidweirdo]

It's quite the ill-posed question since we'd have to quantify "degree of objectivity" then versus now, across all media outlets. I somehow doubt we'll manage to do this while chewing the fat on DP.

Thank you all the same for the links.

Incidentally, I don't consider climate change news--be it propagandized, emotionalized, sensationalized, coordinated, blitzed, or otherwise--to be "fake news" in most cases. Just "unashamedly biased news". News whose primary purpose isn't to inform but instead to persuade or instruct, roughly analogous to religious evangelism. "This is the way; walk you in it."

Well, not sure we need to quantify anything. The news way back when was designed for a purpose just as it is today. Either it's propaganda or it's for money.

Either way it's almost impossible not to be biased. Readers often want biased news, producers of news often want to portray things in a certain manner. Even choosing which headline goes first is a type of bias.

The point is that there may have been some journalists at times who were objective, but this doesn't have much to do with the times, but more to do with the people. At all times through the history of the media, the media has been biased. In fact right now it's probably the least biased ever because people are more aware of it. However there's not the problem of blatant fake news done as a source of entertainment.


Well, yes. I think we as humans should do something about climate change simply because I see the world as a balance.

Humans evolved on this planet. Evolved in a manner in which too much water kills us, too little water kills us. Too much sun kills us, too little sun kills us. Too much oxygen kills us. Too little oxygen kills us.

Also Mao decided, in his wisdom, that because birds ate the crops, it'd be a good idea to kill the birds to make the crops more abundant. So Chinese people set out killing the birds, then the insects the birds ate destroyed the crops. Balance is needed and if we go out and destroy that balance, we don't know what the consequences might be.

Only last week I got told I was an idiot and I was denying man made climate change simply because I posted some facts about plankton's ability to grow in lower pH levels than the Oceans currently have, and that with all this extra CO2 we're -0.08 down in pH levels in the oceans in the last hundred something years, and that potentially CO2 rising will cause the Earth to cool massively. All facts, all things I showed from evidence, and yet I got the insults.

People often like to play games, try to make themselves look intelligent by being the "master" of the debate, and will debate ANYTHING regardless of how much information they're ignoring.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yup. this is true on so many levels. The amount of misleading information spewed out by the MSM with regards to CC is staggering. It practically dwarfs what the Nazis and the USSR were doing in their heyday.

With modern communications, it does dwarf their propaganda.

 

[TomFitz]

Here we have a superb example of noble cause corruption -- the belief that a cause is so worthy that advocacy for it may cross ethical boundaries that would otherwise be respected as a matter of course.


A National Narrative for Media on Climate Change

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen Those of you who closely watch the media — newspapers, broadcast & streaming news, national magazines, national public radio — may have noticed that all the news about climate change is beginning to sound the same — regardless of outlet (there are a few sensible exceptions). This is no…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]. . . Don’t be fooled, they are not planning any real journalistic attempts to explain the complexity of the wicked problem called Earth’s Climate and the current controversies surrounding the issues involved. They are planning an intensive propaganda campaign across as many media outlets as they can convince (or shame) into signing on to participate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have laid out my position on the Climate Question here at WUWT ( here and here ). I encourage climate realists, especially those with a broader reach into mainstream media, to begin now to plan for their own counter-campaign to help neutralize the propaganda blitz envisioned by CJR/The Nation/The Guardian cabal for September 2019. We too are journalists, even if in just a small way. I for one will be following the Covering Climate Now propaganda campaign and will update the readership here with details from their promised propaganda ”handbook”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The science is very plain on such issues as US wildfires, hurricanes (US and worldwide), US flooding, so-called heat waves and weather extremes. Opinion columns and essays in national newspapers and magazines (both print and online) and video commentary for broadcast and streamed news stations, laying out the simple truth, with graphs, numbers, and images, can and will help cut the ground from under the alarmist propaganda effort.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If we, the readers and contributors here, don’t make the effort to counteract this planned act of ideological sabotage of the American mind, who will?[/FONT]

Before the internet, paranoia peddling hucksters like this used to stand on street corners and hand out mimeographed fliers.

Why would anyone think a clickbait site run by a TV weatherman, featuring a paranoid rant “guest essay” by a guy who apparantly has no credentials or experience worth nothing whatsoever is beyond me.

But it does validate the world view and mind set of some folks, which is all it’s good for.

BTW, WhatsUpWithThat gets most of its money from the Heartland Instutute (read, Exxon/Mobil).

 

[PoS]

Before the internet, paranoia peddling hucksters like this used to stand on street corners and hand out mimeographed fliers.

Why would anyone think a clickbait site run by a TV weatherman, featuring a paranoid rant “guest essay” by a guy who apparantly has no credentials or experience worth nothing whatsoever is beyond me.

But it does validate the world view and mind set of some folks, which is all it’s good for.

BTW, WhatsUpWithThat gets most of its money from the Heartland Instutute (read, Exxon/Mobil).

Ah, another shoot the messnger fallacy reply. When will you people ever actually refute what's in these articles for once?

 

[TomFitz]

If you look at the newsmedia pre-1920 and observe its metamorphosis into the post-1950's newsmedia (and countless historians have done this), you'll observe a distinct shift away from disciplined objectivity to careful persuasion. The early 20th Century is really when the science behind mass persuasion came into its own right (as a rigorous science), and new technologies multiplied would-be propagandists' options. It's not a coincidence that the world witnessed the rise of communism, fascism, and Nazism in this same period of time.

Looking at the style of pre-1920's journalism (for example, coverage of the great molasses flood in Boston, the sinking of the Titanic, and even instances of journalistic activism such as the campaigns against William Tweed and Elbridge Gerry), the contrast to modern-day outlets like WaPo and The Guardian is like night and day. The goal then was to present all the facts and let people reach their own conclusions. Newsmen had faith the truth would speak for itself. The goal today is to select a narrative (and apparently open, industry-wide conspiracies aren't even worth covering up anymore), present only the facts that support this narrative, and for good measure tell readers what their conclusions about these facts must be. I'm not going out on a limb to suppose such a conspiracy would be unthinkable pre-1920 for anything except possibly national war.

As if this wasn't enough, we're now staring down propaganda blitzes being coordinated in open daylight. I guess at some point the US can expect two solid weeks of wall-to-wall stories about climate change drowning puppies, closing elementary schools, and funding terrorism.

While it's not a good thing that public trust in journalism has cratered in our lifetimes (the slow demise of the Fourth Estate should concern us all), there is a good reason for it.

Every Wednesday morning, there is a breakfast meeting hosted by Citizens for Tax Reform, Grover Nordquist’s group. At that breakfast, you will see representatives and producers of most of the well known right wing media, Limbaugh, Fox News, Gateway Pundit, Washington Times (close by), and a host of others. In the past, the Bush White House was represented, and I would be surprised if Bill Shine wasn’t a regular.

This breakfast has been a weekly occurrence for over twenty years.

The purpose of this meeting is to coordinate the message of right wing media, right down to the core messaging and the themes and code words.


Right wing media does much of this on its own, as the cycle evolves. Right wing blogs and talk radio shows feed off each other and repeat each other’s themes, frequently without any sort of research or fact checking whatsoever. Lies are regularly promoted through the noise bubble of right wing thinking this way.

Oh, and contrary to your fantasy about how journalism allegedly worked before 1920, perhaps you can explain the rather famous remark that William Randolph Hearst once made to “”Frederic Remington, “You supply the pictures, I’ll supply the war”.

 

[Jack Hays]

BTW, WhatsUpWithThat gets most of its money from the Heartland Instutute (read, Exxon/Mobil).

That is false. WUWT gets no money from any outside source.

 

[TomFitz]

Ah, another shoot the messnger fallacy reply. When will you people ever actually refute what's in these articles for once?

I don’t really care,

It’s vintage right wing fearmongering and conspiracy theory peddling.

After all, the marketplace has already made the decision. Coal and nuclear are dead technologies walking. 100% of the growth in electrical generating capacity in the US is from renewables, and has been for about three years now. Echoing a global trend.

 

[TomFitz]

That is false. WUWT gets no money from any outside source.

Really?

Then why is their founder on the Heartland Institute payroll?

Anthony Watts | DeSmogBlog

 

[Lord of Planar]

Really?

Then why is their founder on the Heartland Institute payroll?

Anthony Watts | DeSmogBlog

Denying the possibility of an opposing viewpoint for accuracy makes you a denier of science, and no better than a political hack.

WUWT is well sources, unlike AGW blogs. Read his sources some time.

 

[TomFitz]

Denying the possibility of an opposing viewpoint for accuracy makes you a denier of science, and no better than a political hack.

WUWT is well sources, unlike AGW blogs. Read his sources some time.

What an absurd response.

This site is totally dedicated to global warming denial, and is a platform for the pay to bray deniers that the oil and coal industries have subsidized over the years.

Besides, the credentials of the “well sourced” story in the OP consist of brief stints as local TV news weatherman.

Sorry, but the world moved on quite a long time ago. No one is paying attention to these people anymore, outside of right wing talk radio listeners in the United States, and a few in the UK.

The banker, the electric power industry and the auto industry have all made their decisions and are directing their investment away from continued use of fossil fuels.

 

[PoS]

I don’t really care,

I'm not surprised since you cant debate properly.

After all, the marketplace has already made the decision. Coal and nuclear are dead technologies walking. 100% of the growth in electrical generating capacity in the US is from renewables, and has been for about three years now. Echoing a global trend.

The marketplace will turn again, once people realize that this climate change green tech is all a scam. The truth comes out eventually, and the fools will be exposed. The only issue is how many people will get gypped before they realize theyve been had.