FAIR’s new alert takes aim at the Sunday morning chat shows (Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday) for ignoring climate change this weekend– right after “superstorm” Sandy devastated the East Coast.
As we noted, NBC host David Gregory said early on his program: “Should more attention be paid to a changing climate’s impact on the severity of these storms?”
That was the last mention of climate change on the show.
I know a lot of people might say, “Well, with the election around the corner, politics shows have to stick to electoral politics.” I don’t see the logic in that–these are shows that will find time to do a special edition on the Super Bowl, if their network has broadcast rights to the big game.
But we can also see with our own eyes that a politics show can talk about the election and climate change.
The day before the Sunday shows skipped global warming, MSNBC host Chris Hayes devoted significant time on his show Up With Chris Hayes (11/3/12) to the election. But he also offered a passionate call to action:
You are either on the side of your fellow citizens and residents of this planet, or you are on the side of the storms as yet unnamed.
You cannot be neutral.
The Sunday shows chose silence–which is not neutral, but taking the position that climate change is unimportant.
Want to do something about it? Sign FAIR’s petition to the Sunday shows. Let’s make them explain why they remained silent about climate catastrophe.
Chris Hayes has stated publicly that he will not have climate change denialists on his show. I wish we got this from other media figures. Ten years ago, when the evidence was far worse, more people accepted global warming. Now, due to a concerted effort on the right and the media’s obsession with defining the Overton Window as the space between the Democrats and Republicans, a large chunk of the nation think global warming is some kind of trick to enrich Al Gore.
Up has been one of the few shows to deal with a lot of important issues. In particular, he has done excellent work on what I call:
Political Harassment in the Workplace
Of course, I have my problems with the show. I think there is a lot of pressure to book conservatives on it. Often this isn’t bad: I can deal with Josh Barro. But Avik Roy? And I’ve speculated how long the show can remain good. Just the same, it is about the best thing there is on corporate TV.
Of course you should have people who believe in climate change on.Any show and every show.And the same with those like the hated lord montckon who believe completely otherwise.He cant get on almost anywhere in the drive by media according to him.,What the hell are we communists?Hearing both sides is of course always preferable.To have the Fox networks never having on people who believe in climate change is wrong.The reverse being true on every other network.I saw a poll on how many people who watch Fox knows Obama has a brother in Kenya.80+ percent.Those who only watch MSNBC ?A dismal 22 %!Those who watch MSNBC new very little about the president BEFORE he was president.It was as if he dropped out of thin air.Just the way his campaign likes it.Believe me you ALWAYS need both sides of any story.
Michael e, Just because there are 2 or more points of view on an issues does not mean they are equally valid.
I don’t know what President Obama’s half brother he has rarely met has to do with any discussion relevant to the knowledge of the electorate or the ability of Fox network (I hesitate to call it news) to educate their viewiers. It is about as valid as Neil Bush’s deals in the early days of Geoge W Bush’s first term as President. Actually, Neil’s financial dealings, remember Silvarado? is much more relevant than President Obama’s half brother.
I was pointing out that all the lib stations(I hesitate to call it news)never release anything that would hurt this president.His land deals.Communist parents.School records.Fast and furious.Bengazi. On and on.
Abortion has two valid points of view.Seldom do we see that discussed on TV in any meaningful way ie (when does life begin.)Global warming models are failing everyday.Lets see why.Both sides should get time.The idea that the science is closed is idiocy
Yes while you are on the side of the denialists against the proofs of Global warming, Evolution etc. Not the best place to land unless you think science will be turned when elections are run only by your know-nothings. (That has happened in Germany, Russia and other places when ideology replaces rationality and evidence. I don’t see good tidings for my side in the near future.)
@Michael_e – Obama having a half-brother in Kenya is not widely know because it is unimportant. The only reason his half-brother gets attention on the right is because people there want to believe that it somehow proves Obama isn’t an American. (And because they’ve read Dinesh D’Souza’s ridiculous book.)
Claiming that global warming denial should be given a fair hearing in the media is the same argument that is made for Intelligent Design. The problem is that this is science. These idea have already been given a very fair hearing in their respective fields. I suggest you read the following article for a look at what is up with one of the most reputable global warming deniers:
Pretend Scientist Fred Singer
Frankly- of course his brother is hugely important.Obama ends his speeches with admonitions to give to our brothers.Yet he in fact gives his brother….nothing.He tells the rich to give a little more.To be more charitable.Yet while people like Mitt and Ryan have always given massively.Obama and Biden(both rich men)have given next to nothing in their lives.Do you not see the massive hypocrisy?Obama acts the great man who brings people together .Yet his entire campaign is based on dividing people.how can we ever forget that conservatives and Republicans hate woman?He has never retracted that.I pray he says it about Mitt Romney in all his speeches from here on out.Lets not be phomey.Be who you are.Dig in the knife and twist it.As far as global warming debate being like intel design…….ridiculous.One is science vs faith.The other is simply faulty science.True you could ask the question what fossil evidence is there to evolution.We have no complete evidence what so ever.And why did certain bugs never evolve at all?Or fish?Or reptiles?But beside that and putting it aside…..Global warming demands that the himalayan ice field melt.It is a cornerstone to the theory.Yet they are not melting.Although we were warming since around 1945………In the last 16 years we seemed to of stopped.There is not a scientist standing who thinks all the models are proving this theory.Truth is more and more- are going by the wayside.So we reconfigure and go on.Saying the science is not closed is not the same as saying you are a denier of global warming.Or of the global warming hoax.It is a simple reality check.