Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> WELCOME BACK TO "RELIABLE
SOURCES."
LET'S BEGIN WITH AN IMPORTANT
JOURNALISTIC STATEMENT SOMETHING
I MENTIONED IN THE LAST SEGMENT
SOME STORIES DON'T HAVE TWO
SIDES.
SOME STORIES ARE SIMPLY TRUE.
NO NECESSITY TO GIVE EQUAL TIME
TO THE QUOTE/UNQUOTE OTHER SIDE.
ONE OF THESE CLIMATE CHANGE.
DEPENDING ON WHICH STUDY OR
EXPERT YOU CONSULT BETWEEN 95
AND 97% OF SCIENTISTS AGREE THE
CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING NOW,
THAT IT'S DAMAGING THE PLANET
AND MANMADE.
THAT SEEMS PRETTY DEFINITIVE,
RIGHT?
WHY DOES TELEVISION NEWS FEEL
COMPELLED TO STAGE DEBATE
BETWEEN THOSE WHO REPRESENT THE
97% AND THOSE WHO REPRESENT THE
FRINGE?
CASE IN POINT LAST WEEK'S "MEET
THE PRESS."
DAVID GREGORY INTERVIEWED BILL
NEY THE SCIENCE GUY, NOT A
SCIENTIST, AND CONGRESSWOMAN
MARCIA BLACK BURN A SKEPTIC WITH
NO PARTICULAR EXPERTISE IN THIS
SUBJECT.
WHATEVER "MEET THE PRESS" WAS
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH I DON'T
THINK THEY DID IT.
JOINING ME TO TALK ABOUT THIS
AND CLIMATE CHANGE MORE BROADLY,
MICKEY THE NAMED PHYSICIST CBS
NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND AUTHOR OF
BOOKS "THE FUTURE OF THE MIND"
OUT NEXT WEEK AND JACK, A SENIOR
EDITOR AT "THE HUFFINGTON POST"
WHO COVERS THE MEDIA WORLD
TITLED "MEET THE PRESS HOW NOT
TO COVER CLIMATE CHANGE."
YOU'RE THE EXPERT HERE.
TELL US HOW DEFINITIVE IS THE
EVIDENCE, ANY ROOM FOR DEBATE?
>> CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE 800
POUND GORILLA IN THE LIVING ROOM
THAT MEDIA DANCES AROUND BUT IN
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IT'S A
SETTLED QUESTION.
95% OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THIS
IS HAPPENING WITH 100%
CONFIDENCE TEMPERATURES ARE
RISING.
WITH 90% CONFIDENCE WE BELIEVE
IS HUMAN ACTIVITY AND NOT
NATURAL CYCLES THAT IS DRIVING
THE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE ON
THE EARTH.
>> WHEN YOU SEE A TELEVISION
SEGMENT THAT FEATURES A DENIER,
HOW DO YOU FEEL?
DO YOU FEEL THAT NETWORK OR
NEWSPAPER OR WEBSITE DO YOU FEEL
THEY'RE BEING IRRESPONSIBLE?
>> IT'S A FREE COUNTRY.
HOWEVER THEY SHOULD PRESENT THE
FACTS THAT IS THAT THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF
SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE STUDIED THE
QUESTION BELIEVE THE
TEMPERATURES ON THE PLANET ARE
RISING AND IF THERE ARE SKEPTICS
LET THEM PRESENT THEIR COMPUTER
PROGRAM SO WE CAN PICK IT APART
AND LESS US UNDERSTAND BECAUSE
SCIENCE IS TOUCHABLE,
REPRODUCEABLE AND FALSE FIBLE.
>> AND YOU DON'T SEE PEOPLE WHO
ARE SKEPTICS PRESENTING THOSE
PROGRAMS?
>> I SEE THEM GIVING NO
NUMERICAL RESULTS.
WE PRESENT OUR COMPUTER
PROGRAMS, THEY'RE TESTABLE, THEY
PRESENT UNFORTUNATELY MAINLY
IDEOLOGY, THEY'RE LOOKING AT A
SCIENTIFIC QUESTION THROUGH AN
IDEOLOGICAL LITMUS TEST WHICH IS
NOT RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM.
>> BEFORE WE GET INTO "MEET THE
PRESS" IN PARTICULAR, JACK, WHAT
DO YOU MAKE OF THE AMOUNT OF
COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
GENERAL?
OFTEN TIMES I READ ON-SITES LIKE
YOURS AND OTHERS ABOUT THE
COMPLAINTS ABOUT LACK OF
COVERAGE IN THE PRESS.
>> THERE IS A LACK OF COVERAGE
IN THE PRESS BY AND LARGES
ESPECIALLY ON TELEVISION.
MEDIA MATTERS JUST A FEW WEEKS
AGO DID A STUDY LOOKING AT ALL
OF THE BROADCAST NEWS COVERAGE
OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
THEY FOUND THAT ON THE SUNDAY
SHOWS IN ALL OF 2013, THERE WAS
27 MINUTES TOTAL COMBINED ON THE
BIG FOUR SHOWS ON SNBS, CBS, ABC
AND FOX.
ONE SHOW "MEET THE PRESS" DID NO
COVERAGE AT ALL.
"FACE THE NATION" ON CBS HAD THE
MOST.
THE BROADCAST EVENING NEWS SHOWS
COVERED IT MORE PROBABLY BECAUSE
THEY DO MORE COVERAGE OF EXTREME
WEATHER EVENTS AND SO WHEN YOU
TALK ABOUT EXTREME WEATHER OFTEN
YOU FIND YOURSELF TALKING ABOUT
CLIMATE CHANGE.
BY AND LARGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
A HUGE ISSUE REALLY UNDER
COVERED ON OUR MAJOR OUTLETS.
>> AND SO WE WOULD THINK AS WE
HAVE LAST WEEK, THREE OF THOSE
SUNDAY SHOWS COVERING THE TOPIC
THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOD THING.
>> RIGHT.
>> YOU SAID IT WASN'T.
WHY IS THAT?
>> WELL, I REALLY FOCUSED ON
"MEET THE PRESS," "FACE THE
NATION" AND "THIS WEEK" DID
COVERAGE.
"FACE THE NATION'S" WAS
ESPECIALLY GOOD.
WHAT THOSE TWO SHOWS DID THAT
"MEET THE PRESS" DIDN'T DO WAS
THEY TALKED TO SCIENTISTS.
THEY BOTH TALKED TO EITHER
CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OR
METEOROLOGISTS.
"MEET THE PRESS" HAD A DEBATE
WHICH THE OTHER TWO SHOWS REALLY
DIDN'T IN THE SAME WAY, ABOUT
WHETHER CLIMATE CHANGE IS
HAPPENING.
EVEN THOUGH THE HOST DAVID
GREGORY STARTED OUT BY SAYING
THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE A
DEBATE, HE STILL BROUGHT ON
SOMEONE WHO DENIED THAT CLIMATE
CHANGE WAS HAPPENING IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
>> RIGHT.
HE SAID HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT
THE POLICY, GET BEYOND WHETHER
IT'S HAPPENING OR NOT, BUT
HAVING A SKEPTIC ON THEY SEEMED
TO GET MUZLED IN THE ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN DEBATED ENDLESSLY.
>> IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF
YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A DEBATE
ABOUT THE FACTS, YOU DON'T BRING
ON PEOPLE WHOSE PRIMARY FOCUS IN
THE SEGMENT IS GOING TO BE TO
DEBATE THE FACTS ABOUT WHETHER
CLIMATE CHANGE EXISTS OR NOT.
IT WAS --
>> WHY DO YOU THINK SHOWS ARE
COMPELLED TO DO THIS?
JOURNALISM IN GENERAL IS
COMPELLED TO FIND THE OTHER SIDE
TO CREATE WHAT PEOPLE CALL FALSE
BALANCE?
>> I THINK THESE SHOWS, THEY
USUALLY COVER POLITICS AND
THEY'RE USUALLY COVERING, YOU
KNOW, THE CLASH BETWEEN
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
>> RIGHT.
THAT'S A FORMULA THAT WORKS
PRETTY WELL.
>> BUT ONCE YOU GET OUT OF
CERTAIN ISSUES, YOU KNOW, YOU
CAN TALK ABOUT WELL SHOULD WE
RAISE TAXES OR SHOULD WE LOWER
TAXES AND THAT'S A REAL
IDEOLOGICAL BATTLE YOU CAN HAVE,
BUT WHEN AS YOU SAY, YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT
ACTUALLY DOESN'T HAVE MUCH
DEBATE AROUND IT, SUCH AS
WHETHER CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL,
THEN I THINK THESE SHOWS
STRUGGLE TO BE SO DEFINITIVE
ABOUT SOMETHING AND REALLY BREAK
OUT OF THE PARADIGM THEY SET
THEMSELVES UP WITH A LOT.
>> DOCTOR, WHAT ARE THE RISKS
THAT ARE INVOLVED IN FALSE
BALANCE?
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE HEAR
TWO COMPETING SIDES OF SOMETHING
THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE TWO
COMPETES SIDES?
>> THERE ARE REAL CONSEQUENCES
FOR AGRICULTURE FOR OUR CITIES
AND THE ECONOMY.
I TRAVEL IN EUROPE A LOT --
>> BECAUSE PEOPLE COME AWAY WITH
CONFUSION ABOUT THE ISSUE?
>> THEY DON'T PLAN FOR THE
FUTURE.
IN EUROPE IT'S A SETTLED
QUESTION.
GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE CHANGE IS
A REALITY AND THEY PREPARE FOR
IT.
IN AMSTERDAM, HOW DO YOU PREPARE
FOR THE DIKES AND LEVIES.
IN VENICE, WHAT HAPPENS IF
VENICE GOES UNDER WATER.
IF YOU'RE IN SWITZERLAND WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE TOURIST
INDUSTRY.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT CONCRETE
CONSEQUENCES.
IN THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT AGRICULTURE.
SUMMERS ARE GETTING LONGER,
WIPTSERS SHORTER.
WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DROUGHT,
POTENTIAL WATER WARS.
POTENTIAL NEW HURRICANES LIKE
SANDY.
WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BRACE
OURSELVES WITH NEW LEVEES AND
SEAWALLS.
AS A CONSEQUENCE WE'RE NOT GOING
TO BE PREPARED FOR THE FUTURE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT TAKING
PLACE AT ALL AND JACK YOU'RE
SAYING WHEN IT DOES TAKE PLACE
IN THE CASE OF "MEET THE PRESS"
THEY GO ABOUT IT ALL WRONG.
>> RIGHT.
I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY A
DEBATE TO BE HAD WHAT TO DO
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND THAT'S
AN IMPORTANT DEBATE.
>> DOCTOR, DO YOU THINK THERE'S
SOME ROOM AT THE TABLE FOR
SKEPTICS?
IF I WAS TO WRITE A STORY ABOUT
THIS TOPIC IN, QUOTE, NINE
SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IT'S
HAPPENING SHOULD I BE QUOTING
ONE WHO IS A SKEPTIC OR IS THIS
SO SETTLED THERE'S NO ROOM AT
ALL FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING IT'S
A SETTLED QUESTION.
THE AVERAGER.
OUT THERE HEARS THE SKEPTICS AN
THE PERSON WITH THE ARGUMENTS
HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
THEY'RE OUT THERE ANYWAY.
IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IT'S
PRETTY MUCH SETTLED.
IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
IT IS NOT YET SETTLED.
IT'S GOOD TO PRESENT THE BALANCE
BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT WITH
95% OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
BEHIND THIS THEORY, IT HAS MORE
WEIGHT THAN ANOTHER THEORY.
>> LANGUAGE MATTERS HERE SO
MUCH.
DO YOU THINK THE TERM GLOBAL
WARMING IS ONE THAT REPORTERS
AND ANCHORS SHOULD AVOID USING
BECAUSE IT CONYOURS UP THE IDEA
JUST OF CLIMATE OF THE CLIMATE
GETTING WARMER AS OPPOSED TO THE
IDEA OF EXTREMES?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
GLOBAL WARMING IS ACTUALLY A
MISNOMER.
IT SHOULD BE GLOBAL EXTREMES AND
GLOBAL SWINGS BECAUSE YOU -- AS
YOU ADD MORE ENERGY INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE IT SLOSHES AROUND.
ENERGY DOESN'T SIMPLY UNIFORMLY
WARM UP THE PLANET.
AND THAT MEANS DROUGHTS IN ONE
AREA, ENORMOUS SNOWSTORMS IN
ANOTHER AREA, 100 YEAR FLOODS
HERE, 100 YEAR FOREST FIRES
HERE.
IT'S BECOMING MONOTONOUS.
100 YEAR X EVERY TEN YEARS.
>> DO YOU FIND JOURNALISTS IN
GENERAL THE ONES THAT INTERVIEW,
DO THEY HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE
AND BACKGROUND TO EXPLAIN THIS
TO THEIR AUDIENCES OR ARE THEY
LACKING SOME OF THE SCIENTIFIC
BACKGROUND THEY SHOULD HAVE?
>> I THINK THEY'RE LACKING THE
BACKGROUND AND THEY GET
INTIMIDATED.
THE SKEPTICS ARE NOT FOOLS, NOT
STUPID PEOPLE.
THEY READ A LOT BUT THEN THEY
PUT IT IN AN IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
AND THEY SEE EVERYTHING THROUGH
THIS LENS AND THEY DON'T DO THE
HOMEWORK.
THEY DON'T DO THE COMPUTER
PROGRAMS.
THEY DON'T KRITS SEEK THE
MATHEMATICS.
FOR US THERE'S NOTHING TO
DEBATE.