Sampling the Alternative Universe

fox-logoI just did a survey of the three major cable networks…CNN, Fox and MSNBC…primarily to see how each of them were covering the Navy Yard shootings.  MSNBC and CNN are devoting substantial coverage to the shooting.  Fox, however, went nearly 30 minutes before even mentioning the event. Instead, they spent nearly 10 minutes covering House hearings on Benghazi and nearly as many minutes on a new report claiming manmade impact on climate change is insignificant and the “criticism” by two former Secretaries of Defense – Leon Panetta and Robert Gates – of President Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval on Syria.  After all that, they did about 30 seconds on the shooting focusing on the question of how the shooter could get and keep a security clearance.

As I’ve often said, I think it’s very important for all of us to get our news from multiple sources.  I’m glad Al Jazeera is broadcasting (though I’m not impressed so far) and would love to see more news networks on my menu of choices.  Today’s anecdotal survey proves the point.

– Austin

11 thoughts on “Sampling the Alternative Universe

  1. Dunno. The Fox story cited the “Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change” as the author of the study. Searching Google news I can’t see much about it, but there’s a link to a press release (published under the Sacramento Bee’s banner but that’s a WHOLE different problem) that seems to think it’s the definitive word on the topic:

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/17/5743794/new-science-report-debunks-climate.html

    I’m a little skeptical on this point I must admit as the press release quotes a professor saying, “CO2 is ‘the gas of life’. The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth.”

    That doesn’t sound particularly “sciency” to me.

    Austin

    1. Erik Petersen says:

      The IPCC is the UN panel, and most recently it has taken a rather non-alarmist view. Says warming is not conclusively much and not conclusively bad.

      The NIPCC is a rebuttal report to the IPCC, and is alarmist.

      Not settled science, apparently.

    2. Jim Leinfelder says:

      http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/

      What an astonishing cynical tool. Deliberately so, one has to assume. Probably for a living. Oxygen, when it first appeared in abundance in earth’s young atmosphere, was a toxin for most of the newly-emerged anaerobic life. Life, as WE prefer it, is contingent on a pretty precarious balance of factors, CO2 and O2 levels included. Without adequate water, CO2 doesn’t yield much life, crop life, as this “professor” means it.

      Let’s not even have this discussion here. It’s too depressing.

  2. Erik Petersen says:

    I don’t have cable. Haven’t EVER watched more than 90 seconds at a time of Hannity or O’Reilly.

    I follow like 1100 things on Twitter. On Monday I went to the food court at lunch. They have a TV with CNN there. At noon CNN was still reporting things that had been debunked two hours prior on Twitter.

  3. Interestingly, Fox’s quick loss of interest may not have been ideological as much as structural. That’s the premise of an article in the Washington Post that contends the Navy Yard attack doesn’t have enough of the necessary element to sustain the media’s interest.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/not-all-mass-shootings-are-equal-in-the-eyes-of-the-media-and-the-public/2013/09/18/967ba254-207e-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_print.html

    As the article concludes, this rapid fall-off in interest says a lot about our society today.

Comments are closed.