. . . to serve the corporate masters. Warning: NPR kvetching ahead.
I thought Diane Rehm’s show started off well this morning: she interviewed presidential science advisor Dr. John Holdren about the latest White House report on climate change. And here’s the thing: she had him on by himself, not up against a panel of climate change deniers. Good, I thought, we’re going to have a serious discussion about climate change, not the usual he said/she said “fair & balanced” crap NPR’s been pushing lately. Let’s for once hear what a responsible spokesman for the scientific community has to say about climate change. Go, NPR! Go, Diane Rehm!
And then, ten minutes into the interview, Diane announced a short break, and it became apparent that Dr. Holdren had been on the phone and not in the studio. After the break, sure as hell, Diane basically turned the show over to a denialist hack from the Wall Street Journal who launched into the familiar GOP talking-points litany: there’s nothing to these hysterical rumors; how can there be global warming when it froze last night in Buffalo; scientists disagree; all’s well with the world; just keep moving folks there’s nothing to see here . . . and I turned the radio off in disgust.
Here’s the deal: when the media give climate change denialists equal time, it creates in listeners (and is designed to create) the illusion that climate change is a 50/50 proposition: one person warns of climate change, another person says there’s no such thing. Well, it’s not a 50/50 proposition; it’s more like 95/5: climate change, and mankind’s contribution to it through greenhouse gas emissions, is the scientific consensus . . . observable, well-studied, and documented. The denialists, whether they come from the religious or corporate community, are a small minority with no data to back up their claims . . . and yet they always get equal time. This isn’t “balance.” This isn’t “fair.” It’s propaganda.
It’s not just Diane Rehm, of course, it’s all of NPR and major media in general. No matter how removed from reality whacko minority beliefs are, those beliefs are presented as legitimate points of view by the media. Lately I’m seeing increasing reportage on the “controversy” over President Obama’s birth certificate, without any accompanying mention that there is no controversy: Obama produced the birth certificate prior to the 2008 election, the first presidential candidate ever to be asked to do so. Yes, there are crazies who do not, will not, accept the fact that Obama is a US citizen. Why are the media giving these racist fuckwads air time? Even reporting on it implies . . . and creates in uninformed listeners and viewers . . . doubt. I ask again, quite seriously: why are the media giving these racist fuckwads air time?
Okay, Nice Polite Republicans, if you’re really committed to this “Shape of Earth: Views Differ” style of reporting, how come advocates of single-payer health care don’t get equal time? How come advocates of immediate military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan don’t get equal time? How come advocates of a North American union don’t get equal time?
Oh, don’t worry, I know I’m wasting my breath here . . . the corporate shills at NPR will always come down on the side of their masters. Diane Rehm, I’ve given up on you. You used to fight it, a little . . . now you just hand your mic over to the propagandists. Do you invite these hacks onto your show yourself, or are you just doing what you’re told to do?
Thank God for the intertubes: if I want to inform myself about climate change (or single-payer health care, military withdrawal, or open borders) I can find sites where these issues are seriously discussed, free from governmental, religious, and corporate propaganda. Increasingly, NPR is becoming background noise, something to listen to when you need a break from the serious issues of the day. How long will it be before Diane Rehm morphs into Larry King, more concerned about the behind-the-scenes goings on at American Chopper than the street protests in Tehran?
Paul,
Unfortunately, the climate seems to have a mind of its own and delights in making fools of us mere mortals. Are we in a period of climatic change? Absolutely. Are we currently in a period of global warming? Well, check out: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html and
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html
To summarize: global warming peaked in 1998, and since then has leveled off and is now declining. Even more telling, not one of the recent climatic change models that I am aware of can accurately predict the actual climate history of the 20th Century, much less the last decade when humanity was pumping more carbon emission than ever before into the atmosphere. In fact, the dreaded Malenkovich Cycles are a more accurate predictor than the current models being put forward. (Okay, so I’m being a prick and showing off, but I did teach a unit in climatology at the Air Force Academy.)
At the risk of gross oversimplification, climate has always been cyclic, driven by factors (that have nothing to do with anthropogenic forcing) such as distance from the sun, tilt of the earth’s axis (which is always wobbling), solar activity, and global circulation patterns. Further, there are minor cycles (30 years or so) within the larger cycle.
So what’s going on right now? Perhaps the eternal command post response of “Stand-by one” is appropriate as there is more to come. Unfortunately, see sentence one above.