Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgowan13
Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)
I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.
Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.
A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.
This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.
Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC? |
Unfortunately it seems...not really. Especially not those identified as American outlets. They all seem to share one unfortunate trait in common, and that is preaching (via slanted writing, selective presentation of the facts or other means) to a certain segment of American society. Some are over-the-top blatant. Others are a bit more clever. But they all suffer from the same malady thus rendering the "news" they present, to a greater or lesser extent, more propaganda than anything else.
I've been going to foreign sources for over a decade now, preferably those without a dog in the particular fight in question. Australia has some good sources: Sydney Morning Herald, for one. For Asia, the best source by far is Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan news in English): They're comprehensive, even-handed for the most part, and dig far deeper into stories than American sources do. For the Middle East, it is The Jerusalem Post and (oddly enough) al-Jazeera, both of which, though on opposite ends of whatever spectrum is in effect over there, do a suprisingly good job with the facts of the story. For Europe, BBC and BBC America (different entities), but all European capitols and other large European cities print their major newspapers in English.
They all do a far better job of news reporting than any American source I can think of. American sources, to a greater or lesser extent, have learned that Americans' hunger for validation at the expense of true information is, unfortunately, a gold mine.