Friday, November 27, 2009

Why a 'journalist' won't cover Climaquiddick

We make decisions every day [based] on our own opinions about what we think are the main stories. And what we leave out is often as important as what we put in, and that was my judgement of this issue..

That was my assessment of whether this was actually of any significance or not, and I decided that it wasn’t and we wouldn’t spend time on it. It suits the conspiracy theorists beautifully...
It was a small, even a tiny fragment of a sidebar of a secondary issue to the edge of the periphery of something people were talking about other than the main game. That’s how I saw it.

It suits the “conspiracy theorists beautifully”. In other words, it suits the sceptics - and that must not be allowed to happen.

Unprofessional doesn’t quite cover it. Scandalous is much closer.

From Andrew Bolt


Keith said...

With some luck we are seeing a scientific paradigm change.

I can't remember who wrote:

"Scientific theories should be enjoyed as summer flings, not married as life partners"

Your journalist's refusal to "Feed the conspiracy theorists" suggests that he thinks of anthropogenic warming, in terms more like a cherished religious dogma, than a scientific theory (or teenage snogging partner), that is to be dumped as soon as something better comes allong.

I can't find it now to credit it, but I saw one comment:

"So AGW was Mann made"

Firehand said...

Oh, I like that quote