tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1967581409895223685.post878647897568837585..comments2024-02-01T05:57:20.741-08:00Comments on Business in a Sustainable Society: The Globe and Mail Compromises Truth for PoliticsMike Valentehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12992260402129018501noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1967581409895223685.post-27414218799502809922012-01-05T15:50:17.951-08:002012-01-05T15:50:17.951-08:00A good portion of what Wente writes is complete no...A good portion of what Wente writes is complete non-sense. <br /><br />Newspapers like the G&M attempt to be balanced, and as such attempt to provide roughly equal space to arguments coming from the left and right. Unfortunately, providing any space for right wing arguments today, means being open to publishing climate change deniers, creationist apologizers, and espousers of economic fallacies. <br /><br />The right-wing movement in North America is becoming increasingly detached from reality. The movement is fed by the Fox News (and now Sun TV) propaganda machine.<br /><br />Intellectual conservatism is dead. Its been replaced by business elites tricking people into voting in their interest by invoking fear - of God, homosexuals and Kenyan Muslim Presidents.<br /><br />The only way right-wing pundits like Wente can continue to support such a situation is by making arguments that don't make sense. David Brooks and Ross Dothat have to bend and twist the facts in their New York Times column's all the time to conform to the bizarre narrative coming from the right. Although they do tend to avoid Went's brand of outright lies. <br /><br />Does this mean I will right off the Times and Globe? Can't, they are still the newspapers of record.Paul Stonkusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1967581409895223685.post-62967848894460121392011-12-22T19:44:39.211-08:002011-12-22T19:44:39.211-08:00Thank you for this post Mike. I recently watched t...Thank you for this post Mike. I recently watched the documentary Please Mind the Planet (public on YouTube) and it raised a similar frustration with the concept of doubt. <br /><br />In the doc, Bernie Clark quoted a 1969 USA Tobacco Industry Strategy Document "Smoking and Health Proposal" which stated ""Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of general public... It is also the means of establishing a controversy."<br /><br />Similarly, today's researchers conclude that "scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection." (Jacque, Peter J. Dunlap, Riley E. and Freeman, Mark (2008). The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism'. 17.3. 349-385. ).<br /><br />Because of the doubt created by the tobacco industry, it took decades to convince consumers of the deadly effects of smoking - long after scientific research concluded this. <br /><br />Today we see environmental scientists and climatologists facing the same struggle. Doubt prevents the public from fully accepting the climate change reality - and are thus unmotivated to change their lifestyles; this doubt generates inaction from our government and leads to the continuation of environmentally destructive investment strategies (i.e. tar sands). <br /><br />Time should be spent discussing solutions - the cause is no longer debatable.Alex Grahamhttp://twitter.com/ONaturalGirlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1967581409895223685.post-24315985427970570622011-12-15T20:31:59.295-08:002011-12-15T20:31:59.295-08:00You know, Mike, I thought the readers of your blog...You know, Mike, I thought the readers of your blog would be those who deeply care about sustainability. It's so interesting that your blog also attracts people like "Anonymous" above. You should be proud that your blog provides a space for debate for various kinds of people! :)<br /><br />I agree with you that climate change is not debatable and the press shouldn't mislead the public by making it sound like it is. Sadly, in the end, people will believe what they want to believe. I've had a heated debate with people who strongly believe that climate change is some kind of hoax. It's just unbelievable.<br /><br />And nope, COP 17 didn't turn out to be the biggest failure as predicted by Anonymous!Emmynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1967581409895223685.post-58462333905739667032011-12-02T12:17:33.386-08:002011-12-02T12:17:33.386-08:00Dear Anonymous,
Your points are well taken. I ag...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Your points are well taken. I agree that as a business, the Globe and Mail has a vested interest to publish information that the masses want to read. But does that mean that we should publish articles that inaccurately present the facts? I agree that people would want to read various opinions on a subject where the facts are not quite clear but on a topic like climate change, this is not a question of what people want to read but a question of presenting the facts correctly. If you're saying that a for-profit news organization should be released of its duty to provide accurate and factual information for the sake of satisfying markets, then you're changing the role of news organizations from a vehicle of dissemination to a vehicle of entertainment. On top of all this, i think you underestimate the critical role that media outlets like G&M have on shaping public opinion and on what the market thereby demands to read. So i think you're overlooking the self-fulfilling prophecy where G&M absolves responsibility from presenting the facts because people don't want to read it yet their role in avoiding the facts is leading to people not wanting to read them. <br /><br />I completely care that Canada is criticized not only because of our image in the international community but also because i care about future generations of Canadians. The criticisms that will emerge, again to my earlier point, is not based on opinion but on facts about climate change. If you don't care "one bit" about whether we get criticized then you also don't care about the fact that stalling progress on this issue is creating substantial hardship on future generations of Canadians. Do you care about that? I certainly do. I think your inability to care is directly tied to your inability to see the facts. How ironic then that your view is the very issue I'm trying to bring up: that Canadians are not educated on the facts because news outlets are not properly conveying those facts. <br /><br />In terms of your last sentence, with that attitude, then i agree that not much will come out of these talks. I'm glad you're not there. <br /><br />Most importantly, you clearly miss the point of my blog posting. You don't at all touch on my commentary about the danger of misleading the public that climate change is in fact debatable. This is my core issue!! But perhaps you're so vulnerable to the misleading media that you can't see your way out of the proverbial box you've put yourself in.Mike Valentehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992260402129018501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1967581409895223685.post-18157541703813924782011-12-02T08:01:43.246-08:002011-12-02T08:01:43.246-08:00"if the media were doing its job and communic..."if the media were doing its job and communicating to the public the truth based on sound science, we should see 97-98 out of 100 stories on climate change indicating that it is real"<br /><br />That's right, but fortunatly news media is a business, that means they will present stories which will sell. If 50% of climate stories are from doubters its is because that is what sells, and it is also a rough reflection of public opnion; roughly 50% do not beleive in AGW anymore. And it is blogs like yours that gradually got them there.<br /><br /><br />"wonder whether this column was published intentionally by the Globe and Mail as a political statement to defend against the tidal wave of criticism our country will face in the next week"<br /><br />Oh my gosh you are one serious wimp. Who cares if Canada is criticized. I don't care one bit. Ooh no Ban ki-Moon said I was bad, Ooooh no! Actually I like Canada’s new role of bad guy at these socialist climate photo-ops instead of the usual Canadian kiss-ass role. I say Bring it.<br /><br /><br />"Until the Globe and Mail filters out completely inaccurate and misleading stories like these, I’m boycotting the newspaper and I encourage others to join me"<br /><br />Go ahead. You can always buy the National Post. I predict you'll be buying the G&M again in a couple of weeks.<br /><br />Durban will be the biggest failure of all of the climate summits.<br /><br />CheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com