Denial or seeking to deny man-made global warming

[izabsmiling]

Aptly enough imo Prince Charles refered to climate change deniers as the headless chicken brigade .

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Should Australian newspapers publish climate change denialist opinion pieces?

Should Australian newspapers, like Fairfax, publish opinion pieces that deny or seek to cast doubt on man-made global warming

Should Fairfax — or other media publishers — give a platform for climate change denialist opinion pieces?

The most recent example is Fairfax publishing a piece by John McLean, a member of the International Climate Science Coalition.

In the opinion piece, McLean repeats various lines designed to create uncertainty about the recent report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and to impute a sinister motive on IPCC members of political and scientific deception.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/04/climate-change-climate-change...

When Fairfax saw mining billionaire Gina Rinehart buy a large stake in the company, the chairman Roger Corbett upheld the board's support for the charter of editorial independence. This was opposed at the time by Rinehart, although Rinehart board appointee Jack Cowin signed it.

Coincidentally, Rinehart is a big supporter of ICSC policy advisor Christopher Monckton and in a 2011 interview expressed her disbeliefthat "a small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" could lead to global warming.

The Rinehart shareholding controversy even saw Fairfax mastheadslaunch a new slogan "Independent. Always."

A part of the charter is that editors behave according to the Australian Journalist Association's code of ethics, the first standard being that journalists:

Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.

At the same time that Reddit /r/science decided to ban climate denialism, the L.A. Times also decided to introduce an editorial policy for its letters pages. Editor Paul Thornton wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/04/climate-change-climate-change...

How does publication of  such fit with Australian Journalists Code of Ethics ?

Should we follow the lead of other Countries ?

nb please feel free to expand on this title and opening post in the manner which is the norm with general discussions.

[izabsmiling]

OK.Thanks.Bye 

[izabsmiling]

---

@am*3 wrote:

How do you get from climate change skeptics writing opinion pieces and/or letters to the editors in newspapers to 

 smoking (and paid advt's by multinational companies) ??

---

who do you think the skeptics and deniers serve best ? 

we could discuss our coral reefs ,our rainforest, our pay conditions ,work regulations,mines, greenpeace,Gina ,Rupert Murdoch..the list goes on ...all sorts of things and it could be relevant .

will add my earlier post 

To me it's like them publishing content which denies or seeks to deny that smoking can't be harmful to a person health...

we know that science has established facts and that to publish publish the above would be factuallly incorrect and a possible danger to the public...It would be negligent 

[silverfaun]

The thing that alarms me is none of you see the danger in gagging a particular group. You support the disgraceful stance o fairfax only printing what they see as relevant to their beliefs and leaning and to shut up the rest.

Gagging any section  of the community in a democracy leads to the death of democracy and the rise of totalitarianism. Do I hear the death rattle of that here?.

[cherry*135]

Exclude me in the none of you, please, silverfaun.

How many newspapers, reddit sub-editors have actually stated they will exclude opinion pieces (not just letters to the editor) by skeptics anyway? Doesn't appear to be very many

Years ago, before the internet, if a member of the public wanted to be outraged about something their only option to reach a large audience would be to write to the editor of local and national newspapers. Now they have many options from their own websites and blogs etc. Not printing their letters in the letters to the editor of daily newspapers isn't going to have much effect on them not spreading their opinions around the globe.

[izabsmiling]

---

@am*3 wrote:

He is referring to Letters to the Editor.  Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page

Should Australian newspapers publish climate change denialist opinion pieces?

The letters to Editor page doesn't include opinion pieces published throughout newspapers. 

______________________________________________________________________________________

Letters to the editor are often by their very nature opinion.When an opinion is stated as though it is fact such as would be the case if someone wrote there is no evidence of man-made global warming (as though their own opinion is and should be taken as fact)..then things as I would understand it from the editor point of view ...to publish it and inform readers of that as though that persons opinion is and should be fact would be publishing  (and supporting) lies.Because the fact is that there is evidence ,

The Australian is mentioned below

    Should newspapers ban letters from climate science deniers?

The LA Times decides not to print letters from readers claiming there's no evidence for human-caused climate change

Here's an excerpt from a Letter to the Editor, printed earlier this week in The Australian newspaper.

"While [temperatures] have been higher than before the past 15 years, they have not increased in line with fossil fuel emissions, just as they failed to do over the 1948-77 period. This makes incorrect the theory that fossil fuel emissions cause temperature increases." Des Moore, South Yarra, Victoria.

Wrongheaded and simplistic views like this are a regular feature on the letters page of The Australian newspaper and no doubt hundreds of other newspapers around the world where readers respond to stories about climate change.

Some letter writers have accepted that humans cause climate change, a conclusion backed by multiple lines of evidence from thousands of studies around the world going back a century or more.

Some readers haven't.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/oct/16/climate-change-letters-editor-newspaper...

have a good day everyone

[cherry*135]

To me it's like them publishing content which denies or seeks to deny that smoking can't be harmful to a person health

To me its like newspapers publishing horoscopes but not opinions of climate change skeptics.

[izabsmiling]

Silverfaun, I do not support  anyone spreading opinion/lies which could harm our health,our environment ,ours/or anyones quality of lives and welbeing,mislead for ulterior motives (ie political.business ) ..they do not have my support ever

[cherry*135]

Letters to the editor (with a short length contstrant) are not the same as published opinion pieces in newspapers (can be quite lengthy).  

[izabsmiling]

I would hope that it would be any connent which is by defition 'opinion'

[cherry*135]

Opinion pieces may take the form of an editorial, usually written by the senior editorial staff or publisher of the publication, in which case the opinion piece is usually unsigned and may be supposed to reflect the opinion of the periodical. In major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe, editorials are classified under the heading "opinion".

wikipedia

Letter to the Editor - definition

A letter to the editor is a letter sent to a publication about issues of concern from its readers. Usually, letters are intended for publication. In many publications, letters to the editor may be sent either through conventional mail or electronic mail.

Do people who write opinion pieces for newspapers get paid to do so (if they are written by someone other than editorial staff of the newspaper?)