DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: May 2, 2016, 7:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
Meet The Gene Police [/center]
[move]
The World According To Monsanto is the film that puts all the
pieces together: How Monsanto Gets Away With It.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif[/move]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/aK7gAZS0lbY[/center]
The background is explored-- and exposed. Monsanto started out
as a chemical company, the largest one in the 20th century. This
is their history: how scientific studies were falsified, how
whistle blowers were destroyed,how farmers all over the world
are being served lawsuits, their livelihoods crushed...and we
are eating the Frankenfood.
They have established a new and terrifying norm: that seed can
be owned as property,
The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got
its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers
via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who
worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as
deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US
food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the
approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto,
becoming the company’s vice president for public policy. How
convenient.
Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government
agencies, the US adopted genetically engineered foods and crops
without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite
of serious questions hanging over their safety.
In this film you will actually see George Bush Sr. joke with
Monsanto higher- ups about their products coming to market:
"Don't worry, we're in the dereg business!"
Indiana farmer Troy Roush, who's life and farm of three
generations was devastated when Monsanto claimed he was saving
their seed says: "They've created an industry that serves no
other purpose than to wreck farmers lives. They want to control
the seed. They want to own life. These are the building blocks
of food we're talking about. They are in the process of owning
food. All food."
See this film and spread the word to everyone you know. It is
crucial that we understand this is not a science fiction movie:
this is true, and going on now.
--Bibi Farber
This film was produced by French journalist and film maker
Marie-Monique Robin
- See more at:
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/what-isnt-working-1/the-world-according-.html#sthash.DQqTfnjQ.dpuf
#Post#: 5058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: May 7, 2016, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070516174104.png[/img][/center]
[center]For sale: Systems that can secretly track where
cellphone users go around the globe [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp[/img]<br
/>[/center]
SNIPPET:
The technology works by exploiting an essential fact of all
cellular networks: They must keep detailed, up-to-the-minute
records on the locations of their customers to deliver calls and
other services to them. Surveillance systems are secretly
collecting these records to map people’s travels over days,
weeks or longer, according to company marketing documents and
experts in surveillance technology.
The world’s most powerful intelligence services, such as the
National Security Agency and Britain’s GCHQ, long have used
cellphone data to track targets around the globe. But experts
say these new systems allow less technically advanced
governments to track people in any nation — including the United
States — with relative ease and precision.
Users of such technology type a phone number into a computer
portal, which then collects information from the location
databases maintained by cellular carriers, company documents
show. In this way, the surveillance system learns which cell
tower a target is currently using, revealing his or her location
to within a few blocks in an urban area or a few miles in a
rural one.
It is unclear which governments have acquired these tracking
systems, but one industry official, speaking on the condition of
anonymity to share sensitive trade information, said that dozens
of countries have bought or leased such technology in recent
years. This rapid spread underscores how the burgeoning,
multibillion-dollar surveillance industry makes advanced spying
technology available worldwide.
Security experts say hackers, sophisticated criminal gangs and
nations under sanctions also could use this tracking technology,
which operates in a legal gray area. It is illegal in many
countries to track people without their consent or a court
order, but there is no clear international legal standard for
secretly tracking people in other countries, nor is there a
global entity with the authority to police potential abuses.
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/for-sale-systems-that-can-secretly-track-where-cellphone-users-go-around-the-globe/2014/08/24/f0700e8a-f003-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html?wpisrc=nl_az_most
#Post#: 5267--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: June 11, 2016, 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
06/08/2016 02:17 PM
[center]
2000 Groups Urge Congress to Reject TPP Trade Deal[/center]
SustainableBusiness.com News
SNIPPET:
While action on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal
has been dormant during the presidential primary, 450
environmental groups just sent a letter to Congress, urging them
to reject it.
The letter follows one from 1525 civil society organizations in
May, which points to threats to American jobs and wages, the
environment, food safety and public health.
President Obama hopes to have the TPP ratified before he leaves
office and Congress is expected to vote on it after the November
elections.
The environmental community fears the TPP will kill the movement
on climate change because it would make it so easy for fossil
companies and polluters of all kinds to challenge government
regulations and gains made by grassroots activists after long
fought battles.
Full article:
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26641
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML http://otherwords.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hightower-TPP-backroom-deal-for-one-percent-GlobalTradeWatch-600x450.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: July 17, 2016, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][size=18pt]VIDEO: Scientists under attack: Sinister
operations by Monsanto[/size][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170716143402.png[/img]
[/center]
[quote]
Science is neutral, right?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
Think again.
Companies like Monsanto use gangster tactics to go after
scientists who publish studies calling the safety of GMOs in to
question.
This is a very difficult movie to get your hands on. It's taken
down often. [img
width=60]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png[/img]
If you think you know how bad companies like Monsanto are, you
don't know the half of it.
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/gmo-food-politics/scientists-under-attack.html[/quote]
[center]
[img
width=320]
HTML http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2.jpg[/img]
[/center]
[move]PLEASE watch this video and PASS IT ON.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif[/move]
#Post#: 5707--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 21, 2016, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Senator Elizabeth Warren took Wells Fargo CEO John
Stumpf to task yesterday[/center]
SNIPPET:
[quote]Ever since the "Greed Is Good" era of the 1980s, the
motto for big business in America has been simple: forget the
employees, forget the customers, forget the products, forget the
environment, forget the community, and forget ethics in general.
[img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
Forget all of those things, the new motto is "do whatever it
takes to pump up the stock value and guarantee big payouts to
the CEO and senior executives".
And if anything goes wrong, like it did at Wells Fargo, there's
plenty of scapegoats at the bottom of the business who can take
the fall.
"[Y]ou squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they
would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your
stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own
pocket. And when it all blew up, you kept your job, you kept
your multimillion dollar bonuses and you went on television to
blame thousands of $12 an hour employees who were just trying to
meet cross-sell quotas that made you rich. This is about
accountability. You should resign. You should give back the
money that you took while this scam was going on and you should
be criminally investigated by both the Department of Justice and
the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Warren's right to call for a criminal investigation, but without
more support from Republicans in Congress, this may sadly just
have been another impassioned speech rattling around the halls
of Congress, and not a catalyst for real change.
[/quote]
[center]How To Take On the Banksters [/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/09/how-take-banksters[/center]
#Post#: 6474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: February 14, 2017, 9:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/monsanto-roundup-cancer-696x497.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Monsanto’s Roundup Must Carry Cancer Warning Label,
Judge Decrees
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif[/center]
February 14, 2017 | 137,632 views
SNIPPET:
[quote]Roundup isn't the only weed killer that would have to
bear the Prop 65 warning label. Glyphosate is also found in
Ortho Groundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter,
StartUp,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II
and others.[/quote]
'The pesticide industry recognizes it's on the defensive,' said
environmental lawyer Charlie Tebbutt. 'It's doing everything it
can to transform reality.' As the [i]post-truth Trump team [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>looks set to dismantle environmental regulations and the
protections they bring to the public, it's likely the chemical
industry will only continue to elevate alternative facts. We all
will need to work harder than ever to see through the spin."[/i]
HTML http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/02/14/monsantos-roundup-cancer-warning-label.aspx
#Post#: 6636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: March 9, 2017, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]UN scientists denounce ‘myth’ that we need pesticides to
feed the world[/center]
Alexandra Gerea March 8, 2017
SNIPPET 1:
A surprising report from the UN warns of the catastrophic
consequences pesticides can have (and are already having) on the
world. The report claims that due to ‘systematic denial of
harms’ and ‘unethical marketing tactics’ pesticide usage is
doing more harm than good and the idea that we need pesticides
to feed the world is a myth.
[quote]“Defined as any substance or mixture of substances of
chemical and biological ingredients intended to repel, destroy
or control any pest or regulate plant growth, pesticides are
responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each
year, 99 per cent of which occur in developing countries, where
health, safety and environmental regulations are weaker and less
strictly applied,” the report starts out. “Despite the harms
associated with excessive and unsafe pesticide practices, it is
commonly argued that intensive industrial agriculture, which is
heavily reliant on pesticide inputs, is necessary to increase
yields to feed a growing world population, particularly in the
light of negative climate change impacts and global scarcity of
farmlands.”[/quote]
SNIPPET 2:
... but there are other aspects to consider, just as vital to
our global food security. For starters, Hilal Elver, the UN’s
special rapporteur on the right to food, says that much of the
world’s crops are not being used to feed the people, but rather
to support cheaper products in the developed world. Commodity
products such as soy (often used to feed animals) and palm oil
(used in everything from pastry to pre-cooked meals) are taking
the place of other plants, which could be used to feed local
communities. This, says Elver, is the main blame of the
corporations:
[quote]“The corporations are not dealing with world hunger, they
are dealing with more agricultural activity on large
scales.”[/quote]
HTML http://www.zmescience.com/science/agriculture-science/pesticides-feeding-08032017/
#Post#: 6781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: March 30, 2017, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]4 Tactics Used by Monsanto to Undermine Potential Link
Between Glyphosate and Cancer [/center]
By Genna Reed
Genna Reed [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]<br
/>is a science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and
Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Emails unsealed in a California lawsuit last week reveal that
agribusiness giant Monsanto engaged in activities aimed at
undermining efforts to evaluate a potential link between
glyphosate—the active ingredient of the company's popular
herbicide Roundup—and cancer. The documents reveal the company's
plans to seed the scientific literature with a ghostwritten
study and its efforts to delay and prevent U.S. government
assessments of the product's safety.
Many corporate actors, including the sugar industry, the oil and
gas industries and the tobacco industry, have used tactics such
as denying scientific evidence, attacking individual scientists,
interfering in government decision-making processes and
manufacturing counterfeit science through ghostwriting to try to
convince policymakers and the public of their products' safety
in the face of independent scientific evidence to the contrary.
This case underscores the urgent need for greater transparency
and tighter protections to prevent these kinds of corporate
disinformation tactics that could put the public at risk.
High Stakes in Glyphosate-Cancer Link
The case centers on the scientific question of whether
glyphosate causes a type of cancer known as non-Hodgkin
lymphoma. In the California lawsuit in which the key company
documents were unsealed, plaintiffs with non-Hodgkin lymphoma
claim that their disease is linked to glyphosate exposure.
The science is still unclear on this question. The EPA's issue
paper on this topic said that glyphosate is "not likely
carcinogenic," but some of its Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)
members point to critical data gaps and even suggest that there
is "limited but suggestive evidence of a positive association"
between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemical Agency have
both concluded that scientific evidence does not support
classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen. More than 94 scientists
from institutions across the world have called for changes to
EFSA's scientific evaluation process.
It's complex. What is clear, however, is that independent
science bodies should be conducting their assessments on
glyphosate without interference from outside players with a
stake in the final determination.
The stakes for public health—and for Monsanto's bottom line—are
enormous. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides
in the U.S. Sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup, it is
the company's flagship product. U.S. farmers spray nearly 300
million pounds of it on corn, soybeans and a variety of other
crops every year to kill weeds. It is also commonly used in the
U.S. for residential lawn care. As a result of its widespread
use, traces of Roundup have been found in streams and other
waterways and in our food and farmers and farmworkers are at
risk for potentially heavy exposure to the chemical. (More on
the ramifications of its agricultural use and the related
acceleration of herbicide-resistant weeds here).
[center]
HTML http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F66PxaSGNyM/UsVwtcJMdRI/AAAAAAAA9uE/2t2MW9yYTrw/s1600/11shark-lawyers.gif[/center]
[center]Setting the Scene for Science Manipulation
[/center]In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began a compulsory risk assessment of glyphosate as part of its
pesticide reregistration process. The agency's process risked
the possibility that the chemical could be listed as a possible
carcinogen, as the agency is required to review new evidence
since its last review in the mid-1990s and determine whether it
will cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and
human health. From Monsanto's standpoint, such a classification
change posed a clear threat for its lucrative product, possibly
resulting in changes to labels and public perception of the
product's safety that could tarnish the brand's image.
Compounding the companies' woes, in March 2015, the United
Nations-sponsored International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) released an assessment concluding that glyphosate was a
probable human carcinogen after evaluating the available
scientific research on glyphosate's link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma
and myeloma. IARC recommended that glyphosate be classified as a
2A carcinogen, along with pesticides like DDT and malathion.
IARC's was a science-based determination, not regulatory in
nature. But the IARC assessment, the pending EPA review and a
slated evaluation by yet another U.S. agency—the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC)—appears to have spurred Monsanto to use at
least four separate tactics to inappropriately influence public
perception and the assessment process.
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://i.imgur.com/9DqiHlb.png[/img][/center]
Tactic 1: Suppress the Science
In one disturbing revelation, the emails suggest that Monsanto
representatives had frequent communications with a U.S.
government official: Jess Rowland, former associate director of
the Health Effects Division at the EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs and chair of the agency's Cancer Assessment Review
Committee. Internal Monsanto emails indicate that Rowland tipped
the company off to the IARC assessment before its release. The
emails also quote Rowland as saying he would work to quash the
ATSDR study on glyphosate, reportedly telling Monsanto
officials: "If I can kill this I should get a medal." The emails
suggest that Monsanto was working with staff inside a U.S.
government agency, outside of the established areas of public
input to decision-making processes, in a completely
inappropriate manner.
Tactic 2: Attack
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
the Messenger
Immediately following the IARC assessment, Monsanto not only
disputed the findings but attacked the IARC's credibility,
trying to discredit the internationally renowned agency by
claiming it had fallen prey to "agenda-driven bias." The IARC's
working group members were shocked by Monsanto's allegations
questioning their credibility. IARC relies on data that are in
the public domain and follows criteria to evaluate the relevance
and independence of each study it cites. As one IARC member,
epidemiologist Francesco Forastiere, explained: "… none of us
had a political agenda. We simply acted as scientists,
evaluating the body of evidence, according to the criteria."
Despite Monsanto's attacks, the IARC continues to stand by the
conclusions of its 2015 assessment.
[center][img
width=460]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img][/center]
Tactic 3: Manufacture Counterfeit Science
In perhaps the most troubling revelation, emails show that in
February 2015, Monsanto discussed manufacturing counterfeit
science—ghostwriting a study for the scientific literature that
would downplay the human health impacts of glyphosate and
misrepresenting its independence. William Heydens, a Monsanto
executive, suggested that the company could keep costs down by
writing an article on the toxicity of glyphosate and having paid
academics "edit & sign their names so to speak" and recommended
that the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology be contacted
since the company "had done such a publication in the past" at
that journal.
The 2000 paper Heydens referenced, the lead author of which is a
faculty member at New York Medical College (NYMC), cites
Monsanto studies, thanks Monsanto for "scientific support," but
fails to disclose Monsanto funding or other direct involvement
in its publication. That paper concluded that, "Roundup
herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans." After a quick
investigation to assess the integrity of this study, NYMC
announced that there was "no evidence" that the faculty member
had broken with the school's policy not to author ghostwritten
studies.
Tactic 4: Undermine
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif
[img
width=60]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/> ;) [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/> Independent Scientific Assessment
The emails and other court documents also document the ways in
which Monsanto worked to prevent EPA's use of a Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) to review the agency's issue paper on
glyphosate's cancer risk and to delay and help shape the SAP
findings through suggested changes to the composition of the
panel. Within the unsealed emails, Monsanto mentioned that it
opposed the EPA's plan to create a SAP to review glyphosate
because "the scope is more likely than not to be more
comprehensive than just IARC … SAPs add significant delay,
create legal vulnerabilities and are a flawed process that is
probable to result in a panel and determinations that are
scientifically questionable and will only result in greater
uncertainty." This is a bogus claim. Scientific Advisory Panels,
when they are fully independent, are a critical source of
science advice.
EPA's SAP meetings on glyphosate, scheduled to begin in October
2016, were postponed just a few days before they were slated to
start. This occurred after intense lobbying from CropLife
America, an agrichemical trade organization representing
Monsanto and other pesticide makers, which questioned the
motives of the SAP looking into the health impacts of
glyphosate. CropLife submitted several comments to the EPA,
including one that attacked the integrity of a nominated SAP
scientist. The agency subsequently announced the scientist's
removal from the panel in November 2016, one month before the
rescheduled meetings took place.
Simultaneously, Monsanto created its own "expert panel" [img
width=70]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif[/img]
in
July 2015 composed of 16 individuals, some scientists and some
lobbyists, only four of whom have never been employed by or
consulted with Monsanto. Who needs independent assessments when
you have ready, willing and substantially funded agribusiness
scientists who call themselves "independent"?
Defending the Scientific Process
The revelations from the unsealed Monsanto emails underscore the
vital need for independent science and transparency to ensure
credibility, foster public trust in our system of science-based
policymaking and prevent entities like Monsanto from undermining
objective scientific assessments. Clearly, better controls and
oversight are needed to safeguard the scientific process from
tactics like ghostwriting and more transparency and
accountability are needed to ensure that scientific bodies are
able to adequately assess the risks and benefits of any given
product. Given what is now known about Monsanto's actions, the
need for independently conducted research and impartial
science-based assessments about glyphosate's safety is more
important than ever.
HTML http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-link-2326735532.html
#Post#: 6788--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: March 31, 2017, 7:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Discusses Monsanto skullduggery -
the surfactants in Glyphosate are even MORE dangerous than the
already known carcinogenic glyphosate! >:( - Glyphosate is in
BREAKFAST CEREAL! :o[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/gR98BFdQ02s[/center]
Thom sits down with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Chief Prosecuting
Attorney - Hudson Riverkeeper and President - Waterkeeper
Alliance, Author - Framed: Why Michael Skakel Spent Over a
Decade in Prison For a Murder He Didn't Commit) to talk about
the dangers of glyphosate, a major ingredient in the pesticide
RoundUp (a Monsanto product).
#Post#: 6791--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: April 1, 2017, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center] [center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100216204839.gif[/img][/center][/center]
[center]As the climate becomes more unstable, the media becomes
more silent[/center]
[center]
How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016 [/center]
[center][img
width=50]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif[/img]
[img
width=100]
HTML http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1375371542_tumblr_m7jevgcaFm1qzqdem.gif[/img][/center]
[font=times new roman]Mediamatters.org,[/font] March 17, 2017
In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and
NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday,
collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by
66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of
important climate-related stories, including the announcement of
2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris
climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather
events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover,
and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power
Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate
change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the
networks also failed to devote significant coverage to
climate-related policies, but they still found the time to
uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came
from now-President Donald Trump and his team.
Total Climate Coverage On Broadcast Networks Cratered In 2016
Combined Climate Coverage On ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox News Sunday
Decreased Significantly From 2015 To 2016, Despite Ample
Opportunity To Cover Climate Change. In 2016, ABC, CBS, NBC, and
Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday* aired a combined 50
minutes of climate coverage on their evening and Sunday news
programs, which was 96 minutes less than in 2015 -- a drop of
about 66 percent.
*Fox Broadcast Co. does not air a nightly news program
As was the case in 2015, ABC aired the least amount of climate
coverage in 2016, covering the topic for just six minutes, about
seven minutes less than in 2015. All the other major networks
also significantly reduced their coverage from the previous
year, with NBC showing the biggest decrease (from 50 minutes in
2015 to 10 minutes in 2016), followed by Fox (39 minutes in 2015
to seven minutes in 2016) and CBS (from 45 minutes in 2015 to 27
minutes in 2016).
Networks Had Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change In 2016.
Despite the pronounced decline in climate coverage, the networks
had ample opportunity to cover climate change in 2016. As The
New York Times reported, in 2016, climate change took on “a
prominence it has never before had in a presidential general
election” given the stark contrast between the candidates’
views. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had a long
track record of climate denial and differed with Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton on a range of important climate issues,
including the Paris climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, and
the continued use of coal as an energy source, with Trump
pledging that he would put coal miners “back to work” and
Clinton proposing a plan that would help coal communities
transition to clean energy. Additionally, there were also a host
of non-election climate stories worthy of coverage in 2016,
including extreme weather events tied to climate change, like
Hurricane Matthew and the record-breaking rainfall and flooding
in Louisiana (which the American Red Cross described as “the
worst natural disaster to strike the United States since
Superstorm Sandy”); the signing of the Paris climate agreement
and the U.N. climate summit in Morocco; the official
announcement from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration that 2015 was the hottest year on record by far;
and investigations by state attorneys general into whether
ExxonMobil committed fraud by misleading the public on climate
change. [The New York Times, 8/1/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16; The
Huffington Post, 9/8/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; Media
Matters, 3/15/16, 10/7/16, 8/17/16; The Huffington Post,
4/22/16; The Guardian, 4/22/16; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; The
New York Times, 1/20/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]
ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox Failed To Discuss Climate-Related
Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Until After The
Election. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a
single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate
change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or
Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a
significant amount of coverage to Trump’s presidency, airing 25
segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of
a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of
these segments aired after the election. Examples of
post-election coverage include a PBS NewsHour segment about
Trump’s selection of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and Pruitt’s history of climate denial
and ties to the fossil fuel industry; a CBS Evening News segment
about Trump appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to his EPA
transition team; and an NBC Nightly News report on Trump’s
promise to roll back President Barack Obama’s executive actions
on climate change. [PBS NewsHour, 12/7/16; CBS Evening News,
11/15/16; NBC Nightly News, 11/9/16**]
**We included citations of specific shows when we described the
content of a segment. We did not include show citations for
general tallies. We linked to episodes that were available
online but listed only the date for those that were not.
PBS NewsHour Was The Only Show To Discuss Climate Ramifications
Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Prior To The Election. PBS
NewsHour*** was the only show in our study that examined what
impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on
climate-related issues and policies before the election. On the
September 7 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William
Brangham discussed “what a Clinton or Trump administration might
mean with regards to climate change” with The New York Times’
Coral Davenport and The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney. And a
September 22 segment explored “what the early days of a Trump
presidency might look like” and featured Judy Woodruff
interviewing Evan Osnos of The New Yorker about whether Trump
would renounce the Paris climate agreement. [PBS NewsHour,
9/22/16, 9/7/16]
***Unlike the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC that air
for a half hour seven days a week, PBS NewsHour airs five days a
week and is a half hour longer.
Tyndall Report Found No Discussion Of Climate Change In Issues
Coverage During Campaign. The Tyndall Report, which tracks the
broadcast networks' weeknight newscasts, analyzed
election-related issues coverage on the major networks’
weeknight newscasts and found no issues coverage devoted to
climate change in 2016 up through October 25. The Tyndall Report
defines election-related issues coverage as that which “takes a
public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be
addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and
proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.” [The
Intercept, 2/24/17; Media Matters, 10/26/16; Tyndall Report,
10/25/16]
Networks Aired A Disproportionate Amount Of Climate Coverage
After Election Day. In the roughly 45 weeks before the November
8 election, the networks aired a total of 55 segments about
climate change -- roughly one per week. After the election, the
networks aired 32 climate-related segments over approximately
seven weeks till the end of the year -- about five stories per
week.
Networks Ignored Links Between Climate Change And National
Security And Rarely Addressed Economic And Public Health
Impacts, But Some Detailed Impacts On Extreme Weather And Plants
And Wildlife.
Networks Did Not Air A Single Segment On Link To National
Security. Numerous military and intelligence organizations have
sounded the alarm on climate change’s connection to national
security. A September 2016 report prepared by the National
Intelligence Council and coordinated with the U.S. intelligence
community stated, “Climate change and its resulting effects are
likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the
United States and other countries over the next 20 years.” And
following Trump’s election victory, “a bipartisan group of
defense experts and former military leaders sent Trump’s
transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to
consider climate change as a grave threat to national security,”
E&E News reported. Yet the national security implications of
climate change never came up in any of the networks’ climate
coverage for 2016. [Media Matters, 1/13/17; Scientific American,
11/15/16]
PBS Was The Only Network To Address Economic Impacts Of Climate
Change. PBS was the only network to report on the economic
impacts of climate change. Two segments about Washington state’s
carbon tax ballot initiative that aired on the April 21 and
October 20 editions of PBS NewsHour featured the president of
the Washington State Labor Council explaining that Washington’s
shellfish industry “has left the state and gone to Hawaii
because the acid levels in the ocean has risen so much.” And on
the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William
Brangham reported that 365 American companies “have written to
the president-elect imploring him to uphold the Paris accords
and warning -- quote -- ‘Failure to build a low-carbon economy
puts American prosperity at risk.’” [PBS NewsHour, 4/21/16,
10/20/16, 11/17/16]
Networks Rarely Addressed How Climate Change Impacts Public
Health.
The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, and the National Climate Assessment have all
concluded that climate change has a significant influence on
human health and disease. And as 2016 saw the first local spread
of the Zika virus in the continental United States, Climate
Signals found that “climate change creates new risks for human
exposure to vector-borne diseases such as Zika, particularly in
the United States where rising heat and humidity are increasing
the number of days annually in which disease vectors thrive.”
However, only two segments on NBC Nightly News dealt with the
link between climate change and public health -- no other
network covered the issue. In a January 18 report about the
spread of Zika, correspondent Tom Costello noted, “Researchers
are also studying whether climate change and El Nino are causing
certain mosquitoes populations to grow.” And a July 4 report
about a massive algae bloom creating a toxic emergency in
Florida featured correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explaining, “The
debate is raging over what`s to blame for this latest growth,
but scientists say there are many factors including population
growth and climate change.” [World Health Organization, accessed
3/21/17; CDC.gov, accessed 3/21/17; National Climate Assessment,
accessed 3/21/17; Climate Signals, 8/23/16; NBC Nightly News,
1/18/16, 7/4/16]
CBS And ABC Rarely Covered Climate Link To Extreme Weather,
While NBC And Fox Ignored It Completely. 2016 saw no shortages
of extreme weather events influenced by climate change, with
Hurricane Matthew making landfall on the East Coast; wildfires
-- which have become a consistent threat thanks, in part, to
climate change -- charring more than 100,000 acres in seven
states in the Southeast; and record rainfall and flooding in
Louisiana causing what the American Red Cross called “the worst
natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm
Sandy.” Yet NBC and Fox never addressed the link between climate
change and extreme weather, while CBS did so in four segments
and ABC did so in just one segment. By contrast, PBS NewsHour
aired eight segments dealing with the link between climate
change and extreme weather. [The Weather Channel, 10/9/16; Media
Matters, 10/6/16; The New York Times, 11/29/16; Climate Central,
11/23/16; Media Matters, 8/17/16]
PBS Led The Networks In Stories Detailing Climate Impacts On
Plants And Wildlife.
PBS provided the most coverage of climate impacts on plants and
wildlife (six segments), followed by CBS and NBC (three segments
each), and ABC (one segment). Examples of this reporting
included a “Climate Diaries” segment on CBS Evening News about
how climate change is “taking a toll on endangered mountain
gorillas” in Central Africa by making their food supply less
predictable and forcing human populations searching for water
into their territory and an NBC Nightly News segment about how
Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened because one of their food
sources -- seeds from whitebark pine trees -- has been decimated
by climate change. Another example was a PBS NewsHour segment
reporting that “two-fifths of bees, butterflies, and related
pollinating species are heading toward extinction” thanks to “a
range of factors, ranging from pesticide use to climate change
to habitat loss.” [CBS Evening News, 11/17/16; NBC Nightly News,
5/22/16; PBS NewsHour, 2/26/16]
Specific Climate-Related Policies Received Sparse Coverage
Outside Of PBS
The Clean Power Plan Was Almost Completely Ignored On Sunday
Shows And Received Sparse Coverage On Nightly News Shows. The
broadcast networks provided scant coverage of the Clean Power
Plan even though Trump had promised during the campaign to
eliminate the policy. The Clean Power Plan establishes the
first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants
and serves as the linchpin of President Obama’s program to meet
the nation’s emissions reduction obligation under the Paris
agreement. Fox News Sunday was the only Sunday show to feature a
climate-related segment on the Clean Power Plan, in which
Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane claimed that the
Democrats’ focus on the plan is an example of how
“environmentalism in a crucial way worked against the Democratic
Party this year,” because Trump carried coal-dependent states in
the election. But contrary to Lane’s claim, numerous polls
conducted in the run-up to the election indicated that a
majority of Americans consider climate change an important issue
and favor government action to address it. On nightly news
shows, ABC was the only network that did not air a
climate-related segment on the plan, while PBS NewsHour covered
the Clean Power Plan the most (seven segments), followed by CBS
Evening News (three segments) and NBC Nightly News (two
segments). [DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; The White House, 8/3/15;
The New York Times, 3/2/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/13/16; Media
Matters, 11/29/16]
PBS Far Outpaced Networks In Coverage Of U.N. Climate Agreement
And Summits. In 2016, world leaders met on Earth Day for the
signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement reached by 195
nations and later again in Morocco for talks about implementing
the climate accord. In Trump’s first major speech on energy
policy, in May, he vowed that he would “cancel” the Paris
climate agreement. But after the election he told The New York
Times, “I have an open mind to it.” Despite these developments,
PBS was the only network to devote significant coverage to the
U.N. climate agreement and U.N. climate-related summits, doing
so in 21 segments, while CBS aired five segments, NBC and ABC
aired just three, and Fox aired just two. [USA Today, 4/22/16;
The New York Times, 12/12/15; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16;
BBC.com, 5/27/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 5/26/16; The New York Times,
11/23/16]
CBS, NBC, And Fox Addressed The Climate Impacts Of The Keystone
XL Pipeline Only Once, While ABC And PBS Failed To Do So At All.
During the campaign, Clinton and Trump staked out opposing
positions on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which
would transport tar sands oil that is 17 percent dirtier than
average and would “increase emissions of carbon dioxide and
other gases linked to global warming” from Canada to the U.S.
Gulf Coast. Yet there was a dearth of coverage on Keystone XL’s
link to climate change, with CBS, NBC, and Fox each airing just
one segment that connected Keystone XL to climate change and ABC
and PBS ignoring the topic completely. The networks also ignored
Keystone XL more broadly -- airing just four additional
non-climate-related segments on the pipeline. [Business Insider,
9/25/16; Media Matters, 1/15/15]
Fox Was The Only Network To Cover The Dakota Access Pipeline In
A Climate Context. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Native
American tribes, as well as environmental activists, protested
against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016,
citing, among other concerns, the impact a continued buildup of
oil infrastructure would have on climate change. Yet Fox was the
sole network to cover the Dakota Access pipeline in a climate
context. On the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host
Chris Wallace previewed his upcoming interview with Trump by
saying that he would “ask [Trump] to clear up exactly where he
stands on climate change.” After returning from a commercial
break, Wallace said to the Trump, “Let me ask you a couple
specific questions. Will you still pull out of the Paris climate
agreement, which has been signed by more than 100 countries to
reduce carbon emissions? Will you restart the Dakota Access
pipeline, which the Army just stopped?” To which Trump replied
that he was “studying” the Paris climate agreement and would
“have [Dakota Access] solved very quickly” when he takes office.
ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did air multiple segments on the Dakota
Access pipeline (airing eight, 10, four, and 10 segments,
respectively), but none of these segments linked it to climate
change. [MPR News, 12/7/16; Time, 12/1/16, 10/28/16; Fox News
Sunday, 12/11/16]
Major Networks Completely Ignored The “Exxon Knew” Story.
Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times
revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed by the early
1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet
Exxon-funded organizations helped manufacture doubt about the
causes of climate change for decades afterward in what became
known as the “Exxon knew” scandal. The reports prompted the
attorneys general in New York, California, and Massachusetts to
each launch investigations of Exxon, as well as countersuits
from Exxon and subpoenas from members of Congress in defense of
Exxon. Yet none of the networks covered any of these
developments over the course of 2016. [Media Matters, 9/1/16;
InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]
CBS, Fox, And PBS Uncritically Aired Climate Science Denial In
2016 -- All Of Which Came From Trump Or Trump Officials [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
CBS, Fox, And PBS Aired A Combined Five Segments That Included
Unrebutted Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All From Trump Or
Trump Officials. In 2016, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour, and
Fox News Sunday aired a combined five segments that misled
audiences by featuring climate science denial. Half of Fox News
Sunday’s climate-related segments included climate denial. In
every instance, it was Trump or Trump officials promoting
denial.
• On the September 27 edition of CBS Evening News, correspondent
Julianna Goldman fact-checked a portion of the September 26
presidential debate in which Clinton stated, “Donald thinks that
climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think
it’s real,” and Trump interjected, “I did not. I did not. … I do
not say that.” Goldman noted that Trump had in fact tweeted that
climate change is a hoax, but she did not fact-check the
veracity of Trump’s statement that climate change was a hoax.
[CBS Evening News, 9/27/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16]
• On the November 9 edition of PBS NewsHour, during a segment on
world leaders’ reactions to Trump’s election victory,
correspondent Margaret Warner reported, “Also in question is
America’s participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump has
called climate change a hoax, and while it would take four years
to formally pull out of the agreement, there are no sanctions in
place for ignoring it.” And in a report on the ways in which
Trump would dismantle environmental policy on the November 17
edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham stated,
“Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism about climate
change, like in this 2012 tweet, when he said: ‘The concept of
global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to
make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.’ Two years later, he
wrote: ‘Global warming is an expensive hoax.’" In neither
instance did the correspondent note that Trump’s statements are
at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change is
real and human-caused. [PBS NewsHour, 11/9/16, 11/17/16]
• Shortly after Trump’s interview with The New York Times in
which he stated that he had an “open mind”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
on climate change and
the Paris climate agreement, Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace
asked Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how
flexible Trump would be on his campaign promises. Priebus
answered that as “far as this issue on climate change -- the
only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about
it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his
default position, which [is that] most of it is a bunch of bunk
[img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img],<br
/>but he'll have an open mind and listen to people.” Priebus the
n
moved on to discuss the potential nomination of Jim Mattis as
defense secretary before Wallace concluded the interview. And
during Wallace’s interview with Trump on the December 11 edition
of Fox News Sunday, Trump declared that “nobody really knows”
whether human-induced climate change is happening. Wallace
didn’t challenge Trump’s claim that blatantly misrepresents the
consensus of the world’s leading scientific institutions that
human activities such as burning fossil fuels are the main cause
of global warming. [The New York Times, 11/23/16; Fox News
Sunday, 11/27/16, 12/11/16; NASA.gov, accessed 3/21/17]
Other Nightly News Segments On PBS, CBS, And NBC Also Included
Climate Science Denial, But Reporters Pushed Back On Those
Claims, Noting That They Conflicted With Established Climate
Science. Segments on PBS, CBS, and NBC nightly news shows also
included climate denial, but reporters noted that that these
statements were at odds with established climate science.
• In a segment about Trump selecting Scott Pruitt as his nominee
to head the Environmental Protection Agency on the December 8
edition of PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff reported, “Pruitt
is in sync with President-elect Trump on a range of issues,
including his skepticism about man-made global warming. Writing
in the National Review this year, he said: ‘That debate is far
from settled. [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of
global warming.’ In fact, the vast majority of scientists agree
that human activity contributes to global warming, all of which
underscores questions about whether a Trump administration will
refuse to abide by the Paris accords on greenhouse gas
emissions.” And on the December 14 edition of PBS NewsHour,
Woodruff asked Sean Spicer, who was then communications director
for the Republican National Committee, “Does the president-elect
still believe, as he said on the campaign trail, that the
science behind climate change is still not settled, in other
words, something that most climate scientists say is absolutely
correct?” Spicer replied by denying the consensus on
human-caused climate change, stating that Trump “understands
that there’s elements of man, mankind, that affect climate, but
the exact impact of it and what has to be done to change that is
something there is some dispute about within the community, not
just science, but within the industry.” [PBS NewsHour, 12/8/16,
12/14/16]
• A November 15 CBS Evening News segment on the appointment of
climate denier Myron Ebell to Trump’s EPA transition team
featured footage of Trump calling climate change a “hoax,”
followed by correspondent Chip Reid stating, “President-elect
Donald Trump has left little doubt where he stands on the issue
of climate change. He wants a dramatic increase in the
production of coal and oil, which he says will create jobs. And
his EPA transition team is being led by Myron Ebell, a leading
climate change skeptic. Ebell, who is not a scientist, disagrees
with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say the
driving force behind the warming planet is the burning of fossil
fuels.” [CBS Evening News, 11/15/16]
• The December 14 edition of ABC’s World News Tonight featured
footage of Trump transition official Anthony Scaramucci denying
climate change by arguing, “There was overwhelming science that
the Earth was flat. ... We get a lot of things wrong in the
scientific community.” Correspondent Brian Ross introduced
Scaramucci’s comments as “a Trump transition official
continu[ing] the public assault on established science.” [ABC’s
World News Tonight, 11/14/16]
Because hosts or correspondents on these programs noted that the
statements in question contradicted mainstream climate science,
they were not counted as denial in our study.
Climate Scientists Were Completely Absent From ABC’s World News
Tonight … Again
For The Second Consecutive Year, ABC’s World News Tonight Did
Not Feature A Single Scientist In Its Climate Coverage. ABC’s
World News Tonight did not feature a single scientist in its
climate coverage for the second year in a row. By contrast, NBC
Nightly News and CBS Evening News featured five and six
scientists, respectively, and PBS NewsHour featured 18.
Sunday Shows Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In
Climate-Related Coverage. After featuring just two scientists
over a five-year period from 2009 to 2013, the Sunday shows
featured seven scientists in 2014 alone, and then backslid in
2015, quoting or interviewing just two scientists (4 percent of
all Sunday show guests). In 2016, that backslide continued, with
the Sunday shows featuring no scientists in their
climate-related coverage.
PBS And CBS Frequently Aired Coverage Related To Climate-Related
Scientific Research, While NBC And ABC Did So Less Often. PBS
and CBS far outpaced their counterparts in the number of
segments focusing on climate-related scientific research that
they aired on nightly news shows. PBS NewsHour aired 10 segments
on climate-related scientific research, including a segment that
featured scientists explaining climate change’s influence on
wildfires in Southern California and flooding in Louisiana; CBS
Evening News aired seven segments on climate-related research,
including a segment featuring interviews with scientists who
discovered unprecedented rates of sea ice melt in the Arctic
Circle. Conversely, NBC Nightly News aired just three segments
on climate-related research, and ABC’s World News Tonight aired
just two. None of the Sunday shows featured any segments on
climate-related scientific research. [PBS NewsHour, 8/17/16; CBS
Evening News, 3/4/16]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://i.imgur.com/9DqiHlb.png[/img][/center]
Sunday Shows’ Climate Coverage Dropped By 85 Percent
Every Network’s Sunday Show Significantly Decreased Its Climate
Coverage. After dropping slightly from a high of 81 minutes of
coverage in 2014 to 73 minutes in 2015, the Sunday shows’
climate coverage dropped 85 percent to just 11 minutes of
coverage in 2016 -- the third-lowest amount in the eight-year
time frame Media Matters has examined. Every network saw
significant declines in Sunday show coverage, with Fox leading
the way (down 32 minutes from the previous year), followed by
NBC (down 17 minutes), CBS (down 10 minutes), and ABC (down four
minutes).
Bernie Sanders Brought Up Climate Change Four Times As Much As
Hosts Did On ABC, CBS, And NBC Sunday Shows. On every Sunday
show except Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought
up climate change significantly more often than the hosts
themselves did. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s
Meet the Press aired a combined five segments in which the hosts
brought up climate change, while Bernie Sanders brought up
climate change 21 times during his appearances on those shows.
Because our study counted only those segments where a media
figure brought up or discussed climate change, those 21 segments
were not counted in this study's overall network tallies.
Nightly News Shows On ABC, CBS, and NBC Aired Roughly Half As
Much Climate Coverage As They Did In 2015
NBC Nightly News And CBS Evening News Significantly Decreased
Climate Coverage, And ABC Once Again Lagged Behind Network
Counterparts. The nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC
collectively decreased their climate coverage from approximately
73 minutes in 2015 to just over 39 minutes in 2016 -- a drop of
46 percent. NBC Nightly News had the biggest drop in climate
coverage, decreasing by about 22 minutes, followed by CBS
Evening News, which had a drop of approximately nine minutes.
ABC’s World News Tonight, which aired significantly less climate
coverage than its competitors in 2014 and 2015, once again
continued its downward trend, dropping even further from roughly
seven minutes of climate coverage in 2015 to just four minutes
in 2016.
For Second Year In A Row, PBS Aired More Climate Coverage Than
All Other Nightly News Programs Combined. For the second
consecutive year, PBS NewsHour aired more segments addressing
climate change than the other nightly news shows combined. PBS
NewsHour aired 46 climate-related segments, while ABC (five),
CBS (19), and NBC (12) aired a combined 36 climate-related
nightly news segments. However, PBS NewsHour’s climate coverage
decreased from 2015, when the network aired 58 climate-related
segments.
CBS And NBC Nightly News Shows Have Stepped Up Climate Coverage
In Early Months Of 2017 [img
width=50]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/> ::)
In 2017 So Far, CBS Evening News Has Already Aired More Than
Half The Amount Of Climate Coverage It Did In All Of 2016. In
the first few months of 2017, CBS Evening News has already aired
about 17 minutes of climate-related coverage, just eight minutes
less than the show aired for all of 2016. In fact, CBS Evening
News aired nearly half as much climate coverage as it did in all
of 2016 in just one week of 2017; this coverage was during a
series of climate-related reports from Antarctica for its
“Climate Diaries” series. [Media Matters, 2/13/17]
In Early Months Of 2017, NBC Nightly News Has Already Aired
Nearly Half As Much Climate Coverage As It Did In All Of 2016.
In just over two months, NBC Nightly News has already aired
about five minutes of climate-related coverage, roughly half as
much as the show aired for all of 2016.
[font=times new roman]Methodology [/font]
This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global
warming" between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, on four
Sunday news shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's
Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and
four nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS
Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS NewsHour) based on Nexis
transcripts. Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday but does
not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable
channel. PBS NewsHour is a half-hour longer than its network
nightly news counterparts, but it airs five days a week,
compared to seven days a week for the other nightly news shows
(PBS NewsHour Weekend was not included in this analysis). In one
instance, Nexis categorized a segment that did not mention
"climate change" or "global warming" as being about climate
change; because the segment provided other clear indications
that it was indeed about climate change, it was included. To
identify the number of segments networks aired on the Keystone
XL and Dakota Access pipelines, we used the search terms
Keystone w/20 pipe! And Dakota w/20 pipe!.
Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as
well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a
news transcript or a definitive statement by a media figure)
about climate change impacts or actions. The study did not
include instances in which a non-media figure brought up climate
change without being prompted to do so by a media figure unless
the media figure subsequently addressed climate change. We
defined media figures as hosts, anchors, correspondents, and
recurring guest panelists. The study also does not include
teasers if they were for segments that aired later on the same
program. We acquired time stamps from iQ media and applied them
generously for nightly news segments when the overall topic was
related to climate change. For instance, if a nightly news
segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change
briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage.
However, if a significant portion of the segment was not related
to climate change, such as a report on the pope giving a speech
about climate change, immigration, religious freedom, and
outreach to Cuba, only the portions of the segment that
discussed climate change were counted. For the Sunday shows,
which often feature wide-ranging discussions on multiple topics,
we used only the relevant portion of such conversations. All
coverage figures have been rounded to the nearest minute.
Because PBS NewsHour is an hour-long show and the other
networks’ nightly news programs are half-hour shows, our
analysis compared PBS NewsHour's climate coverage to other
nightly news programs' coverage in terms of topics covered and
number of segments, but not in terms of number of minutes.
Research intern Katherine Hess and Sarah Wasko contributed to
this study.
HTML https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/03/23/how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-change-2016/215718
Agelbert NOTE: NOW you KNOW why the Trump Fossil Fuel Fascist
Wrecking Crew
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
is in such a
hurry to DEFUND PBS. [img
width=70]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png[/img]
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/be/bead363502f8e7564038c7072c490cfc0da55bf30c42bb1f04983157e9ae7125.jpg[/img][/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page