PDF Version
Destroying America To Save The World
TV�s Global Warming Coverage Hides Cost Of
Kyoto Treaty
By Dan Gainor
   Â
Deadly droughts, polar caps melting, forest fires, sweltering heat.
Global warming hasn�t hit the news every day, but when it has, it
has done so with a bang. Network news programs have parroted almost
any claim to paint a horrifying picture of climate change and focus
on the �impending doom� of global warming.
    One thing has become clear: what is �impending� is the
Kyoto Protocol, a treaty designed to cut emissions that allegedly
contribute to global warming. In October, Russia�s lower house of
parliament ratified the treaty � giving it sufficient support to
force participating industrialized nations to cut their collective
emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2 percent below 1990
levels by 2012.
    Thousands of scientists challenge the thinking behind
this new treaty, but the opposite view is in force on network news
shows. ABC�s World News Tonight reporter Terry Moran provides a fine
example. On June 3, 2002, after Moran listed several possible
impacts from global warming, including lost snow packs in mountains
and sinking islands in the Atlantic, he then reported, �The
scientists note these kinds of projections are iffy, but the basic
science, as you say, they are certain of, and that is that global
warming exists, and humans help make it.�
    That view is commonplace on network news. The Media
Research Center�s Free Market Project studied 165 global warming
stories from January 20, 2001 through September 30, 2004 and found
the network news shows typically have presented a biased view of the
issue. Show after show emphasized the view that global warming is
here and threatens not only our way of life, but our very existence.
That position overlooked how a climate change treaty would impact
the United States.
    The very foundation of the view the networks presented
ignored much scientific evidence questioning global warming theory.
Many reputable scientists argue the entire foundation for global
warming is questionable. Even many warming supporters raise
questions about the extent of mankind�s contribution to the possible
problem.
   Â
The heart of the global warming dispute remains quite important.
Scientists have been debating the reality of climate change and its
potential impact for years. Despite extensive scientific opposition,
worldwide environmental groups pushed for action that led to the
1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The pact required reductions
in emissions below 1990 levels for developed nations. The U.S.
received the strongest sanction and was required to cut emissions 7
percent below 1990 levels � nearly 20 percent below current
estimates.
   Â
President Bill Clinton signed the treaty, but never sent it to the
Senate for ratification because of its strong vocal opposition. The
issue appeared dead in the U.S. until George W. Bush resurrected the
debate when he was elected president. President Bush pulled back
from Kyoto because of the cost and unresolved questions that
remained about the science behind it. The networks repeatedly
labeled and blamed President Bush as the sole person who wanted to
�pull out,� �block� or �kill� Kyoto. Bush was roundly criticized by
environmental groups and world leaders for focusing on the impact it
would have on the U.S. economy. The networks emphasized that as
well. News programs virtually paid no attention to Clinton�s lack of
action on the treaty or the Senate�s 95-0 vote opposing it. Â
Kyoto Would Cost Billions of Dollars, Millions of Jobs
    In the seven years since Kyoto was tentatively agreed to,
there have been several economic surveys about its impact on the
U.S. These reports estimate signing the accord would cost the U.S.
between $225 billion to more than $400 billion per year. The U.S.
Energy Information Administration also predicted Kyoto would cause
widespread employment loss nationwide ranging from 1.1 million to
4.9 million jobs. They added that it would cause a major spike in
energy prices, predicting an increase of prices that could hit as
high as 100 percent if the treaty were signed. These estimates were
rarely reported on the five networks news programs we studied.
   Â
While many experts question the economics of Kyoto, others continue
to find flaws in the science behind it. Recently, the Russian
Academy of Sciences added its voice to the growing list of those who
question the thinking behind Kyoto. That didn�t stop eight state
attorneys general from starting the latest round of the fight. They
filed suit against U.S. power companies to force cuts in carbon
dioxide emissions. The attorneys general represent New York and
California and are headed up by New York State Attorney General
Elliot Spitzer. He has been in the news a great deal for filing a
series of corporate wrong-doings lawsuits. The outspoken Democrat,
who is eyeing the governor�s seat in 2006, also has taken on
executives at Merrill Lynch, Enron, WorldCom and Tyco.
   Â
A new climate change report landed in the middle of this ongoing
dispute in August 2004. �Our Changing Planet,� by the Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research,
indicated that manmade gases like carbon dioxide are linked to
global warming. Two Bush Cabinet members, Secretary of Commerce Don
Evans and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, signed the letter
introducing the paper to Congress.
   Â
The network newscasts haven�t been bystanders in the debate on
warming. Their stories have taken on a theatrical nature predicting
cataclysm after cataclysm. Here is only part of a sample from
Patricia Sabga at NBC Nightly News (Aug. 6, 2003):
�Europe is burning, sweltering in one of the hottest summers in
memory. Temperatures topping 104 degrees from Lisbon to Berlin.
Searing heat, high winds and drought sparking forest fires
throughout the continent. In Portugal, officials asked NATO for
water-dropping planes to battle blazes that have killed a dozen
people. The French nuclear reactor was hosed down to keep it from
overheating. Rail service in parts of Britain slowed or suspended
for fear the train tracks will buckle in the heat. Across Europe,
crop damages from drought estimated in the billions of dollars. �
   Â
Such reports are all too common. If you didn�t know any better, you
would think climate change already is a problem of Biblical
proportions. The potentially devastating impact of climate change is
consistently emphasized on a routine basis in network news
reporting. Â
Media Coverage of Climate Change an Ongoing Problem
   Â
This is the third time the MRC�s Free Market Project has analyzed
network coverage of global warming. We wanted to know whether the
past pro-Kyoto slant continued. To find out, Free Market Project
researchers analyzed all the news stories about global warming and
the Kyoto Protocol during the George W. Bush presidency � from
January 20, 2001 until September 30, 2004. This was a time of a
pivotal policy shift in the executive branch of government. The
stories aired on the three broadcast network evening news shows
(ABC�s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News),
as well as the two major cable news shows (CNN�s News Night with
Aaron Brown and the Fox Report).
   Â
All three broadcast networks provided a fairly similar amount of
coverage. CBS aired the most stories (49 stories, including 37 full
reports and the largest number of anchor briefs � 12) followed by
NBC with 47 stories (41 full reports, 6 anchor briefs) and ABC with
43 (36 full reports and 7 anchor briefs). The two cable networks ran
a total of 26 pieces on global warming. The Fox News Channel led
with 16 pieces (9 full reports and 7 anchor briefs). CNN had the
lowest level of coverage with only 10 stories. Â
Global Warming More Dangerous Than Kyoto Treaty
    The
network news bias strongly favors reporting about the potential
impact of global warming over any potential impact from signing the
Kyoto agreement. Reported consequences of global warming showed up
in 44 percent (73 stories) of the stories while any reference to the
impact of signing the pact occurred in only 13 percent (22 stories).
That�s an incredible difference of more than 3 to 1.
   Â
The networks love �scary� weather stories. They don�t seem to love
explaining the �scary� consequences of signing the climate change
pact. The networks rarely mentioned any financial impact in those 20
stories we analyzed. That sounds far better than it really was. In
fact, most comments were extremely minor � either limited
explanations by reporters or a one- or two-sentence quote from
President Bush. On several occasions, the networks relied on
versions of the Bush quote, �harm the economy� to elaborate on the
possible impact of the treaty. The few times the networks mentioned
the potentially positive effects of global warming, they were also
buried beneath more statements about the perceived horrors of
warming.
   Â
That didn�t stop the networks from going into amazing depth about
the potential impact of global warming. In nearly half of the total
stories, the five networks focused on the harsh �realities� of
global warming.
   Â
Most of the articles were consistent in tone and style. Bad things
are happening out there, they claimed, and many of those things can
be traced back to global warming. Drops in lobster catches, hot
weather, cold weather, more rain, less rain and a host of other
occurrences were all linked in some way to global warming.
   Â
CBS was disaster central. A full 55 percent (27 stories) of their
stories discussed some sort of negative impact of climate change.
That eclipsed their stories on the impact Kyoto might have by more
than a 3-to-1 margin.
   Â
The network even blamed warming for heightening our danger to
terrorism by allowing terrorists to potentially take ocean routes
previously impassible to naval traffic. On May 31, 2004, CBS
reporter Jerry Bowen explained, �But Dennis Conlon, who helped write
a recently declassified document exploring the military implications
of a watery Arctic, says an open Northwest Passage makes America
open to new threats.�
   Â
ABC�s World News Tonight had the worst record of the five news shows
studied in this area. While they covered the impact of warming in
only 40 percent (17) of their stories, less than their broadcast
competitors, they only covered the impact of signing the pact three
times. That means warming received nearly six times as much
coverage. In the newscasts we studied, cable was less hysterical.
CNN only mentioned the consequences of Kyoto in 30 percent (three)
of their reports � the lowest percentage among any network. The Fox
News Channel cited the potential consequences of warming 38 percent
(six), or only one-and-a-half as many times as they discussed the
impact of Kyoto. That ratio of 1.5 to 1 was the lowest of any of the
networks. Â
NBC, CBS and CNN Ignore Specific Cost of Kyoto
    Networks
reported estimates of the costs of signing the Kyoto treaty in only
two of the 165 news stories. That�s just 1 percent of the time.
Since one of those accounts was on cable�s Fox News Channel, the
numbers for the broadcasters were even worse. Cost appeared in
ONE
broadcast network story out of 139 stories. This is despite the fact
that estimates, including one by the Department of Energy, ranged
from $225 billion to $440 billion each year.
   Â
Such a failure is fairly commonplace. Journalists are taught to
include the five Ws of �who, what, where, when and why,� along with
the H for �how or how much.� That last part falls on deaf ears at
the major news networks. They report almost endless concern about
the potential implications of global warming but there is virtually
nothing about what happens if the United States does sign Kyoto.
What will it cost? How much will each American consumer pay?
   Â
As Cuba Gooding said in �Jerry Maguire,� �Show me the money!�
   Â
Unfortunately, the networks, especially the Big Three broadcast
media, seem unwilling to do just that. Only two stories on any
network mentioned the potential cost to American consumers of
signing onto the global warming pact. Those two stories in our study
� one on the Fox News Channel and the other on ABC � were the only
chance for network news viewers to learn about the cost of this
multi-billion dollar agreement. Since one of those accounts was on
cable, the numbers for the big three broadcasters are even worse.
Cost appeared in one broadcast network story out of the 139 studied.
   Â
Bob Jamieson, of ABC News, was one of the two reporters who tried to
answer the obvious question: �How much?� In a July 23, 2001 report,
Jamieson tackled the agreement, �The administration says it would
hurt the U.S. economy by costing jobs and raising the price of
energy $2,000 per family. It exempts China and India, even though
within decades they will be the world�s biggest polluters. And the
administration believes it will produce little change.�
   Â
That was it � all 15 seconds of it. That was the only report in any
of the three broadcast network news shows we studied that addressed
the potential price of the world agreement. The remaining 130
stories never attempted to put an exact figure on the agreement.
   Â
The Fox News Channel addressed the issue � short, but to the point.
Even so, it was vastly more than most of its competitors. On March
28, 2001 Jim Angle explained the treaty opposition, �One reason is
that the treaty would not force reductions by the developing nations
including major polluters such as China, but it would have required
the United States to cut emissions by about 30 percent beginning in
2008.� He continued with the essential two sentences. �Supporters
say it would cost American families about $100 a year. Critics said
it would have doubled the price of energy, costing families $2,700 a
year.�
   Â
Though the networks weren�t forthcoming on the costs of Kyoto, they
helped promote plans that urge spending even more money. On April
20, 2004, ABC reporter Barry Serafin did a story about the oceans
and a report that advocated a new tax of up to $4 billion on oil and
gas royalties.
   Â
Serafin added: �Today�s report also says we simply need to be better
educated about the seas. It calls for making ocean studies part of
the curriculum, starting in kindergarten.� His story on this
enormous proposal had no opposing view and ended with a quote from
Dr. Robert Ballard, who discovered the Titanic and, of course, also
advocated ocean studies. There was no explanation of what schools
might have to drop to include Dr. Ballard�s personal curriculum
choice.
   Â
Criticism of Kyoto�s costs continues, though it seldom appears on
the news shows we studied. In May 2004, a group of international
economists including three Nobel laureates, called the Copenhagen
Consensus, released an assessment of �the numerous problems the
world faces.� Out of 17 options, the three global warming choices
finished under the heading �Bad Projects� � ranked 15th, 16th and
17th.
   Â
The Consensus is far from right-wing. Its founder, Bjorn Lomborg,
was described by the Copenhagen Post as: �a former member of
Greenpeace, an avowed homosexual, a passionate vegetarian, and, by
his own admission, his political leanings lie somewhere between the
left-wing Socialist People�s Party and the Radical Left.�The top two
issues on their list where they urge action are curing HIV/AIDS and
working to end malnutrition.
   Â
Criticism of Kyoto by the Copenhagen Consensus appeared on none of
the shows we analyzed. Â
Bipartisan Opposition to Treaty Unreported
   Â
The networks cited President Bush as blocking or pulling out of
Kyoto about one-third of the time (30 percent or 49 stories). That�s
only partially true. Bush was only one of many opponents, including
the U.S. Senate, which must vote on all treaties. The networks only
made that point once in all 165 stories. They blamed Bush for U.S.
actions on the treaty 49 times more often than on the one story that
discussed how the Senate had voted unanimously 95-0 against Kyoto.
That unanimous vote included Democratic presidential candidate Sen.
John Kerry (D-Mass.), although that is never discussed in any of the
165 reports.
   Â
On July 23, 2001, CBS reporter John Roberts explained how other
nations were lining up against the U.S. position on climate change.
�After a marathon negotiating session, they defiantly announced they
had rescued the Kyoto treaty the president had tried to kill.�
   Â
The Fox News Channel was the only network to talk about the Senate
vote. Officially, it�s called the Byrd-Hagel Resolution and passed
the Senate in 1997. The news show obviously remembered this
overwhelming action by the Senate, because they were the only one to
report the vote during this period. On March 28, 2001 Sen. Don
Nickles told Fox News, �The Senate has already spoken on the Kyoto
treaty and we had 95 votes that said we wouldn�t ratify the Kyoto
treaty because it didn�t apply to all countries.�
   Â
The rest of the networks handled the issue almost identically. The
only essential difference was how often they blamed the president
for withdrawing from the treaty. At NBC, they did so 19 times (40
percent), which was more than any other network both by number and
percentage. ABC only did so 10 times (23 percent), the lowest
numbers for the three broadcast networks.
   Â
In cable, the Fox News Channel only used the expressions twice (13
percent) among those reports we studied and CNN used them three
times (30 percent).
   Â
ABC�s May 30, 2001 story by reporter John Cochran was anything but
typical and about as close as the networks got to discuss the Senate
vote. Cochran actually mentioned something other than blaming
President Bush, though he didn�t go far enough to include the Senate
resolution. He said, Bush �refused to take part in a global warming
treaty which the Clinton administration wanted but did not fight
for��
   Â
An NBC report in March 2001 was especially interesting because it
not only blamed President Bush for pulling out of the treaty but it
also misrepresented the extent of American support for Kyoto. NBC
anchor Tom Brokaw discussed how President Bush decided not to back
the Kyoto treaty in this March 28, 2001 story: �Now to another
controversial decision on the environment from the Bush
administration today which announced that the president considers a
worldwide treaty on global warming worthless,� Brokaw reported. �The
United States, after all, was a leading force for the 1997 Kyoto
treaty��
   Â
However, here are the facts: Only President Bill Clinton and several
environmental groups were advocating the treaty. The Senate voted
95-0 in a resolution against it. The Senate vote certainly suggests
the United States was far from a �leading force for the 1997 Kyoto
Treaty.� Â
No Science Debate Allowed
   Â
There is an aggressive debate over global warming and the science
behind it. The Russian Academy of Sciences recently agreed that the
science of Kyoto is faulty. According to Reuters, the academy said:
�The Kyoto Protocol has no scientific foundation,� as one of their
conclusions about the treaty. That move didn�t jeopardize Russia�s
support for the pact, in part because Russia had to do it to be
approved for membership in the World Trade Organization. On network
news, most of that scientific debate doesn�t even exist. Broadcast
news programs repeated the claim that global warming is a given,
that mankind is to blame for this �problem� or both 55 percent (77
stories) of the time. That�s roughly six times more often than they
even admitted there might be some scientific objection (9 percent/12
stories).
   Â
For example, consider this fairly typical comment � this one from
CBS Evening News reporter Jerry Bowen on August 29, 2002, �Whatever
its cause, there is now abundant evidence that the Earth is having a
heat wave.� Contrary to Bowen�s statement, it is not clear that the
Earth is warming at all. Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The
Science & Environmental Policy Project, is one of the most
well-known and respected opponents of global warming theory. Singer,
a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of
Virginia, points out conflicting evidence about whether the earth is
indeed warming.
   Â
He explained that the U.N. data showing the earth getting warmer
disagrees with both data from satellites and weather balloons.
Neither of these show any change in global temperature since 1979
when the satellite record began. Singer co-authored an article in
August 2004 along with two other warming skeptics, including Patrick
J. Michaels, who has recently published a book on the subject. They
said: �The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.�s hot-surface
theory.�
   Â
Michaels also explained in his new book, �Meltdown: The Predictable
Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the
Media,� that �there are, no doubt, some pretty strong internal
feedbacks and checks that keep the surface temperature within a
relatively small range.�
    Singer and
Michaels are far from alone in their opposition. Frederick Seitz,
the past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president
emeritus of Rockefeller University circulated a document in 1998
called the �Oregon Petition� that gathered more than 17,000 names
from scientists in various fields. According to Seitz, �This treaty
is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas.� This view is rarely
seen in our study.
   Â
The broadcast networks treated the pro-Kyoto view on global warming
as a given. In other words, they did one of three things: 1)
Accepted global warming as a fact; 2) Blamed mankind for the
problem; or 3) Both. They did this roughly six times more often than
they even admitted there might be some scientific objection. NBC was
the worst of all five networks, including cable. It took the
pro-Kyoto view in 30 stories (64 percent). It also had the lowest
percentage of opposition to this view, only three stories (6
percent). That is a ratio of 10 to 1.
    The cable networks did slightly better in
our study. The Fox News Channel mentioned the pro-Kyoto viewpoint
often (10 stories/63 percent), but it also included opposition views
at a higher rate than any network (5 stories/31 percent). Both Fox
and CNN included opposition views 50 percent of the time that they
included the pro-Kyoto viewpoint. While low, that is still
substantially better than the broadcast networks.
   Â
CBS�s Jerry Bowen was all too typical. In part of a periodic series
about climate change in the Arctic, he traveled to Barrow, Alaska on
August 28, 2002. Anchor John Roberts introduced the report by
actually entertaining some doubts about warming. �Despite the
ongoing scientific dispute over the cause, nature and even existence
of global warming, evidence of it can be now be found on U.S. soil.�
   Â
Bowen�s close of the story puts that issue to rest. �Barrow is a
window on climate change, a change that�s indisputable. The question
is the cause: man, nature or some combination.�
   Â
The networks raise questions that typically are based on the
assumption global warming already is occurring. The only question
they seem willing to allow is about the cause � man or nature. For
this and mostly every other aspect of the debate, they rely almost
entirely on advocates from environmental groups.
    One of the most
self-serving quotes along those lines came from a CBS report July
15, 2001. Businessman Jeremy Leggett, CEO of British solar energy
firm Solar Century, was used for his �expert� commentary. CBS called
him simply, �Solar Energy Producer.� According to Leggett, �We keep
pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we are going to reap a
harvest of horror and that�s accepted and it�s bewildering to
consider why it�s not accepted in the United States.� If
carbon-based fuels like oil and coal suddenly became either
expensive or limited because of Kyoto, solar energy firms stand to
make huge profits. CBS failed to make that point.
   Â
Contrast how that was handled with one of those extremely rare
situations where the networks quoted an expert who didn�t agree with
the view they projected of global warming. When that happened, NBC
reporter Robert Hager did his best to undercut him. Myron Ebell, who
had worked on an environmental study for the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, had his organization referred to as, �a think tank funded
in large part by big oil companies� in the January 8, 2004 story.
Nowhere among their appearances are radical environmentalists ever
given that type of investigative treatment.
   Â
On June 6, 2001, CBS reporter John Roberts tried to put the science
aspect of the debate to rest. He began his report this way: �In the
most comprehensive assessment yet of the issue of global warming, a
team from the National Academy of Sciences found compelling evidence
that the Earth is getting hotter as a result of human activity.� He
followed up his intro with a quote from David Hawkins from the
Natural Resources Defense Council, �Well, the debate over the
science is over,� Hawkins boasted. �When we burn coal and oil, we
pollute the air, it causes global warming. We know what the problem
is, we know what the solution is. The time now is for action.�
   Â
Nowhere in the report does it explain that the NRDC is a liberal
environmental group that thinks the Bush �administration, in
catering to industries that put America�s health and natural
heritage at risk, threatens to do more damage to our environmental
protections than any other in U.S. history.� And that�s according to
the NRDC�s own website. More telling is the complete lack of
objectivity in Roberts� story. In fact, the report is never
questioned and not one expert who might disagree is consulted.
   Â
When network �science experts� disagreed on global warming, they
still accepted the basic premise, they just battled over the result.
CBS reporter Randall Pinkston explained it this way in an April 28,
2002 story: �Terry Joyce, a scientist at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, studies the effects of global warming. He
and other researchers are increasingly sounding a new alarm, a
paradox that global warming could produce an abrupt climate change
and cooler temperatures very soon.�
   Â
News report after news report took global warming for granted and
often in what the reporters and anchors said themselves, not just in
the limited range of �experts� chosen for the stories. On August 11
2002, ABC reporter Terry Moran explained, �[C]limate specialists
predict the longer global warming lasts and the warmer the planet
becomes, the more often we can look forward to this [bizarre
weather].� Here�s Moran again: On June 3, 2002, after he listed
several possible impacts from global warming, he then said, �The
scientists note these kinds of projections are iffy, but the basic
science, as you say, they are certain of, and that is that global
warming exists, and humans help make it.� Moran didn�t acknowledge a
dissenting view.
   Â
In a report from the same network just two weeks earlier on May 20,
2002, reporter Richard Gizbert disagreed with Moran�s conclusion.
�Not everyone agrees global warming is a man-made phenomenon. But
there is no arguing the effect it�s having on Arctic wildlife...�
Gizbert�s report on polar bears disputed the cause mentioned in
Moran�s story. Neither questioned the theory of global warming.
   Â
An ABC report on December 26, 2001 summed up the network scientific
bias by blaming �erratic� changes in weather on global warming.
Reporter Neal Karlinsky explained, �Scientists say there is a
pattern here. The weather is becoming more erratic for one main
reason, the earth is getting warmer.� This perspective virtually
guarantees the networks are correct on the issue of global warming.
If the weather gets warmer, they were right. If it gets colder, they
can blame that on warming. Right again. And, lastly, if the weather
simply changes and produces (as they mentioned in the story) snow of
all things in Buffalo on Christmas Eve, then they can say the
weather is changeable. They blame global warming for that, as well.
   Â
Even when the networks included specific financial data, it focused
on the costs of global warming � not of signing the agreement. On
February 19, 2001, ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings
discussed a U.N. report on global warming in this quote, �The U.N.
says today that the economic loss alone has gone from $4 billion a
year in the 1950s to $40 billion a year in 1999 and going up.� By
tracing global warming far back into the era of Eisenhower and
Elvis, the report made world governments, especially the U.S.,
appear even more blameworthy for taking so long to act.
   Â
What the ABC report failed to mention is that, even into the 1970s,
many climatologists were claiming the world was in the midst of an
ice age. In fact, that claim still surfaces in some of the global
warming reporting � blaming it for changes that would ultimately
make the world colder. Â
Conclusions and Recommendations
   Â
After analyzing 165 global warming network stories that aired
between January 20, 2001 and September 30, 2004, it is evident that
the networks present climate change as an imminent catastrophe.
   Â
Anything the U.S. and other nations can do to head off this doomsday
scenario, no matter how costly, should be attempted � even if
doesn�t work, according to a majority of the network news programs
we analyzed. The networks make little attempt at balance on this
pivotal issue. In fact, the stories we analyzed didn�t even include
opponents of global warming theory in any substantive manner.
   Â
One of the most telling examples of this came with CNN Tonight
anchor Stephen Frazier on March 31, 2001. Frazier was discussing the
results of a new Gallup poll about environmental views and then let
his own view attempt to settle the debate. �As for the environment,
one of the issues of greatest concern is global warming, but how
does that rank among other environmental concerns? That�s the topic
of a new Gallup poll. Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport has the
results.�
   Â
Newport went on to argue just how foolish Frazier�s comment was.
�Our key point in global warming, in terms of American public
opinion is that the country does not seem to be overly concerned
about it in general.�
   Â
He explained that only 33 percent viewed global warming a problem,
barely half of the number who considered water pollution a major
concern. In fact, those who were worried about global warming had
actually declined from 1989, when 35 percent had considered it an
issue of concern. Somehow Frazier missed this essential point.
   Â
Unfortunately this was a common problem in the newscasts we studied.
Anchors and reporters consistently were biased. Only the Fox News
Channel made an ongoing attempt at balance.
   Â
It would be easy for network news programs to do better with very
little effort. Network reporters could expand their list of experts
and rely less on the same environmental groups. They could also do a
better job of simply explaining both sides of the issue � complete
with costs and other possible results.
   Â
This report is designed to make it easier for journalists to do a
better job of reporting on the issue of global warming. It attempts
to both highlight their biases and commend those who did more
in-depth reporting. The resources included at the end of this study
should make it possible for journalists to understand the issue
better.
   Â
Here are a few recommendations for better and less-biased coverage
in the future:
1. Give some Balance: Cover major issues in depth from both sides.
Those reports should include experts from all aspects of an issue
and lay out the potential benefits and detriments of each
perspective. They should make a point of appropriately labeling each
expert as well. Had that been done in this case, every network would
have touched on salient points at least once during the
three-and-a-half years of this study.
2. Follow the Money: The American public needs essential financial
information so it can make decisions. The lack of this information
leads to choices based on emotion, not fact. No nation has unlimited
funds, so tough choices have to be made. Those choices require
facts. The networks need to press Kyoto treaty advocates for hard
numbers.
3. Be Skeptical of Environmentalists: The news media have no trouble
being skeptical of big business, but they seldom apply the same
principles to the environmental movement. And, rarely, do
journalists investigate these so-called experts� agenda. They
should. News reporters should ask them the same questions about
built-in biases, funding and conflicts of interest.
4. Track Balance Long Term: It is impossible to ensure that every
story is perfectly balanced. News events drive agendas back and
forth across the political spectrum. It is essential that the media
find ways of tracking their performance on major issues as a check
against an ongoing bias on different topics. Â
Resources
   Â
If journalists expand the resources they rely on for global warming
stories, their reports could improve a great deal. Here is a short
list of items that can help journalists cover the global warming
beat more effectively.
    The Byrd-Hagel Resolution: This is the resolution (S.Res.98) that
the Senate passed in 1997 stating their reservations about the Kyoto
treaty. Remember, it passed 95-0 � the Senate voting unanimously
against the pact. Here is a link to the
PDF document.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:sr98ats.txt.pdf
   Â
The Copenhagen Consensus: From their own statement of purpose: �The
basic idea was to improve prioritization of the numerous problems
the world faces, by gathering some of the world�s greatest
economists to a meeting where some of the biggest challenges in the
world would be assessed.� The Consensus climate change paper,
written by William Cline, also included opposition notes by Alan Manne and Robert Mendelsohn. Contact information for all three is
included in the Experts section.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
   Â
The Energy Information Administration (EIA): This offshoot of the
U.S. Department of Energy was created by Congress in 1977. It is the DOE�s statistical agency and provides data, forecasts and analyses,
including an extensive look at the impact of signing Kyoto. Here is
a link to that report:.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotobtxt.html
   Â
American Council for Capital Formation: The ACCF and the ACCF Center
for Policy Research advocate for a strong and stable U.S. economy.
The organization promotes the view �that a nation�s economic
strength and stability depend upon well-thought-out economic and
environmental policies to promote capital formation.� They did a
detailed economic analysis of global warming that included economic
models from several different sources. That report can be
found
here:Â http://www.accf.org/thorning1098.htm
 EXPERTS
Dr. S. Fred Singer
President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
1600 South Eads St., Suite 712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907
[email protected]
http://www.sepp.org/
(703) 920-2744
Patrick J. Michaels
Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies
Author of �Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by
Scientists, Politicians, and the Media�
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001-5403
[email protected]
www.cato.org
(202) 789-5200
Iain Murray
Senior Fellow International Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1250
Washington DC, 20036
[email protected]
http://www.cei.org
(202) 331 2257
Copenhagen Consensus
William R. Cline
Climate Change Author
Senior Fellow
Institute for International Economics
1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1903
[email protected]
http://www.iie.com/publications/author_bio.cfm?author_id=44
W: (202) 328-9000
F: (202) 659-3225
Alan Manne
Climate Change Opponent Note Author
Professor of Operations Research, Emeritus
Management Science and Engineering
School of Engineering, Stanford University
Terman Engineering B
Stanford, California, 94305-4026
[email protected]
[email protected]
https://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/lookup?search=manne
Robert Mendelsohn
Climate Change Opponent Note Author
Professor, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University
Sage Hall
205 Prospect Street
New Haven, CT 06511
[email protected]
http://www.yale.edu/forestry/bios/mendelsohn.html
(203) 432-5100
Â
The Free Market Project
is a division of the
Media Research Center
Dan Gainor, Director
Charles Simpson, Research Analyst
www.freemarketproject.org
Â
The Media Research Center
325 South Patrick Street � Alexandria, Virginia, 22314
(703) 683-9733 �
www.mediaresearch.org
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Brent H. Baker, Vice President for Research and Publications
Richard Noyes, Research Director
Tim Graham, Director of Media
Analysis
Michael Chapman, Director of Communications
Kristina Sewell,
Research Associate
Geoff Dickens, Jessica Anderson, Brian Boyd,
Brad Wilmouth and Ken Shepherd, News Division Analysts
Eric Pairel, Director of Information Systems
 Mez Djouadi,
Webmaster
Heather Weir, Intern |