Ingraham vs. Gore; Half the Truth Is the Same as a Lie

Mon, 2009-05-04 08:46Jeanne Roberts
Jeanne Roberts's picture

Ingraham vs. Gore; Half the Truth Is the Same as a Lie

During the May 1 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, talk-radio guest host Laura Ingraham used a well-known Republican tactic to smear Al Gore, former Vice President, climate activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Ingraham took only those parts of Gore’s Waxman-Markey testimony that supported her contention and ignored the rest.

Ingraham may consider this balanced reporting, but here in the real world we call this a convenient and highly unscrupulous oversight.

Gore’s testimony, from the April 24 House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing (on the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act), clearly stated that “every penny” he earned from his climate-change advocacy (i.e., books, movies, and investments in renewable energy) has gone into his nonprofit organization, Alliance for Climate Protection, which aims to persuade Americans to adopt comprehensive solutions to the approaching climate crisis.

By conveniently overlooking that part, Ingraham suggests that Gore has profited wildly from his activisim. Of course, Ingraham – who is raking it in hand over fist on her “conservative” (read Republican fear-mongering) talk show, books and appearances – probably hasn’t come into contact with a real penny for a decade. This, if not so infuriatingly duplicitous, would actually be funny, suggesting as it does that only a select few are allowed to profit from their labors. 

Ingraham’s slant was less surprising than the usual Republican tactics, which frequently involve non sequiturs and Bible-bending (“God decides when the earth will end”), but the viciousness of her attack apparently took even Marc Morano by surprise.

Morano – whose climate-change denial website Climate Depot purports to “redefine” global warming – cautiously suggested that Gore was an ideologue, so it wasn’t fair to say he was “doing it all for the money” (this is known as damning with faint praise). Morano was quick to add that global warming is “big business” in Washington, with four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress – a remark that undoubtedly restored him to the right-wing climate denial fold, though probably not without a proverbial rap on the knuckles at some future date.

What Morano failed to note was that the largest sectors in this lobby are manufacturing, power companies, and the oil and gas industry, all of which oppose climate legislation and carbon taxes. In fact, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or ACCCE (representing 48 mining firms, coal-hauling railroads and coal-fired utilities), was 2008’s biggest lobbyist group, spending $9.95 million, or more than any other organization.

But back to Ingraham, who suggested during the talk show that Gore has used his activism to enrich himself to the tune of about $98 million. Morano hastened to note that Gore’s future earnings from his carbon market operations will, if cap-and-trade passes, make the $98 million look ‘pikerly’ (someone buy that man a Thesaurus; next time try paltry, Morano).

My takeaway from the O’Reilly episode? The Republican right has backed itself into such an indefensible position on climate change, misrepresentation is the last defense.

This month we’re giving away FREE copies Anthony Barnosky’s Heatstroke: nature in an age of global warming.

Go here to find out more details about DeSmogBlog’s monthly book give-away.

 

Comments

There can be no doubt that a lie by deliberate omission - by selective editing remains a lie.

Let’s hope more and more people become aware of these desperate and dirty tactics. Then perhaps, the perpetrators of these apalling deceits need to be made to face-up to their crimes of misrepresentation.

Maybe O’Reilly, Ingraham, Morano and the rest of the deceivers need to be looking for new jobs. 

Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later.

Thanks, your support is appreciated. I agree they should probably consider new jobs, but since such jobs would probably consist of lobbying for the energy industry, they might be safer where they are - in the public eye, where their half-truths are exposed to scrutiny.

First thing I noticed about this post was that climate depot was linked. Not sure if it’s the usual thing here to link the opposite side, but I think it’s smart. I automatically respect a post more when it links the other side and refrains from personal attacks and that was done well here.

Hi Jeanne, let me help you out a bit by rewriting a few of your paragraphs to give a more accurate presentation of what really happened.

During a May 4 posting on DeSmogBlog.com, blogger Jeanne Roberts used a well-known alarmist tactic to smear Laura Ingraham, guest host for The O’Reilly Factor. Roberts, who failed to provide any links to back up her false claim, took only those parts of Ingraham’s program that supported her contention and ignored the rest.

Roberts may consider this balanced reporting, but here in the real world we call this a convenient and highly unscrupulous oversight.

Gore’s testimony, from the April 24 House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing (on the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act), clearly stated that “every penny” he earned from his climate-change advocacy (i.e., books, movies, and investments in renewable energy) has gone into his nonprofit organization, Alliance for Climate Protection, which aims to persuade Americans to adopt comprehensive solutions to the approaching climate crisis. Gore’s testimony, including the quote “Every penny I have made has gone to it” was then clearly aired on Ingraham’s show leaving to question the accuracy of Roberts reporting.

Morano  cautiously suggested that Gore was an ideologue, so it wasn’t fair to say he was “doing it all for the money”. This opinion was clearly shared by Ingraham.

My takeaway from the DeSmog thread? The alarmists have backed themselves into such an indefensible position on climate change, misrepresentation is the last defense.

Have a nice day Jeanne.Smile

However, the every penny part wasn’t made clear on the O’Reilly segment, which is what I was talking about. The links to Ingraham’s deception were quite evident, and it isn’t clear from that link that Ingraham shared Morano’s point of view regarding Morano’s idealogue status. Further, I notice you didn’t post what you consider to be the definitive link yourself, which makes you suspect.

Finally, the only remarks I made about Ingraham are readily available from online bios and news sources. The claims you cite as false in the first paragraph are easily verifiable from the link in my first paragraph.

Your paraphrasing does not disguise the fact that you don’t have any supporting evidence relevant to my article

However, the every penny part wasn’t made clear on the O’Reilly segment, which is what I was talking about.

??? I Have no idea what you’re talkining about. The link I provided (“every penny”) is from The O’Reilly Factor. It even says so at the bottom of the screen. You originally said “By conveniently overlooking that part,…” now you’re saying “wasn’t made clear”…

…it isn’t clear from that link that Ingraham shared Morano’s point of view regarding Morano’s idealogue status.

In the link:

Morano: …Al Gore is motivated beyond money. He is an idealogue.

Ingraham: Yeah

Morano: It’s not fair to say he’s doing it all for the money

Ingraham: Sure

Further, I notice you didn’t post what you consider to be the definitive link yourself, which makes you suspect.

Another ??? I provided two links from the O’reilly Factor, As far as I know the only two available. Both deal directly with what you’re talking about. That’s two more links than what you have provided from the O’Reilly Factor.

The claims you cite as false in the first paragraph are easily verifiable from the link in my first paragraph.

Who are you kidding here? That’s what my first link is all about. You think linking to Mediamatters verifies anything? (Btw, have you clicked on your link-Error 404:Page Not Found…probably removed because it was erroneous) I realize this site relies a lot on spin but lets get real here.

I’m not sure what video you think you linked to, but I watched both in their entirety. The first ENDS with Ingraham introducing the O’Reilly show. The second clip shows only Gore’s testimony saying he was proud of his actions and asking if Blackburn thought investing in business was a crime in America. NEITHER OF THE CLIPS refers to the word penny, or Gore’s testimony about investing every penny in climate change activism. Ingraham’s comment, “Sure”, could mean anything.

Who are you trying to kid?

Jeanne, you’re really starting to scare me here. There must be some kind of Twilight Zone thing happening here.

2nd part 1st,

Ingraham’s comment, “Sure”, could mean anything

You’re kidding, right? Ingraham actually starts the dialogue and seemingly comes to Gore’s defense by stating at the 1:24 mark “He did a lot of other things though like speaking, books…” and then at the 3:08 mark she actually uses the words “And look, I agree with you, Al Gore is wealthy, he was wealthy before, I’m not sure that’s the motivation…”. It’s impossible for any reasonable person to watch this and state as you have that “and it isn’t clear from that link that Ingraham shared Morano’s point of view regarding Morano’s idealogue status”.

 NEITHER OF THE CLIPS refers to the word penny, or Gore’s testimony about investing every penny in climate change activism

As I stated before, Ingraham shows the actual clip of the testimony before congress on the O’Reilly Factor. At the 34 second mark we see Blackburn asking Gore

“Does all of it go to a not for profit….”

and then we see and hear Gore say

“Every penny I have made has gone to it”

You’re not going to make me show it a 3rd time are you?

Time to cut your losses here and realize that you were sandbagged by the PR firm Mediamatters. I now return you back to another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind…

I see it as Ingraham’s loss, not mine, that her overall synthesis of Gore’s actions implies that he has made his millions from climate change advocacy. These comments you cite are, as I noted, called damning with faint praise, and not an honest attempt to arrive at facts through dialogue. The very fact that she interviewed Marc Morano, who is a global warming denier, indicates clearly the direction she intended to go. Yes, I saw the clips, again, and no you don’t have to show them again. I reiterate: half the truth is the same as a lie, and Ingraham may have shown clips of Gore’s testimony before Blackburn, but she did cut the part about his donating his proceeds from climate-change activism to a non-profit organization.

Now, without tap-dancing around it, can you address that issue, preferably in this dimension?

Why do you insist on digging yourself into a deeper hole? Perhaps these tactics of constantly repeating doublespeak work on people with marginal intelligence but I think it’s quite obvious that they are not fooling anyone who reads this blog.

Ingraham’s…overall synthesis of Gore’s actions implies that he has made his millions from climate change advocacy

Who are you fooling here with these comments? Certainly not me and probably not yourself. I’ve already linked to the direct quote where she states “I’m not sure that’s (money) the motivation” but that’s still not the point. The synthesis of what Morano and ingraham are saying is that Gore could make bazillions if cap and trade becomes law because of his partnership in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. This is a huge lobby firm and Gore has admitted himself that:

Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense,” Gore said. “I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But [they are in] geo-thermal, concentratingsolar, advanced photovoltaics, effiency and coservation”.

Regardless of all that, your comment ” her overall synthesis of Gore’s actions implies that he has made his millions from climate change advocacy ” and the fact that you now admit Ingraham did in fact air Gore’s “every penny” testimony is a complete 180 from your original posting “Ingraham took only those parts of Gore’s Waxman-Markey testimony that supported her contention and ignored the rest

The very fact that she interviewed Marc Morano, who is a global warming denier, indicates clearly the direction she intended to go.

Well duh. Who’s going to disagree with that? The fact that you introduce this ‘bait and switch’ only shows your desperation.

 Yes, I saw the clips, again, and no you don’t have to show them again.

Glad to see you finally agree that Ingraham did indeed air Gore’s testimony where he makes the “every penny” comment despite your previous denial.

I reiterate: half the truth is the same as a lie, and Ingraham may have shown clips of Gore’s testimony before Blackburn, but she did cut the part about his donating his proceeds from climate-change activism to a non-profit organization.

This is the doublespeak which I refer to above. Why are you playing these silly games here? In one sentence you finally admit that Ingraham aired Gore’s “every penny” comment then you link to Joe Romm’s blog which states that Ingraham did not air Gore’s ‘every penny’ comment as if this is some kind of proof. FWIW, I challenged Joe just as I did you. My comment sat there for three days in ‘your comment is awaiting moderation’ and then Joe pulled a Gavin Schmidt on me and  refused to post my comment. I commend you for at least allowing me to post here.

You’re hopeless. I did not say Ingraham aired the every penny part. I said she aired the Blackburn testimony but the cut the part about Gore saying his proceeds from climate activism go to a non-profit; that is the every penny part.

By the way you twist my comments, I can only assume you’re one of those loud, overbearing bullies who think shouting wins an argument. You, in fact, are the only one losing credibility here, but please do post another reply. This time, try for all caps, so that we know you are, in fact, shouting to be heard.

Sorry if I gave the impression I was shouting-I just adjusted the font wrong.

I said she aired the Blackburn testimony but the cut the part about Gore saying his proceeds from climate activism go to a non-profit; that is the every penny part.

For the Nth time, if you’re going watch my link again and then sit there and honestly tell me that we don’t here Al Gore say “Every penny I have made has gone to it” then we truly are indeed in the twilight zone and there is certainly no need to converse any further.

Your links don’t support your claims.  WTF?  Operating under some sort of theory if you link to something, ANYTHING, then that’s good enough?  I know conservatives are bad with facts and all, but at least you could try.

I suspect Al Gore is sincere, but he is hopelessly compromised on the issue of climate change. He has garnered unimaginable wealth by talking AGW and lives a lavish lifestyle with a humongous consumption footprint.

Secondly, he stands to gain a financial windfall from the measures he is proposing the US govt adapt. That in itself is a fatal conflict of interest.

Gore has become a successful businessman whose wealth has been largely generated by enterprises outside of his global warming activism. The buzz, that he got rich on global warming, is an often-repeated Republican mind-bend. Yes, he flies in jets. So do other politicians and celebrities. Yes, he has a million-dollar home. So does Dick Cheney, whose former life as a torture advocate is seriously warped. Yes, Gore is worth about $100 million, but not from selling carbon credits. Cheney, who has managed to keep most of his assets hidden, is probably worth twice that simply based on his former association as CEO of Halliburton (a name recently changed to Xe to shield the company from bad PR and probable lawsuits).

Jeanne, as a proponet of radical action combatting AGW, Gore must be held to a standard reflective of what he advocates.

He can not keep accumulating massive wealth and criss-crossing the globe in a private jet and living in palatial mansions while advocating that ordinary people make huge sacrifices.

 

How much money Al Gore has made to date is debatable. But there is no question that if Cap and Trade legislation becomes law Gore stands to make 100’s of millions, if not billions.

Al Gore’s Carbon Empire (8 page pdf)

Shut the hell up about Al Gore!  All you’re trying to do is delay action on fighting AGW!  You and your ilk have blood on your hands, the blood of those thousands and more who have died and will die as a result of the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

You people make me sick!

Thanks, but we’ll keep talking about Al Gore, continuing to highlight the inconsistencies between what he preaches and the incredible wealth he is accumulating.

So, you have a problem with the wealth Gore is accumulating, but have no problem with the wealth that people who work for Big Oil are accumulating?  (What Gore makes is peanuts compared to what the oilmen pull in, by the way.)

Gore has been as consistent as anyone in politics today.  There’s no one I admire more in the US political scene than him.  He tells it as it is and does it in a fairly non-confrontational way.

I have no problems with Gore, only questions. And only Al is telling me I have to change my lifestyle completely while he doesn’t.

Shut the hell up about Al Gore!

I don’t blame you for being ashamed of Al Gore. If I were an alarmist I wouldn’t want to talk about him either. In April 2009 he is saying that “every penny” goes to a not for profit. Last March he said:

Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense,” Gore said. “I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But [they are in] geo-thermal, concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.”

Gore also said:

I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual  presentations on how dangerous it (anthropogenic global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.”

I really have no problem with what he said.  The anti-AGW people have been over-represented in the media for eons.  It’s only fair to reconfigure this imbalance.

LOL. This comment will go down in infamy. How ironic that it is in a thread titled “Half the Truth is the Same as a Lie”.

And the Heartland Institute makes millions for sowing fake controversy over global warming.  What’s that got to do with the science?  Nothing, of course.  But, hey – let’s go beat up on Gore, sure is a nice distraction from actually dealing with the underlying issue, isn’t it?

I would tend to agree with you, Paul, if not for the fact that many politicians live a similar lifestyle while doing nothing to prevent global warming. For example, John McCain, who during his bid for the presidency told American workers that they were too lazy to work for a living, is worth more than $100 million dollars, owns at least 8 houses, and consistently votes to abolish the minimum wage.

Are you then suggesting that advocacy dictates poverty?

Look how well McCain did during his run for the presidency Jeanne.

Gore does not need to live a life of poverty, but his message would carry more weight if he lived a less wealthy lifestye.

Come to think of it, I am tired of very rich people telling us how to live. It is one reason many people are so skeptical about politicians and other movers and shakers.

I don’t think Dr. James Hansen is “very rich”, and he’s saying what we need to do to combat AGW.  Are you going to take his advice, or are you just too against him that you’ll do the opposite of what he says?

Al Gore is just a messenger.  He’s not the source of this information.

Since the subject is Al Gore I’m not sure why you want to change it to Dr. Hansen. Concerning his advice, it is up to the people to democratically decide whether they wish to follow his advice.

You listen to people based on how much they earn?  And you listen to the folks who earn less more attentively than the ones who earn more?  By that bizarre logic, you should be getting all your advice from your local homeless alcoholic.  Such a brilliant concept …

We’ll talk with Vermont’s Attorney General William H. Sorrell about Judge Edward Cashman and his shocking sentence of just 60 days in jail for a man who raped a six-year-old girl for four years! It’s an explosive edition of “The Factor” you can’t afford to miss!

great,

Games For Girls

I can’t say I’m surprised by anything Fox does these days.  They’d be a great comedy channel if so many people didn’t take their lunacy seriously.  Chinese Antique Furniture

There is no connection between gore’s wealth. His wealth has largely come from enterprises other than his activities of reducing global warming effects. wholesale dress

Since the subject is Al Gore I’m not sure why you want to change it to Dr. Hansen. Concerning his advice, it is up to the people to democratically decide whether they wish to follow his advice. Lemonade diet