http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:14:49 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/16/221449.php Future GeekThe anti-environmentalist spin machine is at it again. A series of headlines has been making the rounds of the blogosphere lately: Time Magazine, Sept. 10, 1923: "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjecture of the possible advent of a new ice age."New York Times, Sept. 18, 1924: "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age."New York Times, March 27, 1933: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise."Time Magazine, Jan. 2, 1939: "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right...weather men have no doubt that the world, at least for the time being, is growing warmer." There are more headlines in this vein. I guess people are trying to say that since the media has been talking about climate change for years, we don't need to worry about the current global warming problem, right?First unearthed by the right wing Media Research Center, the headlines spread quickly. The MRC was cited by an Editorial in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. That editorial was then cited by a blogger at Newsbusters. From there, it went all over, as right wing bloggers slapped each other on the back and congratulated themselves for proving, once again, that this global warming stuff is just fearmongering.I've got another set of misleading headlines for you to ponder. In the runup to the Iraq war, the New York Times ran many headlines about the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Exempli gratia: A New York Times Headline from September 8, 2002: 'U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts.' These headlines were a major part of the Administration's case for war. From the American Journalism Review: On September 8, the Miller/Gordon story about the aluminum tubes appeared on page one of the New York Times. The information was attributed to unnamed administration sources. That same morning, Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press." Cheney mentioned, vaguely at first, Saddam's efforts "to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs." Russert, familiar with the Times story, prompted his guest: "Aluminum tubes."Cheney replied: "Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning -- this is -- I don't -- and I want to attribute the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire...the kind of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge."When Bob Simon heard about this interview, he told me, he smelled a rat. "You leak a story to the New York Times," he says, "and the New York Times prints it, and then you go on the Sunday shows quoting the New York Times and corroborating your own information. You've got to hand it to them. That takes, as we say here in New York, chutzpah." Of course, it was later demonstrated that the tubes were not the type needed for Uranium enrichment. That fact was glossed over. The misleading headlines kept coming, even as the war progressed. Quoted from FAIR:Over on Fox News Channel (3/23/03), the headline banners were already rolling: "HUGE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY FOUND IN SO IRAQ.... REPORTS: 30 IRAQIS SURRENDER AT CHEM WEAPONS PLANT.... COAL TROOPS HOLDING IRAQI IN CHARGE OF CHEM WEAPONS." The Jerusalem Post, whose embedded reporter helped break the story along with a Fox correspondent, announced in a front-page headline (3/24/03), "U.S. Troops Capture First Chemical Plant."The next day (10/24/03), a Fox correspondent in Qatar quietly issued an update to the story: The "chemical weapons facility discovered by coalition forces did not appear to be an active chemical weapons facility." Further testing was required. In fact, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago (Dow Jones wire, 3/24/03).Judith Miller was a major source of headlines about Saddam's supposed WMD. However, it emerged that the vast majority of her WMD claims came through Ahmed Chalabi, an indicted fraudster and one of the leading figures in the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the group keen to militarily overthrow Saddam. Miller relied on untested defectors' testimonies (usually provided by Chalabi) to write several front-page stories on this information. Michael Massing from Columbia Journalism Review suggests her stories were "far too reliant on sources sympathetic to the (Bush) administration".Quoted from an article by Antony Loewenstein, "Engineering consent: The New York Times role in promoting war in Iraq."So, my question is this: Do we dismiss all threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation on the basis of this failure by the New York Times? Obviously, the media only wants to sell stories, and all they care about is fearmongering, right? Obviously, there is no threat from terrorism, just like there is no threat from global warming. Think about it. Politics49337@blogcritics.org Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:14:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/11/135311.php Future GeekDid Al Gore justify lying about global warming? Here's a quote:I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. That's from an interview in Grist Magazine. Is Al saying that environmentalists should lie about global warming to get a reaction?It seems that the first person to make a big deal out of this quote was a professional spinmeister, Patrick Michaels, who appeared on Hannity & Colmes on May 16 to talk about Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It took about a week, but the right wing blogosphere soon picked up the story. May 25 was a big day, with the quote appearing on The New Republic. It also appeared on the Free Republic Discussion group and at Libertypost.org. It quickly spread from blog to blog, appearing at Say Anything, Rightwingnation, Bureacrash.com, and Annavenger, among many others.It moved well beyond Rightwingerland (see Life in the Banana Patch). A poll on Bestandworse.com asks: "Do you agree with his [Al Gore's] sentiment, that it's okay to knowingly deceive the public as to the extent of the problem if it means that more people will come to your side? Do the ends justify the means?" But is that what Al really said?I won't reprint the entire interview because of copyright concerns, but you should read it and note that the question is: "Do you scare people or give them hope?" Gore was responding to the question of how best to approach the issue of global warming. He said, "It's best, depending on your audience, to focus on the dangers before talking about solutions." It's an interesting case study in the exceptional aptitude of humans to deceive themselves. Right-wing bloggers seized on this quote because it justified their beliefs. Those in the middle saw it and questioned Gore's reliability as a source. The speed of the Information Autobahn just perpetuated this misinformation. Now, the damage is done. Politics49091@blogcritics.org Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:53:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/06/173348.php Future GeekIf Christianity is a religion of love and forgiveness, why does Christian radio always piss me off? I just heard a radio program on my local "Christian" radio station, 94.7 The Spirit. The program was about global warming, specifically, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's new movie about global warming. The host was Janet Parshall. Janet has been involved in the Christian radio business for years. Her website bio says, "Throughout her career, Janet has been a devoted advocate of the principles and policies that strengthen the family." I didn't hear much advocacy for families. Her show seems to be more concerned with attacking Democrats and defending President Bush's policies. My first question is this: How is it that a "Christian" radio station can talk about global warming? Why does that even fall under the purview of "Christian radio?" What qualifies a "Christian" radio host to have a scientific opinion about global warming? And why is it that her opinion is in line with the Republican administration, and contrary to the scientific consensus?My answer: It's because these people are not Christians. They are money grubbers and bootlickers. Global warming has the potential to be the greatest human tragedy this world has ever seen. Climate change will devastate the poor and the sick. Yet Mrs. Parshall criticized Al Gore for asking Americans to "freeze in the winter" and give aid to poorer countries to help them develop cleaner energy. It's Communism, she said. (You can listen to it here. It's the June 1st show.) What Would Jesus Do, indeed.I decided to do a little more research into the Janet Parshall show. I did a google search for "global warming site:http://www.jpamerica.com/" and found that she's addressed the issue of global warming three times. Once was shortly after Hurricane Katrina, when she had a guest on from the National Center for Policy Analysis. The NCPA bills itself as a nonpartisan think tank, but has a definite conservative slant. They are also very much in the business of the denying the scientific facts of global warming, via their E-Team project. Myron Ebell was another guest on the show, August 5th, 2005. He was billed as "Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy." I googled "Myron Ebell" and found that he is associated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute - that fine place where Janet found Iain Murray, her guest for June 1st. So Janet has had three "experts" on climate change on her "Christian" talk show. All three were climate change skeptics who worked for organizations that are funded by big energy. The CEI has received more than 2 million dollars from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to Exxonsecrets.org. Christians are not supposed to bear false witness. Misrepresenting the facts about global warming is lying. It is even more abhorrent when you hide your ideology behind a facade of Christianity. When one of the largest radio station owners (Salem Radio Network) in the country practices this sort of deception and propagandizing, combined with an aggressive strategy to take over the most powerful radio transmitters in the country, it's downright scary. Christians: take back your religion!You might also want to read "Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters", from Harpers Magazine, May 30 2005. Politics48876@blogcritics.org Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:33:48 EDT