wall street journal

Thu, 2012-09-13 17:12Guest
Guest's picture

Looking Back At The Wall Street Journal's Coal Op-Ads

Cross-posted from Media Matters with permission, view original here.

A Media Matters analysis reveals that The Wall Street Journal's editorials on acid rain mirrored misleading talking points featured in coal industry advertisements running elsewhere in the paper in the 1980s. The Journal also heavily promoted the claims of one particular industry consultant that was on the wrong side of science on acid rain, secondhand smoke and climate change. Years later, as industry groups orchestrate efforts to cast doubt on the science demonstrating health and climate impacts of fossil fuel use, the Journal continues to aid their efforts.

An American Electric Power ad that ran in The Wall Street Journal in 1979 downplays the environmental impacts of coal The Wall Street Journal Echoed Misleading Acid Rain Claims From Coal Industry Ads

In the winter of 1981, the Coalition for Environmental-Energy Balance, a front group for the coal industry, ran several advertisements in The Wall Street Journal defending the industry's emissions of sulfur dioxide, which were contributing to acid rain. The ads cast doubt on the threat of acid rain, warned about the cost of regulation, and claimed that calls for action to address sulfur dioxide emissions were politically motivated. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board used these same rhetorical tactics to forestall action on acid rain, as a previous Media Matters analysis found.

Thu, 2012-09-13 10:56Steve Horn
Steve Horn's picture

Heartland Institute Joins Rahm Emanuel's Side of the Picket Line in Chicago

Inspired by her father Sam's experience striking with the United Mine Workers and the National Miners' Union in 1931, Florence Reece asked her other workers - by way of singing - “Which Side Are You On?” The more things change, it appears, the more they stay the same. 

On Monday, the Chicago Teachers' Union (CTU) went on strike and made its demands for Chicago Public Schools (CPS) known in a 46-page document titled, “The Schools Chicago’s Students Deserve,” which also has a one-page summary.

“Some of the main sticking points,” the Huffington Post explained, “are teachers' pay, health benefits and job security under a new performance evaluation system.” That “performance evaluation system” is none other than President Obama's “Race to the Top.”

The third biggest school district in the United States, some 29,000 CPS teachers and school workers, have formed a picket line in a move reverberating around the country and the world. The strike will likely become major election season fodder, since Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is Obama's former Chief-of-Staff and a major Super PAC fundraiser for Obama's 2012 campaign, a task he's temporarily halted in the wake of the CTU strike.

So which side has the Chicago-based Heartland Institute taken in this struggle?

Thu, 2012-02-02 17:50Graham Readfearn
Graham Readfearn's picture

Australian Meteorology Bureau Corrects Record On Former Research Head William Kininmonth's Actual Climate Change Experience

WHEN it comes to climate change science, as with most things in life, it pays to listen to actual experts with a solid background in their field.

On Monday the Wall Street Journal and, later, The Australian newspaper, ran an editorial from a group of climate science contrarians which claimed global warming had stopped and that CO2 was food for plants, rather than a potential pollutant. 
 
In a scathing response in the WSJ, also published by The Australian, 38 genuine climate change scientists, explained the original WSJ 16 were “the climate-science equivalent of dentists practising cardiology.”
 
“While accomplished,” the response explained, “most of its authors have no expertise in climate science. The few who have are known to hold extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.”
 
The group also debunked the misleading notion that global warming had stopped. “Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade,'' the group wrote. “In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.”
 
Several journalists and bloggers, including Media Matters, have also investigated the expertise of the signatories to the original op-ed, which included members of free market think-tanks, climate science denial organisations and even a former researcher for Exxon.
 
One of the WSJ 16 in question, did appear on paper though to have some solid experience on his CV. William Kininmonth, a long-time sceptic of human caused climate change, was described in the WSJ editorial as the “former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology”.
Mon, 2012-01-30 08:04Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

In Which Climate “Skeptics” Drop the Lysenko Bomb. No, I’m Not Kidding….

There has been a much justified uproar over last week’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which a group of scientific “skeptics” reiterate the old line that we don’t have to worry about global warming, and that those who do so are engaging in climate “alarmism.” Ample refutations have been penned; in some ways best of all, my friend Jamie Vernon showed that even hotbeds of leftwing extremism like Chevron, ExxonMobil, and the Pentagon are now concerned about and taking action on global warming.

The Wall Street Journal is, indeed, completely out in the cold on this matter.

There are many ways to refute the op-ed, but I want to focus on one not enough emphasized—the tone and some of the actual words and analogies used by its writers.

Wed, 2011-02-02 09:45Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Wall Street Journal: Accurate 7% of the Time

93% of WSJ Opinion Pieces Misreport Climate Change

Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College at Long Island, N.Y. has done a topline analysis (on Climate Progress) of Wall Street Journal Editorial and Op-Ed (the “Opposite Editorial” Opinion Page) coverage of climate change and finds that the paper tells the truth seven per cent of the time.

The WSJ’s defence for this performance would undoubtedly be twofold. First, the pages Mandia analysed are for opinion, not news. Second, there really ARE a couple of deluded “experts” out there who challenge the majority view on climate change: the Journal has a right and responsibility to give voice to those views.

Fair enough. But a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that the proponderance of climate scientists who are worried about global warming is 97 per cent - not seven per cent, so the Journal is a bit off the mark. And while the paper is entitled to its opinions, it is beyond irresponsible to be setting its wishful thinking forth as fact. Bullshit is still bullshit, even if it’s in an editorial.

Mon, 2010-07-12 22:15Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

NY Times 'Climategate' Editorial A Reminder That Media Have Failed Miserably Covering Climate Science

The New York Times deserves praise for its excellent editorial on Sunday, “A Climate Change Corrective,” which rightly confirms that the “Climategate” non-scandal has been thoroughly investigated and revealed as a political attack on scientists, not the grand United Nations conspiracy concocted by industry front groups and the right wing echo chamber.

Five separate reviews have found no evidence whatsoever to back up the outrageous claims made by skeptics and deniers that the state of climate science has in any way been weakened by the theft and public airing of years’ worth of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit last winter. 

The Times’ editorial correctly calls on all the media outlets that amplified the bogus conspiracy theories from the Climategate noise machine to return to the subject and set the record straight for their viewers.  Far too much ink and airtime was spent on inflating the mythical Climategate conspiracy, and ever since there has been hardly any effort made to explain this episode accurately – as a baseless political attack on climate science.  It is imperative that all the outlets that fell into this trap and perpetuated the Climategate nonsense now spend the time necessary to ensure that their audiences know the truth.  

The Times editorial expresses hope that the “debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies.”

Aside from the difficulty associated with correcting a lie once it has circulated this widely, editors at media outlets who lent credence to the Climategate myth must do some deep soul-searching to figure out why none of their reports initially probed the real conspiracy in this matter – the coordinated, political attack on climate scientists ginned up by a network of climate change skeptics who turned the mountain of stolen material into a sensational global news story. 

Thu, 2009-05-14 00:27Jeremy Jacquot
Jeremy Jacquot's picture

The OMB-EPA Kerfuffle That Wasn't

Is the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deliberately trying to sabotage the EPA’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? Is Peter Orszag, the agency’s brainy and genial director, secretly in cahoots with Republican opponents of President Obama’s climate policies?

Not quite – though that may have been your first impression upon reading the raft of articles published yesterday that breathlessly reported that an OMB memo had strongly criticized the EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases.

Wed, 2008-08-20 22:22Emily Murgatroyd
Emily Murgatroyd's picture

Polluters Beware

I've often wondered if EPA actually stands for Environmental Pillaging Act, so contrary to environmental protection are the policies and recommendations that often come from this government organization.

However, in a victory for environmentalists, the US Appeals Court ruled against not allowing states to tighten up air quality standards.

Read more: Polluters Beware
Thu, 2008-07-03 16:42Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens' Sick Souled Neurosis

“Global warming is a sick-souled religion.”

Really?

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens thinks so in his article, Global Warming as Mass Neurosis.

Unfortunately for Stephens' and the rest of the planet, his evidence for such an inflammatory claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Tue, 2008-03-25 11:40Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Wall Street Journal: Still Promoting Debate

Despite having been proved, again and again, to be out of step with the science, the Wall Street Journal is still promoting a phony “balanced” view on global warming - still trying to argue that there is a legitimate argument about climate change.

In a short feature today, the WSJ juxtaposes three decades of warnings, from sources of integrity and obvious expertise (eg., the U.S. Department of Energy), with 30 years of denial, from paid apologists for industry (eg., former tobacco and energy industry shill Dr. Fred Seitz).

The effect is to elevate the status of the deniers and to suggest that debate endures.

It's a sham that should be embarrassing to any journalist of conscience.

Pages

Subscribe to wall street journal