This also isn't the first time that PBS News Hour has consulted with the Heartland Institute to
provide false balance for a climate story.
Not exact matches
«With current debate around the dangers of
providing a
false sense of «
balance» on a topic as societally important as climate change, we're quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.
Whenever the media has tried to give a hearing to the skeptical side, it has been battered by protests from its readership (e.g., PBS's interview of Anthon *), accusations of
providing «
false balance» (because consensus) and technical letters demanding in effect that the recipient disprove this or that aspect of the warmist case, something no media producer is ready or able to do.
In a recent column in The Guardian, climate activists John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli claim that Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and other conservative media
provide «
false balance» by featuring climate contrarians.
This is why the problem of
false balance in media is so important, and why the Kochs have done such a great job in creating phony think tanks («crank tanks») populated with folks like Myron Ebell who, IMHO, just lie for pay, all day long, and
provide the science - free views the media needs.
Our survey findings don't
provide a clear answer to the question of how much
false balance reporting SEJ members are doing, but I think our findings suggest this is a topic worthy of serious consideration and discussion within SEJ.