To do a full study would take weeks of research, because Murdoch , listed 17th most influential person in the world by Forbes in 2010, owns some 175 papers, all of whom, uniformly and without exception, supported the Iraq War of Blair and GWB.
In 2007, Murdoch claimed that he was concerned about climate change. How did this claim turn out in reality?
So I go to www.timesonline and search "climate change". 7741 results. I look at 1-25, and paste below the headlines that seem relevant.
Smart Solutions to Climate Change edited by Bjorn Lomborg Oct 2010
Widespread scepticism on climate change undermines Copenhagen summit
‘Hibernating’ sun may usher in Ice Age and take the heat out of climate change June 2010
Archive: The great climate change science scandal Feb 2011
UN report on climate change ‘was one-sided’ July 2010
Government climate change figures ‘are misleading’ (Cant be bothered to add all the dates)
Protests call for action over climate change
UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
Business faces £370bn bill for climate change
UN launches independent review of climate change errors
Climate change sceptics: Phil Jones inquiry must be ‘independent and transparent’
A new global coalition to tackle climate change
Lord Lawson's incredible complacency on climate change
UN Climate Change panel under fire after Himalayan glacier claim (See here)
Now, I cannot read these links because they are hidden behind a paywall and I am not about to give the Murdoch any of my hard earned sovereigns, but as far as I can see, of 25 stories in the Times and Sunday Times (the search seems to cover both), 10 have anti-AGW bias and 2 are neutral. No reports of, for instance, "Climate Scientists report findings confirming manmade global warming (AGW)."
The Sunday Times carried the pseudo-story of "Amazongate", which I blogged here and here; a mistaken attempt by the Sunday Times to discredit climate research.
So the Times and Sunday Times take a broadly AGW sceptic position.
Next, to http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/ . Oh. Just the page saying "Thank you and goodbye". Nothing else, no other pages, no search button. Nada. Dead. Gone. As if it never existed.
OK, on to the Sun. I do the same search and get:
Climate change wrecks treasures
Time to save the planet? (About the Daylight Saving Campaign.)
Whale poo cuts CO2 emissions (SPERM whales combat climate change because they offset carbon - faeces)
Ginola 'blown up' in internet ad (About that dumb ad where people get blown up for wasting carbon)No green light for eco issues? (debate)
Pint could cost £18 by 2030 (because of climate change)
'Doomsday' vision of Europe (Scientists at the Met Office have produced a map showing rising sea levels and disappearing cities caused by global warming.)
The price is bright for bulbs
Boffins leaving me cold (alleged that climate change scientists have been manipulating global warming data because research is showing that it might just be a natural planetary cycle)
Bin Laden the eco-warrior (OBL accused West of causing GW)
Arrests made in climate demo
Landmarks turn the lights out
Flooded by man (MAN-MADE climate change doubles risk of flooding within the UK, scientists claim)
Charles raps eco sceptics
Climate change 'agreement' in Copenhagen
OK, this is a surprise. Of a sample of the first 25 results, the Sun has only one bit of anti-AGW propaganda, (Boffins leave me cold), and the other 16 are straight reportage, supportive, if anything, of the climate science.
The only other Murdoch paper I know of is the Wall Street Journal, which is of course famous for its anti-AGW stance.
So, from this sample, the "quality" Murdoch press (now there's an oxymoron) are anti-science, while the little old Sun is wobbling along bravely supporting the science. It looks as if, following his 2007 conversion, he got a lot of counter-pressure from the free-marketeers, and he let his editors make up their own minds. Or something. We need more data.
It looks as if the Australian has an anti-science stance. And then of course, there Fox (Faux) News, known repository of foam-flecked climate change deniers.
So it looks on the face of it as if Murdoch's conversion was not strong enough to penetrate through to his major outlets, his big papers and Faux News. But the Sun, surprisingly, has put its thinking cap on.
Pint could cost £18 by 2030 (because of climate change)
'Doomsday' vision of Europe (Scientists at the Met Office have produced a map showing rising sea levels and disappearing cities caused by global warming.)
The price is bright for bulbs
Boffins leaving me cold (alleged that climate change scientists have been manipulating global warming data because research is showing that it might just be a natural planetary cycle)
Bin Laden the eco-warrior (OBL accused West of causing GW)
Arrests made in climate demo
Landmarks turn the lights out
Flooded by man (MAN-MADE climate change doubles risk of flooding within the UK, scientists claim)
Charles raps eco sceptics
Climate change 'agreement' in Copenhagen
OK, this is a surprise. Of a sample of the first 25 results, the Sun has only one bit of anti-AGW propaganda, (Boffins leave me cold), and the other 16 are straight reportage, supportive, if anything, of the climate science.
The only other Murdoch paper I know of is the Wall Street Journal, which is of course famous for its anti-AGW stance.
So, from this sample, the "quality" Murdoch press (now there's an oxymoron) are anti-science, while the little old Sun is wobbling along bravely supporting the science. It looks as if, following his 2007 conversion, he got a lot of counter-pressure from the free-marketeers, and he let his editors make up their own minds. Or something. We need more data.
It looks as if the Australian has an anti-science stance. And then of course, there Fox (Faux) News, known repository of foam-flecked climate change deniers.
So it looks on the face of it as if Murdoch's conversion was not strong enough to penetrate through to his major outlets, his big papers and Faux News. But the Sun, surprisingly, has put its thinking cap on.
No comments:
Post a Comment