5 thoughts on “Daily Kos expects new NPR ethics guidelines to silence skeptics”

  1. Just one question.. how am I supposed to decide whats true if I cant read all sides?

    Guess I have to stick to the Internet because at least its all there for me to make up my own mind.

  2. What good are ethics if you can’t use them for your side. That’s like – unethical or something. I’d mock further, but it’s a serious undertaking on their part.

  3. Well I get all my real news from books written by real climatologists and online. I stopped reading the newspapers and TV news is a joke. Just think of the money and time I save by not listening to them at all.

  4. I dropped my subscriptions to leftist propaganda organs (i.e. newspapers) years ago. Why support people who were just blathering and repeating leftist garbage. I’ve rarely listened to NPR — and then, only by accident when I tuned in an NPR station while traveling around the country in my 48,000 lb, 42 foot long bus. I rarely watch anything on PBS-TV — though sometimes they have nice concerts during their pledge weeks…

  5. This “equal balance” thing, which has never existed in the mainstream media, was actually a talking point consolidated back in the early- mid-’90s as an extremely clever means of prompting journalists NOT to give equal time to skeptics. I wrote an entire article on that last summer, see: ” ‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who’ve been unfair to skeptics” http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/

Comments are closed.