ABC reporter Jonathan Karl (5/11/14) interviewed rising GOP star Sen. Marco Rubio on the Sunday show This Week. And afterwards, much of the buzz was about Rubio’s bizarre ramblings about climate change. But Karl’s wrap-up may have been the most unusual part of the whole thing.
After Karl asked a pretty straightforward question—”Do you agree with science on this?”—Rubio responded by saying there wasn’t much humans could do about the climate, which is
always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to man-made activity. I do not agree with that.
He added that “natural disasters have always existed”—take that, scientists!—and that he doesn’t “believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” And besides, their solutions will only serve to “destroy our economy.”
So what is the right response for a journalist to take in such an interview? It would be hard to imagine Karl getting into an argument about science with a politician—he saves his anger for Benghazi—but it wouldn’t be so hard to imagine that a closing comment in the segment, recorded afterwards, might mention that Rubio’s take on the issue is dramatically at odds with science.
But Karl recorded this closing comment instead:
It’s talk like that that Rubio hopes will appeal to the conservatives he would need to win the Republican nomination.
This is a perfect example of a journalist adopting the mentality of a campaign strategist or a political operative. Of course a hard-right stance will go over better with the GOP base. But as a reporter, Karl’s first loyalty should be to the truth—and to explaining to viewers that what is good for Rubio’s political fortunes is bad for the planet.
You have to admit, it’s pretty funny to conjure up the “strategy sessions” that conservative Republicans maneuvering for 2016 have with their brilliantly cunning operatives, picking & choosing just the right sound bites to fling at their frothing base, while winking that whatever they all may actually believe has to be mindlessly tucked away.
ABC — Anything But Candour?
ABC — Anything But Clarity?
ABC — Anything But Cogency?
ABC — Anything But Competent?
ABC — Anything But Considerate?
ABC — Anything But Correct?
or just — Anything But Credible?
Oh please! The people employed by the TV “news” divisions and most of what the USA has for print media today are NOT reporters or journalists.
At best, and even here it is something of a long shot, they are just stenographers. No offense to any actual stenographers who are employed as such.
If the Republicans and the Right will stop lying about the Left, we will stop telling the truth about them. As my father used to say about certain hucksters, “They would as soon climb a tree to lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth.
Señor Douchebag.
Yes I saw that.He really should of said yes I do agree with science.The world is cooling.Science has proved that the great hoax was a political skyjacking.Thank God science is proving that global warming is simply not happening.So much he should of said.He should of said how well the Us is doing on all its pollution standards.And how terrible China is doing.he should of asked the interviewer if he advocates war with China if THEY wont stop causing what the interviewer believes is the destruction of the planet.But he has more class than me.
Rush did an hour demolishing all the man man global climate change nonsense.Funniest thing in years.But on a serious note- is it not amazing how many buy into it hook line and sinker.I call them the gullible, conspiracy plagued,bone deep with guilt -about a” fart in the wind” leftists ! Funny
as hell
While “explaining to viewers that what is good for Rubio’s political fortunes is bad for the planet” is an obvious conclusion to the piece, it’s editorializing, not reporting. Ending with the equally obvious statement that Rubio’s stance is meant to appeal to a conservative base tacitly makes the point that it’s not based in science, and in my opinion, does so in a way that’s appropriate to reportage.
That should tell you who Karl really works for. Not the truth, for sure.
michael e, you keep using that word [science]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
@Michael e – you really should learn correct English – it may help your argument. It’s not “should of” it’s “should HAVE”!
One thing good about the response is that Jonathan Karl tied global warming denial to conservatism.
Conservatives really would prefer to deny they are denying it while they deny it.
Conservatives often don’t want to own what they own, they will cite these weak exceptions to the rule to try to make it into a both sides thing.
I would have said “By denying global warming is real, Rubio hopes to appeal to conservative republicans who are global warming deniers”.
I have to agree with Karin Travers: Jonathan Karl’s conclusion was quite appropriate. Karl was acting as an interviewer, not as a debater. He let the audience draw its own conclusions.
From another point of view, one could say, “Why bother to hang a lemming when it’s going to jump anyway?”
Or: “It must be nice to be a climate-change denier. When extreme weather events multiply, and almost half the world’s population is sinking into the sea, you can tell them it isn’t happening.”
Climate deniers can’t use the scientific method to dispute the empirical evidence found by real climate scientists that prove AGW Climate Change is real, so instead they concoct conspiracy theories and illogical arguments.
What Rubes? Hey, Rubes!