web analytics

On the muzzling of climate change skeptics and your gullibility

I came across an article yesterday that I thought was a bit revealing.  “UPROAR AS BBC MUZZLES CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS” the article screams.

In the story, a professor of genetics apparently tasked with reviewing the objectivity of the BBC, concluded (shocker!) there is no sign of bias within the BBC.  Going further, he suggests to the BBC to stop getting the ‘opposite viewpoint’ from anti-global warming alarmists.  The BBC has nobly been doing this in its pursuit of journalistic fairness, but “where there is a “scientific consensus” it should not hunt out opponents purely to balance the story.”

So you see, the BBC is not only not biased, but it should be more so.

The article reads:

the corporation was urged to focus less on opponents of the “majority consensus” in its programmes.

It said coverage should not be tailored to represent a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group.

In the case of ‘climate change’ (formerly known as ‘global warming’) and putative links between the MMR vaccine and autism, getting the other viewpoint into the programming only serves only to keep discredited viewpoints alive in the masses.  The article cites the report as saying,

“In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change. Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise.”

Of course, in the ‘early days’ two decades ago, they were just shaking off the impending doom of global cooling.

But reflecting the ‘minority’ position in the reporting only serves to “keep disbelief alive.”

And there you have it.  The media knows that they have a significant role in shaping public opinion.  They know that if they don’t report the ‘minority’ position you, my dear reader, will likely never hear it.  If you are lucky enough to ever hear it, they can count on you to dismiss it without further thought, “If it was a valid viewpoint it would be in the papers”  “This flies in the face of the scientific consensus, you idiot!  They said RIGHT ON THE BBC that this is the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!”  or “Why would the governments of the world be pushing this way if it weren’t true?”

But this article allows one to pull back the curtain, just a shade, to see the truth.  They are manipulating you.  You are being manipulated.  You are a regular reader of the news and keep abreast of current affairs by watching the nightly news.  You think you are informed.  You aren’t.  You are a gullible dolt being led by the nose by the powers that be to believe just whatever it is they want you to believe right now.  At least, that is what the media thinks, and this article implies.  And why would they think that way if it weren’t true?

My question to you, dear reader is this:  on how many other things do you think your views are the result of media manipulation and your own tendency to absorb uncritically what is presented to you, piping hot on a platter?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

16 − eight =