ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to air anything on the leaked e-mails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, but The Daily Show did — and they got the story right.
ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to air anything on the leaked e-mails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, but The Daily Show did — and they got the story right.
lucia says:
Yes. Jon Stewart got it right. Nature’s blog might have done well to watch his video before writing their recent post on the issue.
December 3, 2009, 8:51 amWidmerpool says:
I’m looking forward to the explanation in Sunday’s NYT from “public editor” Clark Hack explaining why the NYT’s pitifully poor coverage of this story has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a political agenda. He will then jump into the back of a fleeing pickup truck and speed away in the face of advancing marines as they stream through Baghdad . . . oh wait, sorry, I’m confusing him with Iraq’s former public editor.
December 3, 2009, 9:12 amDonP. says:
Typical Stewart “News report”
1/2 the actual facts and 1/2 a designated silly conservative’s reaction to it. Both with equal emphasis.
December 3, 2009, 9:56 amRichard Aubrey says:
You don’t have to please everybody to drive the news. See the Enquirer and John Edwards’ affair.
December 3, 2009, 9:58 amwfjag says:
ABC, CBS and NBC report news? Learn something on VC every day.
December 3, 2009, 10:19 amwws says:
When LBJ saw Cronkite’s critical coverage of the Tet offensive, he reportedly said “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the American people.”
Of course, we’re a lot more fragmented today than we were in 1968 – but you don’t have to agree with everything Stewart says to see that we’ve just passed one of those “tipping points” that the climatologists (climate scientologists?) have loved to talk about so much. Stewart isn’t broadcasting to a “conservative” audience – he’s popular among a mostly young, left-leaning demographic. If the current state of climate science has become an object of mockery even there, it is finished.
And another nice piece of irony – in the same way that the Nat. Enquirer was more honest and did better reporting with regard to John Edwards than the New York Times or the Washington Post did, now Comedy Central is giving much more honest and open coverage to the news of the day than either NBC, CBS, or ABC is. (I’m not saying it’s great, just that it’s comparatively better since it has less politically motivated self-censorship) The young people who watch only Comedy Central are actually better informed than anyone watching the major networks – gotta love it!
December 3, 2009, 10:21 amyankee says:
The man is running a comedy show. I’m amazed by the amount of actual news that makes it in.
December 3, 2009, 10:22 amLouis V. Galdieri says:
Either the world is going to end in a huge polar tidal wave or Al Gore is going to usher in one world government. Who can say which? http://bit.ly/6ZSOHM
December 3, 2009, 10:37 amrbj says:
The scary thing is that a lot of the college & twenty-somethings use The Daily Show as their primary news source.
December 3, 2009, 10:52 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
The scary thing is the others who use Fox as their news source, when it is so clearly meant to be a comedy.
December 3, 2009, 11:03 amRichard Aubrey says:
rbj.
December 3, 2009, 11:06 amAgreed. But what are their alternatives?
Network news. A celebrity piece. A natural disaster someplace. Interview an advocate masquerading as an expert on something. Human interest. Sports, if something particularly interesting has happened or might happen.
Of twenty-two minutes, what’s left?
Cable news has more, but is repetitive.
Choice of coverage is both alarming and instructive.
On a day, a Palestinian immigrant shot up a Jewish community center, killing one woman and wounding another half dozen. Same day, Mel Gibson got caught driving drunk and mouthing off to a cop. That was CAIR’s Christmas gift for the next ten years. The shooting dropped off the radar, but Gibson got days of coverage.
I don’t see Stewart doing the opposite, but his scorching of the media wrt ACORN did point out choices made.
Dudeman says:
My favorite line of the video: “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked by the internet you invented.”
I don’t know what is more ironic: (1) the post notes that MSM has failed to cover the issue, but Comedy Central did – and FOX has; (2) the quoted source for the FOX criticism (not to Laz, Valerie Jarret is looking for an intern); (3) that the point of the criticism is that FOX will fire folks for inaccurate reporting; or (4) that when data does not work, it is acceptable in an academic environment to “massage” the numbers to reach your conclusion (note that it has been suggested that this is the problem with the scientific process – though not to this imagined extent [Thomas Kuhn “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”].
December 3, 2009, 11:20 amlucklucky says:
“Andrew J. Lazarus: The scary thing is the others who use Fox as their news source, when it is so clearly meant to be a comedy.”
The scary thing is that the left wanted to maintain the news monopoly…
December 3, 2009, 11:40 amMark Buehner says:
Yeh, not a pillar of journalism like MSNBC. Thank goodness there is a paragon of journalistic virtue like Chris Mathews and his tingly leg reminding us that West Point is an enemy camp for the President of the United States. Certainly nothing funn about that.
December 3, 2009, 11:40 amMartinned says:
So much support from VC commenters for Jon Stewart. Now I’m certain the world is ending…
December 3, 2009, 11:42 amASlyJD says:
One can enjoy the neighbor’s aggressive Rottweiler biting the neighbor without supporting the attack dog…
December 3, 2009, 11:48 amdave h says:
Young people who watch the Daily Show and don’t watch network or cable news don’t get all their news from the Daily Show. They read stuff on the internet. That’s certainly my model at least, and I doubt I’m alone.
December 3, 2009, 11:59 amyankee says:
That’s what I do. Mostly I watch for the amusing take on current affairs, not for substantive information. He’s definitely way ahead of cable “news” for quality of coverage though.
December 3, 2009, 12:06 pmRichard Aubrey says:
dave h.
December 3, 2009, 12:07 pmI know a bunch of young people, family types in their early thirties–my kids and their friends.
They can usually spare two to three minutes a day to read stuff on the internet.
Once the kids leave home and the dog dies, things change.
silly silly says:
i spot a redundancy.
December 3, 2009, 12:16 pmBrian K says:
The really scary thing is that they’re less biased and more truthful than Fox News, which considers itself an actual news organization. Plus the comedy on the daily show is intentional while the comedy on Fox mostly results from the really stupid things they say.
December 3, 2009, 12:22 pmShelby says:
The scary thing is that a lot of the college & twenty-somethings use The Daily Show as their primary news source.
The scary thing is that, if you’re going to get your news via TV, The Daily Show is rivaled only by The Newshour.
December 3, 2009, 12:35 pmDonP. says:
Nice generic, unsupported slur. Did you pick that up on Moveon, DU, or make it up all by yourself?
Perhaps we just need a simple IQ test before we allow all these poor, ignorant Fox watching souls to cast a ballot. They might elect someone you don’t approve of, if left unchecked.
They aren’t nearly as intelligent as you obviously are, to spot all that bare naked Fox bias. (Let me guess, you have a pin up of Rachel Maddow on the back of your door? Or is it an autographed Keith O. football on your mantel?)
But I regret to inform you that there are far more of them then there are of you. But then again, numbers aren’t important, unless they are votes of course.
Based on the most recent ratings book sitting on my desk, about 8 times as many as tune in to MS/NBC, CNN et. al.
In the meantime we’ll all be watching for the “Real News” (or any coverage) of the Climate story on MS/NBC and the broadcast networks. Based on their track record, I expect to hear about it sometime in January. Then it will be the story about prosecuting the whistle blower.
December 3, 2009, 1:09 pmmike says:
Why is liberal commentary on conservatives and conservatism so consistently ad hominem?
December 3, 2009, 1:19 pmMattW says:
DonP seems to suggest that because people watch FoxNews, it must be a legitimate news source. Its like saying that because the movie 2012 made a bajillion dollars at the box office,it must be a valuable cinematic work of art.
Lets put the whackos at MSNBC and Foxnews in one lumped group and dismiss them entirely from any true academic debate.
Lastly, DonP decries generic, unsupported slurs against his favorite news source while levying the same at NBC. Since no commenter here should have the time to give him a thesis outlining specific examples of Foxnews ignoring, sensationalizing, or just plain creating news, I will just direct him to the unedited clips over at mediamatters.org
December 3, 2009, 1:26 pmBrian K says:
DonP,
There’s a whole lot of projecting going on there. here’s a hint, not everyone thinks and acts the way you do. Some of prefer to form opinions after watching both shows.
other than that, your post is a perfect example of someone who thinks fox news is legitimate. it would be hilarious if it wasn’t true…but it is so it’s just sad.
December 3, 2009, 1:38 pmbob says:
Here’s the thing that is a bit odd.
Mr. Adler has, I believe, stated in the past that he believes that global warming is real and that man’s actions contribute to it.
If so, there are serious questions about how we will be affected and what we should do about it.
But how many of Mr. Adlers dozens and dozens and dozens of posts about global warming focus on any of these issues?
Instead he makes dozens of posts that are intended to tweak and question the reality of global warming.
Why is that?
December 3, 2009, 1:58 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Brian.
December 3, 2009, 2:08 pmSorry to make you so sad. No… I’m not.
Your comments ref Fox seem to be aimed at dismissing it in advance, just in case it says something you find inconvenient.
That’s an old, old tactic. Hardly ever works.
So, for you, what’s the Cathedra of news?
lucia says:
bob
Could you point to any posts that are intended to tweak or question the reality of global warming? I’ve read JHA posts for a long time and I seem to have missed them all.
December 3, 2009, 2:14 pmRyan Waxx says:
Fanatics are immune to irony. It bounces off their iron conviction.
December 3, 2009, 2:22 pmbob says:
This post – the one you are commenting on – is a pretty good example of the technique.
He doesn’t come out and explicitly deny global warming but he posts thousands of words quibbling with it, tweaking those who say it is a problem and so forth.
December 3, 2009, 2:23 pmBrian K says:
how come you don’t complain when people do exactly the same thing about the daily show or the nyt or msnbc or cnn or well just about every news show that is not fox? is this one of those things that are only acceptable when conservatives do it? it’s funny how half the above commenters considers the news legitimate when it conforms to their beliefs and yet so far you have only called me out. way to show your own biases!
and yes, i don’t think fox is legitimate. to figure out which segments are true and which are made up conservative propaganda i have to go to other news sites. what’s the point? it’s a much better use of my time just to go to those other sites! (although i do still watch fox news occasionally just for the comedic value)
December 3, 2009, 2:24 pmRichard Aubrey says:
I don’t think the existence of people who take the NYT seriously makes me sad. That’s a kind of me-so-superior schtick that only a few of the anointed can carry off without puking.
December 3, 2009, 2:34 pmThe existence of people who take the NYT seriously scares the hell out of me. Because, unfortunately, those morons vote.
I don’t even watch the alphabets any longer because figuring out what’s liberal propaganda–most of it–wasn’t any good. If it dealt with something substantive, it was liberal propaganda.
The real problem is what it didn’t deal with at all, such as Climatequiddick.
(“‘gate” as a suffix is incorrect. It implies something the media are all over. “quiddick” as a suffix indicates that which the media try to hide)
Widmerpool says:
Brian K, please ignore the slander of the other commentators on this thread. I embrace you with open arms and if I were still chancellor of my red-brick university–and had not been run out of office due to a slight misunderstanding regarding an unfortunate youthful indiscretion involving communist-espionage activity–I would have had you on my staff, perhaps as assistant student dean (I always value a good “no-man” who will reject out of hand any request, no matter how reasonable or logical). Keep up the good work, comrade!
December 3, 2009, 2:46 pmJon Stewart on ClimateGate « The Minnesota Grizzly Bear says:
[...] Jon Stewart on ClimateGate. [...]
December 3, 2009, 2:49 pmrarango says:
In this day and age, seems to me anyone who takes any single news source as gospel, is missing a lot and not taking advantage of the multiple sources out there–if anything, the multiplicity of sources makes gathering “news” a more time consuming process than it was 40 years ago when the Christian Science Monitor, the WaPo and the NYT were probably all you needed. To single out one source of news (vice opinion) seems a bit short-sighted.
Re the comments about Professor Adler’s GW and AGW views and “tweaking the subject,” I see nothing inconsistent with believing in both but tweaking to continue to refine his knowledge–I think that is what scientists (and presumably lawyers) should do. Paraphrasing Keynes, when the facts change I change my mind–what do you do, sir? But Professer Adler can speak for himself.
December 3, 2009, 2:52 pmanomdebus says:
bob,
A charitable view would suggest that he is holding his own views to a higher standard.
My view of his views is that he is deferential to policies aimed at preventing negative externalities, which at the least is different than your usual agw opponent.
December 3, 2009, 2:57 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
bob,
This post — the one you are commenting on — is a pretty good example of the technique [JHA's alleged "technique" of "tweak[ing] and question[ing] the reality of global warming].
Is it? All I see here is JHA noting that Jon Stewart, of all people, is reporting something the major networks haven’t bothered to, and making the real point that needs to be made: “Don’t cut corners.” Given that Jon Stewart obviously thinks global warming is a genuine problem (you did watch the whole clip, right?), why do you regard this post as attacking the AGW cause? Is not talking about this is the only loyal course if you believe AGW needs to be addressed?
December 3, 2009, 3:10 pmKenvee says:
I’m amused about the complaints of posts “tweaking the subject”. If you simply reject all complaints that the evidence you’re relying on is flawed or the analysis is faulty, then you become nothing more than a closed-minded zealot. A reasonable person is supposed to be willing to look at evidence that contradicts or discredits evidence in support of your favored theory. If you can’t do that, then no one would ever change their minds about anything and we’d still think the sun revolves around the earth. I give a lot more credence to someone who says he believes a theory but here are the current complaints about it than someone who just says, “I’m right! No one can possibly doubt me!”
December 3, 2009, 3:19 pmRyan Waxx says:
This entire thread is consistently ad hominem because the usual tools can not (as evidenced by them not even TRYING, even after a couple pages of comments)… CAN NOT justify three major networks refusing to report on a story this big.
Thus, they MUST scream “look at Fox bias!!! LOOOK!” at the top of their lungs, because that’s the only way to distract from the obvious, unarguable example of bias of three major networks all deciding that a major story is not worth covering because it favors the wrong people.
A question for the tools: How many days has it been since the story broke, hmm? If Fox News waited that long to cover the Enron scandal, what FRACTION of that number would you wait before concluding that Fox News was showing its bias?
December 3, 2009, 3:26 pmwws says:
Bob wrote: “He doesn’t come out and explicitly deny global warming but he posts thousands of words quibbling with it, tweaking those who say it is a problem and so forth.”
So are you suggesting that the Climate Inquisition should try him on charges of suspected heresy against the One True Faith?
Those heretics are sneaky, you know. Even when you come up with a creed that everyone must swear to, they still find ways around it.
December 3, 2009, 4:31 pmDan Weber says:
Yeah. How come you people have to be like that?
</sarcasm> That was a joke. It’s not one side or the other, but both that have made reading VC really tough these days. A sole wingnut is easy enough to ignore, but when we get a few on each side using asinine rhetorical tricks (“it’s obvious you are wrong” “stop embarrassing yourself” “everyone thinks you are nuts” “only stupid people believe” “I know you are but what am I”), the whole thing goes down the crapper pretty fast.
December 3, 2009, 4:32 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that the big thing here is that the scandal has now really jumped the shark, or, yes, probably more accurately, reached that tipping point.
Stewart is one of the primary news sources for the younger crowd. He is obviously a committed leftist, and acts like so many of them, the crowd who would go into hysterics when GWB was called “shrub” before he was elected President (and much worse after that). This is the crowd that put President Obama in the White House, and one of the key people behind that was Stewart.
Part of the problem is that this generation will probably never take AGW as seriously again. The part about Al Gore and the Internet is already viral. Sure, they are more environmentally conscious than their parents, etc. And, probably believe in AGW and a lot of Utopian things more too.
Finally, no surprise that Fox News continues to gain viewers, while the media that tried to suppress this story continue to plummet in readership/viewership. If they suppressed this story, what else have they not supplied their customers? It will be interesting to see if Stewart has shamed them into covering this or not.
December 3, 2009, 4:33 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Referring to me, Ryan Waxx wrote
Later Waxx agrees with this statement of mike’s.
It would appear that the ad hominem attacks by liberal fanatics are so devastating that they engender something quite similar from conservatives.
Careful guys. Spittle can ruin your keyboard.
December 3, 2009, 4:47 pmRob in CT says:
“Part of the problem is that this generation will probably never take AGW as seriously again.”
I doubt that, since if the general idea is correct (and I think it is), then it will become increasingly obvious to those people, who will be alive and witnessing it.
But whatever. The scientists who wrote those emails messed up, and it WILL hurt. It will primarily hurt by bolstering those who already didn’t want to believe in AGW (and let’s be honest – wouldn’t we ALL rather it be wrong? I sure would!).
December 3, 2009, 5:07 pmMichael Murad says:
Interesting video. The topic was, in fact, already raised on a mainstream news show – Sunday’s episode of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” Here’s a link to a NewsBusters page with an embedded video of the pertinent segment.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/29/week-discusses-climategate-obamas-copenhagen-trip
As usual in this sort of show there’s little depth in the commentary but I thought George Will summed up the pessimistic and critical interpretation fairly and sharply, while Paul Krugman’s defense seemed lame and barely coherent in places; of course neither will have the impact of Stewart’s mockery.
December 3, 2009, 5:43 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Jon Stewart on ClimateGate -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Isaac Waisberg, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Jon Stewart on ClimateGate: ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to air anything on the leaked e-mails and documents from .. http://bit.ly/6hbEE1 [...]
December 3, 2009, 5:46 pmAllan Leedy says:
That’s the scary thing? The scary thing is it’s the best news source around.
December 3, 2009, 6:00 pmVader says:
“That was CAIR’s Christmas gift…”
Richard, I hope you are conscious of the irony.
December 3, 2009, 6:03 pmBruce Hayden says:
I guess I am one of those who feels bolstered. There has been a lot of stuff out there critical of the received wisdom about AGW, and I am now just seeing it. Of course, pursuing this has always been a low priority.
But for a long time, I felt that, maybe, just maybe, I was being reactionary in not believing in AGW. It didn’t feel right, esp. given the obvious hypocrisy of so many of its proponents (notably AlGore), but the proponents always had a bunch of papers they could throw at us. I always get suspicious when I see this sort of hypocrisy – if they believe that the earth is about to end if we don’t do something major right now, then why aren’t they leading by example, instead of putting us all to shame by their profligate ways (note the discussion upsteam about the head of the IPCC). So, the emperor isn’t wearing as many clothes as we all thought he was.
I do see AGW as less likely. Partly, this is in response to the discovery that those at the center of it apparently cannot explain or really understand why their models (absent major fudging, as evidenced by both emails and code) fail to predict the last 10 years. And partly, it is realizing that the models that we have heard so much about appear to depend on large positive feedback to CO2 increases, while small negative feedback seems more likely to me, right now, given all I have seen.
But I would ask you why you do believe in AGW, despite all that has come out in the last couple of weeks. Likely not having done your own original research in this area (as most of us have not), what is there that causes you to believe? Is it some sort of innate belief system, like mine, where I innately and automatically question authority, especially when combined with hypocricy, only maybe the opposite? Do you subconsciously want it to be true? Or, are you someone who innately trusts authority? Or, maybe something else?
December 3, 2009, 6:09 pmRyan Waxx says:
I notice that you left out my third statement, which was:
Possibly because it completely describes your comment quoted above?
December 3, 2009, 6:28 pmGuy says:
So… you weren’t criticizing ad hominem attacks, just acknowledging their existence while engaging in them? I agree, those damn usual tools, forcing us to be lowered to their level of discourse against our will. They like to give oral pleasure to nutria, thus they’re wrong.
December 3, 2009, 7:22 pmRyan Waxx says:
Fine Guy, then go ahead and defend ABC et al not covering the story. We’re all waiting for your constructive contribution.
December 3, 2009, 7:34 pmRichard Aubrey says:
I built in the irony, mainly because I couldn’t remember which Muslim holiday involves giving gifts.
December 3, 2009, 9:00 pm