Faux News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

http://www.livescience.com/23448-fox-news-climate-coverage-wrong.html

Primetime coverage of global warming at Fox News is overwhelmingly misleading, according to a new report that finds the same is true of climate change information in the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages.

Both outlets are owned by Rupert Murdoch's media company News Corporation. The analysis by the science-policy nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) finds that 93 percent of primetime program discussions of global warming on Fox News are inaccurate, as are 81 percent of Wall Street Journal editorials on the subject.

The most common climate mistakes on Fox News involved misleading statements on basic climate science, or simple undermining and disparaging of the field of climate science. For example, on March 23, one on-air personality referred to global warming as a "hoax and fraud."

The organization called on News Corp. to examine their climate-change reporting standards and to help their staff differentiate between opinions on global warming and scientific fact.

I didn't need a report to tell me this.

Well just like all science related subjects that's just like their opinion.......man.

:P

I'm surprised its that low. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I'm surprised its that low. ionusX

From what I've seen, CNN have been pretty much straightforward in their climate change reporting. I'd say they're more or less neutral, at least on scientific issues.

Don't even pretend there's anything remotely close to the same distortion, slanting and blowing things out of proportion that's standard operating procedure for Fox. That's just false equivalence.

It's only 93%?

Sometimes I wish I could get Fox News here. horgen123

BREAKING NEWS: Fox News tells their viewers what they want to hear. More at 11!

[QUOTE="horgen123"]Sometimes I wish I could get Fox News here. BatCrazedJoker

Come on guys its the UCS. DaBrainz

I am shocked

[spoiler] that Fox is right about climate change 7% of the time [/spoiler]

Come on guys its the UCS. DaBrainz

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]Come on guys its the UCS. comp_atkins

Yes, if you support scientific claims that run against my agenda you're biased, that makes perfect logical sense:roll:

The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. KC_Hokie

The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. KC_Hokie

The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. KC_Hokie

Can't imagine why that might be.

The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. DavesAlt

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. Aljosa23

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Why don't you post some graphs?

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] KC knows its easier to target the source rather than the actual report.DroidPhysX

Don't watch it enough to say either way. I'm simply stating the group that created the report is extremely biased. Even more biased than Fox. KC_Hokie

Proof (preferably in graph form)?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"] Do you refute their claims? Oh wait, nvmDavesAlt

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Still find it bogus how he claims to have a Master's degree but can't read fvcking charts.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]They're an extremely biased group. That's like the creationist museum's 'experts' in KY concluding evolution is wrong.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Don't watch it enough to say either way. I'm simply stating the group that created the report is extremely biased. Even more biased than Fox. Slow_Show

Proof (preferably in graph form)?

Just go to their website and read their stance on global warming. It's as extreme as it gets...other than saying the world will end in total apocalypse soon due to man-made global warming. KC_Hokie

Took a not insubstantial gander, everything seemed within the realm of reason and supported by the science (except for the claim about global warming affecting national security -- not that it doesn't make sense, but national security is such a nebulous term I'd imagine it would be a hard argument to support empirically).

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Just go to their website and read their stance on global warming. It's as extreme as it gets...other than saying the world will end in total apocalypse soon due to man-made global warming. Slow_Show

Took a not insubstantial gander, everything seemed within the realm of reason and supported by the science (except for the claim about global warming affecting national security -- not that it doesn't make sense, but national security is such a nebulous term I'd imagine it would be a hard argument to support empirically).

This group is alarmist and extremely biased.

KC, I think people want you to refute the findings of the report if you are going to call the veracity of the report into question instead of simply crying bias because that is really easy to do. DavesAlt

lying ass sea ice.

all sea ice wants is to put over it's liberal commie socialist agenda on the american people.

lying ass sea ice.

all sea ice wants is to put over it's liberal commie socialist agenda on the american people.

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"]KC, I think people want you to refute the findings of the report if you are going to call the veracity of the report into question instead of simply crying bias because that is really easy to do. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"]KC, I think people want you to refute the findings of the report if you are going to call the veracity of the report into question instead of simply crying bias because that is really easy to do. DavesAlt

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Still find it bogus how he claims to have a Master's degree but can't read fvcking charts.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]This is their official stance on global warming....it's as biased as it gets: "The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impactssuch as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughtsare already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions."KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]This is their official stance on global warming....it's as biased as it gets: "The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impactssuch as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughtsare already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions."KC_Hokie

truth isn't balanced