Archive for the ‘Media / Bias’ category

EIKE Replies To Deutsche Welle’s Letter Of Denial

June 22, 2010

In yesterday’s post I wrote about Deutsche Welle’s  letter to European Institute for Climate Energy (EIKE). where it denies being one-sided in holding an alarmist conference for journalists called: The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media, which has workshops like: How to professionally deal with climate scepticism. The conference’s own stated objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures

And the panelists at the conference warn: 

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life. 

Despite the obvious one-sidedness of the conference, Deutsche Welle’s Intendant Erik Bettermann sent a letter to EIKE denying it completely. Remember that Deutsche Welle is a publicly funded broadcaster that is required by law to remain fair and balanced.

Now here’s a translation of EIKE’s response to Deutsche Welle’s denial:

Dear Herr Bettermann

Thank you for your reply dated 9 June 2010. You state at the start of your letter concerning the conference that: 

“…Deutsche Welle neither influences the global discussion on climate development in a one-sided manner, nor does it intend to, through its reporting or through the international convention: Global Media Forum..” 

However your website announcement itself states: 
Global warming presents grave problems for the world. Climate change not only has impacts on geo-political peace, regional conflicts, social well-being and human rights, it also impacts our very existence – whether or not the planet will be a hospitable place. Starvation, mass movement of refugees, flooding, lost harvests, extreme storms, droughts and pandemics weaken the foundation of our collective home. The Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum 2010 will put the main topics concerning climate change at the centre of focus and search for a practical way out of the current situation, whereby the role of the media at the international, national and local levels are considered. To prevent the catastrophe, drastic instruments and measures are required.”

This is indeed state doctrine that DW is describing. But it is factually false and moreover it involves the massive, forbidden influence of public opinion. Furthermore, you deny influencing of participants with seminar speakers. But the web announcement itself states, for example: “For journalists it is almost impossible to check over each and every statement for factual accuracy…,“ and: “Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics…This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.“ And further: “That’s why it simply cannot be said that Deutsche Welle is promoting in any way, within the framework of the Global Media Forum,  a one-sided view on the problem of climate development.”

That the single pages of the seminar cannot be called up does not change in any way the publicly made Deutsche Welle objective of influencing public opinion.

In addition you write:  “…through presentations, discussions and debates, the Global Media Forum is a conference for journalists, politicians, scientists and many others in dealing with the question of what role the media have in sharpening people’s awareness regarding the complex topic of climate change.” 

Yet, to the contrary, the stated objective of the conference is to sharpen the fear of climate catastrophe. That’s a big difference. 

You further confirm your denial of public fact, and contradict your own website announcement: 
“Deutsche Welle offers a forum for these discussions , and as a publicly funded broadcaster, does not represent a pre-decided opinion in one direction or another…”

For any normal German reader, it is obvious that the statements made in your letter are in direct contradiction to the publicly stated objective of the forum.  The forum Deutsche Welle is conducting does not in any way comply to the requirements for publicly funded media outlet, paid by the German taxpayer.

Thus we request once again that you cancel this one-sided, catastrophe-promoting conference. The public will be kept informed by us in the appropriate ways.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. H. Thuss,         Dipl. Ing M. Limburg, 
Präsident               EIKE Vizepäsident

Of course the conference began yesterday, and ends tomorrow. No word if some of the conference’s content has been removed in order to comply with the law. Don’t hold your breath. One can now safely say that one publicly funded media arm in Germany has officially gone from journalism to state-sponsored propoganda.

EIKE Sends Letter Of Protest To German Public Broadcaster Deutsche Welle

June 11, 2010

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)  based in Germany has sent a Letter of Protest to the Intendant of German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle demanding that it refrains from the illegal use of public funds and cancel its one-sided conference for journalists called: The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media.

The international conference, scheduled to take place in Bonn from June 21 till June 23, excludes all views that disagree with the extreme AGW gloom and doom, world downfall view.  However, because Deutsche Welle is a publicly funded institution, it is required by German Law to remain neutral and honest.

Instead, Deutsche Welle has decided on its own to abandon journalism and to resort to promoting one single extreme view on the topic of climate change, and to shut out the rest. It’s activism run amok.

One workshop is How to professionally deal with climate scepticism. The workshop’s objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.

This conference has infuriated a number of scientists and citizens. As a result EIKE has drafted and dispatched a letter of protest to Deutsche Welle. The letter states:

It certainly cannot be in the interest of a publicly financed broadcaster to put its own existence into question with a debate over its objectivity.

and

Enlightened thinking has always been at the centre of our culture, along with sceptical, critical and scrutinising thought. It is intolerable that, here in Germany, public funds are being illegally used under your supervision and under your responsibility to marginalise a large number persons (the majority!) who share a different opinion.

More information about Deutsche Welle and its conference is here and here.

77 German Scientists sign a petition

To show that there is a wide range of opinions on the AGW topic in Germany, EIKE has a Petition refuting catastrophic AGW signed by 77 German scientists.

The Heat is On – Protest Begins To Mount! Call Mr Bettermann at +49 228 429 2008

June 10, 2010

My last 2 posts have been about this topic, where a one-sided international conference for journalists will provide their marching orders for the months ahead. Normally such a conference if organised privately would be legitimate.

But the shocking thing about this conference is that it is organised by a German publically funded radio and TV broadcaster – Deutsche Welle, and therefore the total absence of neutrality and objectivity is a violation of Germany’s Consitutional Law.

The conference calls on journalists to:

1. Abandon neutrality and to report only on the single extreme view of AGW calamity.
2. Abandon professional procedures in journalism. See here and here.

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)  based in Germany has sent a Letter of Protest (in German) to Deutsche Welle demanding that they refrain from this misuse of public funds and cancel the one-sided conference which clearly excludes any views that disagree with the extreme gloom and doom world downfall view. It requests that it too obey the law, like every other citizen or guest in the country is rightfully expected to do. Currently the letter is only in German.

Hopefully EIKE will post a copy in English.

In the meantime, we urge readers to write or call Deutsche Welle at:

Phone: +49 228 429-2008 (Ask for a Mr Bettermann)
Fax: +49 228 429-2140
gmf@dw-world.de

They speak excellent English. Please politely ask him why they are violating the law by presenting only one radical side of the issue, and insist they present all the other wide range of views from other scientists and experts on climate change. Why is it they are presenting only the worst of scenarios? Is it really their job to emotionalise the audience with the aim to get them to think in one particular way?

Let us know what they tell you. I left my name and number with the secreatry, who said Mr Bettermann will call me back.

Deutsche Welle Conference – From Journalism To Thought Control

June 9, 2010

Deutsche Welle?

In my last post I wrote about how German public broadcasting network Deutsche Welle is holding a 3 day conference dubbed: Climate Change and the Media, which features a number of let’s-save-the-planet and let’s-redefine-journalism workshops. Click list of workshops. You’ll find some real doozies. Here are some interesting ones, in case you’re interested in attending.

 

Psychotherapist Mark Bayne
One workshop: It’s about Attitudes: Understanding and Reporting the Psychology of Climate Change, is chaired by former BBC foreign correspondent turned psychotherapist Mark Brayne. In a German interview here, he:

 …is convinced that our media in its current form is overwhelmed and cannot handle this core task of the 21st century.

Bayne is also convinced that as long as politicians, business leaders and voters don’t grasp just how critical the situation is, there will be no chance for a change in opinion, and adds:

And what is the most powerful tool when it comes to changing how people think? The media!  In our reporting, we have to portray the coming collapse as unavoidable. Ironically, that could be the only chance to prevent it – maybe.”

I’d say here, we aren’t the ones in urgent need of psychotherapy.

Advocacy Media
Here’s another journalist workshop: Coverage vs. advocacy – Does the media guide or reflect cultural shift?. It calls on considering media advocacy in place of just plain old coverage.

‘Media advocacy isn’t about a mass audience. It’s not about reaching everybody. It’s about targeting the two or three per hundred who’ll get involved and make a difference. It’s about starting a chain reaction. And reaching critical mass.’

Informing the public is not enough; now it has to be told how to think. Does Germany still sound like a democratic country? Perhaps more and more like the old German Democratic Republic (East Germany – the one that built a wall to keep its people from running away).

Behavioural Changes Are Necessary
The objective of another workshop Fragile environments in the Himalaya region – The responsibility of local media is to change human behaviour:

This workshop will examine the state of climate change effects now and in the near future and will analyze the role the local media can play in educating people about the environment and the behavioural changes necessary as a result of global warming.

I’m not making this up – it’s for real!

Clearly, with this conference, the publically funded Deutsche Welle is calling for a more dictated news reporting. But should this dictatorial approach be a surprise? Not really. A look at how German public radio and TV are  funded can tell you something about how these media elites operate. In Germany, all radio and TV owners are required to pay hefty licensing fees every year. The fees are collected by an organisation called GEZ – where they are often collected by plainclothes officials who go door-to-door busting fee-shirkers. It’s not enough that they take our money, now they want to tell us how to think and behave too.

Obsessed and drunk with something, the German media are going off course from journalism to thought control. Sound familiar?

Journalism For Dummkopfs – German National Radio Calls On Journalists “To Question Their Own Professional Procedures”

June 7, 2010

The Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum is holding a conference in Bonn, Germany from June 21 to 23 called: Climate Change and the Media. The Deutsche Welle is publically funded by mandatory fees imposed on German citizens. It’s similar to BBC Radio.

The conference will feature a number of let’s-save-the-planet workshops. Click list of workshops.

One workshop that caught our attention is How to professionally deal with climate scepticism. Or simply put: Journalism for Dummkopfs. The panelists are Bob Ward and Ms Denial of Nonconsensus herself, Naomi Oreskes. The workshop’s objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.

That’s right, journalists are being encouraged to throw investigative reporting and balance overboard, i.e. to take up the role of propaganda outlet for press releases put out by the Climate Science Politburo. The panelists go on to warn:

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life.

Yes, the alarmist zealots think the very basis of life hinges on this.

A few journalists in Germany have actually practiced journalism on the issue of climate science recently, and this has infuriated the Established Climate “Science” Community. They too are threatened with the Big Cutoff. You see, although journalists have the competence to report critically on “rudimentary” issues like economics, finance, politics, law,  civics and so on, climate science is far too complex with too much at stake to leave in their hands.

Not only are the alarmist zealots calling for a suspension of democracy, claiming casus belli, but now they’re also demanding that journalists abandon journalism altogether. What gate-name ought I assign to this one? Dummkopf Journalism-gate?

Hat Tip: e-mail from Michael Limburg of  EIKE.

PS: Be sure to check our List of Scandals,

Update: Google Ungate !

June 7, 2010

Yesterday in my Googlegate! post I wrote how the powerful Google search engine appeared to be burying a post critical of Ms Consensus, Naomi Oreskes, and possibly sceptic sites in general.

Well today I again  googled Naomi Oreskes Denial and, lo and behold, I’m back on page 1 in the number 3 spot!

But I’m online here in Germany, and Google by default delivers a different set of search results, depending in which country you’re searching from.  I don’t know what the search results are in the USA or UK. Perhaps someone could let me know.

Googlegate!

June 5, 2010

No. Don’t get all your hopes up, all you conspiracy people out there. This is nothing really big and probably just has to do with how the mysterious inner machinery of Google works. I have absolutely no idea about how it works. To me it is just an amazing piece of machinery.

We know Wiki is infamous for its gatekeeping of climate content. But can we trust Google to deliver fair and balanced information searches? I bring this up because on the 31st of May I wrote a harmless blurb about Naomi Oreskes Naomi Oreskes Denial of Nonconsensus. After I posted it, I googled “Naomi Oreskes Denial” and my post appeared on page 1 at position 5 or 6, meaning anyone googling those words would have found it easily – right there on the first page. I remember feeling quite pleased about it.

But if I had been Ms Oreskes, I probably would not have been too happy about that. After all, in her world, there’s nothing but consensus out there, and so we can’t have any dissent, now can we?

A day later on June 1st I googled it again, and this time I was relegated to page 2, position no. 17 – meaning at that point I had already been put on the Google conveyor belt to obscurity. Today, 5 days later, I googled “Naomi Oreskes Denial” again. This time Google had moved my post down to page 5 position 56, meaning most searchers probably would not find it. Moreover, clicking on the link they provide no longer takes you directly to the post itself, but to my homepage instead. This assures that over time the post eventually gets buried. Naomi Oreskes’s illusion of consensus thus stays undisturbed.

I don’t know if other bloggers have had similar experiences. If so, it could be interesting to hear about them. There are lots of experiments we could try, like applying various inputs and to see what outputs are produced.

Try googling Googlegate! and see what happens.

As this is a harmless post, and I think Google may leave it at the top of their search results. Right Google?

Update: Many have already written about Googlegate. This is interesting: nationalpost lawrence-solomon