>Argentina, U.S. To Cut Emissions BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) - Rich and poor nations are signing an agreement to reduce global warming, in a broad effort to slash greenhouse gases. Argentina was the first developing country to seek to voluntarily cut greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States announced today that it would also sign the global-warming accord. However, the U.S. announcement was largely symbolic since the agreement must still be ratified by the Senate - something that is not likely anytime soon.<
The problem I have with tree hugging liberal positions is that they are often reported by the press as forgone conclusions with, if anything, only a cursory mention that a debate over these issues exists. Regarding Global Warming, one certainly can by a search of various newspapers find articles referring to that issue's skeptics; but in the day-to-day grind of reality, as well as in the reporting of media, it seems to me the issue has been accepted as fact. Now we see countries, including our own, making agreements to reduce Global Warming when allegedly the issue is yet under debate.
The article referenced above states: “Many scientists believe Earth is gradually warming because of these emissions. Critics say global warming scenarios have not been proven and that the cost of achieving the cuts in the pact threatens American industry.“
The statement is definitely biased, and is typical of the press. It gives weight to the pro-Global Warming argument by associating it with scientists, while failing to mention that a good deal of the critics are also scientists. Indeed the statement subtly implies that businessmen argue against Global Warming from concern for their wallets.
A listing of headlines gathered within a snapshot of time is no way to prove media bias. It is the periodic “blingers” and subtle day-to-day attacks such as the one mentioned above made over an extended period of time that, to my way of thinking, reveal the bias of the media. How many times has the Washington Post claimed or implied (or allowed others to do so without serious challenge) that homosexuals are for the most part promiscuous, often prone to pedophilia and contracting the AIDS virus? How many times has it claimed or implied (or allowed others to do so without serious challenge) that religious fundamentalists are poor, bigoted and uneducated? A cursory reading of headlines does nothing. Neither does bringing up the notion that many media outlets are owned by so-called “conservatives”. On economic issues, the press perhaps marginally leans leftward, but on social and moral issues (and on some environmental issues) it is a veritable liberal propaganda machine. It is because reporters often subtly use liberal adversaries to make their point with little challenge, and because their articles are often made to end with hammering phrases uttered by the liberal advocate, that many people have judged the media infected with liberal bias.
(gotta go) |
