22 Highlighting Harra’s Disinformation 12/10/2015

Rough copy desconstructing a Harrabin piece. It’s unfinished due to the RABBIT HOLE effect : ie when you deconstruct a simple point in a deceptive story it leads on deeper and deeper into other issues like in the Alice Wonderland story.

Go straight to the deconstruction

Intro

Careful mate, Eamon the story made you angry … but was it playing you ?
… Was this BBC story  A helpful deconstructing of REAL news
or a PR trick of CONSTRUCTING news to dis-inform & manipulate you ?

The first BIG clue is that the story was edited 24 hours after after you shared it !
The headline and subheading were changed, as they described something that never happened.
That correction made after inciting us with a DRAMATIC  headline is only the first deception in his story.
This shows that BBC writer Harrabin’s habit of mixing fact with fiction to incite us.

If  Marsha Blackburn never expressed a view about the Climate bit of the Pope’s speech to Congress, then how can this be a news story ?
It does look like as usual the BBC’s R Harrabin is constructing propaganda.
TRUE CONTEXT: No The report MISLEADS on context as it contrives to try to shoehorn an old piece of “dirt” into an event of today ..It contains NO new CONTEMPORARY info about what the lady or any Republican said in relation to the Pope’s speech (before or just after).
– Furthermore even for the new version most of it falls apart on close examination.

So this post is anti-environment as it disinforms us.
– Whereas objective journalism helps us. This piece doesn’t.
The thing is TRUTH and proper process is the cornerstone of Good Environmental policy and practice so that resources can be allocated properly and efficiently.
IT’S SIGNIFICANT for us here in Borneo cos whilst Harra is pushing his own dogma he excludes others including problems that harm right NOW.
This means the issue of the HAZE and Borneo habitat loss is not be talked about and has not been stopped after 20 seasons !

BTW The old story is here
New version http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34342808
Harrabin

***
What can we do with so many misleading new-stories
#1 Don’t Panic ! (the normal Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy rule)
#2 Just CHECK IT : In this case no independent source confirmed this special story ..no video of Marsha Blackburn making a speech etc.
#3 If no confirmation, don’t be sucked in by emotional; tricks,  JUST WAIT. Most stories are not so time sensitive and in time there will either be confirmation either way.

Bottomline is I know some shortcuts when I see a story like that
* 1 It’s got some extraordinary claim, it needs checking for external confirmation (the rule is an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence)
** 2. See the BBC logo and see it’s about a hippy topic like climate : ding-a-ling warning
*** 3. See the author is Roger Harrabin – 2X ding-a-ling
**** 4.Extraordinary claim from Roger Harrabin, that means it will almost certaintly fail to live up to close examination
– The thing is we’ve see dozens of Harrabin stories before and it’s like he’s not out to shine a light on the truth, but rather DISINFORMATION as he seeks indoctrinate readers into a religion at all costs.

He cares for the environment like Najib’s PR team care for Malaysia. Like when someone challenges Najib  they use he using PR smear tricks like MONSTERING that personas unpatriotic. Just like Harra tries to monster Marsha Blackburn. .

It’s like Harra is All out For The Climate War and sits there at his desk trying to construct the climate alarm story of the day, by harvesting what he can from today’s news and joining bits together.
He’s forever making bold claims which in time get contradicted
Yes LAST MONTH the SAME writer Roger Harrabin wrote :”AA joins protest at government’s green changes”
As usual the story was reposted by activists as if were true, but eventually the AA issued a firm denial.

If Harra was interested in bringing you the truth, he would have simply waited 24 hours for the news instead of making it up.
OK he is the environment reporter.
#1. So if he wants to report on Republican response to the environment bit of the Pope’s speech..the best info would have come by waiting until after the speech and then calling the Republican’s up for their views. ?
#2. If he’s got some hot “dirt” on “Marsha Blackburn” -the best thing would be to call her and ask her, not just rely on third info from the radio prog people. (It bothers me we can’t check his version yet)

But instead he chose to construct a misleading story, propaganda style.

– Similarly as I go line by line through the report , it mostly fall apart as series of PR .tricks

** Why such reporting is anti-environment **
There is ONE real world whereas there are dozens of fantasy views of the world.
It is vital that we base our government spending, allocation of resources and restrictive laws … on a truthful REAL WORLD picture.
* Harra is a BAD thing for the environment. He may think that his spinning is a SHORTCUT which helps save the world, in the same way Najib’s PR guy thinks it would be best for him to take over the jobs of top news reporters so that only pro-Najib stories are reported.
He’d be mocking-up a smear job news-story against Anwar etc. which says that Anwar has just said that chief mufti of Saudi is wrong ..and therefore this proves Anwar is evil and should be dismissed.

* Shortcuts may seem tempting,but then you end up screwing up.
We end up with screw-ups like 20 years of SE Asia haze and Borneo extinctions through habitat loss #kabut.
For environment we have decide how to spend money and what laws and restrictions to enact. But by usurping the proper process of news media dissecting news and politics to help a public, who then vote on it, we end up getting into holes we can’t get out of.

MY guess is Harra divides into Climate fighters and baddies, he excempts his mates fromproper scrutiny and ch\allenging.

so he won’t tackle the Borneo issues,cos he doesn’t want to side against his biofuel mates or green corps ever.
We have seen it before where the government decides we have to go to war and critics are silenced.

* Harra has damaged the BBC by damaging the credibility of the BBC and journalism in general. People are much more inclined to say “BBC journalist tabloid journalist what’s the difference ?”
* The haze might have been conquered if Harra would report on it, maybe he is afraid that by mentioning it he would take the focus away from Global Warming.

* Harra habitually writes such propaganda pieces which break the BBC’s own Guidelines on impartiality which are part of its legal obligation on impartiality

* Harra damages truth by gatekeeping (instead of rigourous challenging of all assertions, he lets his friends go unchallenged, whilst at the same time completely excluding anyone who has different views.)
Harra stops truth by pushing dogma and ensuring critics are kept off the airwaves

The product of these tricks is that Harra damages the credibility of the BBC, journalism in general. People are much more inclined to say “BBC journalist tabloid journalist what’s the difference ?”
Similarly Harra damages the credibility of science by equating it with the phrase the phrase “scientists say”. The are different one is truth the other is opinion.

* Harrabin has damaged his global warming cause by mixing up truths and fantasy..so people have a bigger excuse to just dismiss everything he says.

BUT Harra’s biggest damage is that he occupys the chair of a real journalist.
It’s like if Najib’s PR guy occupys a  journalist’s chair not only does it mean that his spin gets straight to air, but it’s far worse than that, cos it a normal situation he would output his PR and then it would be dissected by a real journalist but when he’s sitting in the real journalist’s chair so that job is never done
***************

Always ask yourself : Is it helpful deconstructing of REAL news or is it a PR trick of CONSTRUCTING news to manipulate you ? Giving you a simple meme (or 2) you are likely to share & retweet
We have proper procedures for truth, and we should not be usurping them

#1 New science Info comes out
#2 Media guys challenge and scrutinise it, bringing in opposing experts.
#3 It goes back and forth and corrections are made.
#4 That science come into policy.
#5 Politicians freely debate and challenge it, as they are paid to on behalf of the public.
#6 Media guys challenge that proposed policy from all angles.

Good reporters get to the truth by shining alight, testing the original science claims and holding politicians to account about the the policy based on it. That system helps get things done in an effective and efficient manner. It is public money after all

***** It proves to us the BBC writer Harrabin has disrespect for truth.
He routinely concocts stories like this mixing fact with fiction.
The thing is TRUTH and proper process is the cornerstone of Good Environmental policy and practice so that resources can be allocated properly and efficiently. People like Harra are responsible for the screwup with Borneo palm oil which causes massive air particle pollution TODAY and for the last 20 years.
continuation of Borneo environmental problem

Right now other people are maybe getting angry and  posting on Facebook cos they are being fed similar concocted stories monstering critics of Najib. Emphasisng that those “bad guys” are stupid, “clearly unpatriotic and against Malaysia.
They would argue it’s a special situation and we can get rid of proper process that there is no need for these opposition forces criticising him, rather we should suppress them and just automatically implement Najib’s policies.

Having Harra as the BBC’s environment correspondent is like appointing Najib’s mum as CNN’s only Malaysia correspondent. would push her own cause whilst the same time

# One sided stories glorifying Najib.
# Gatekeeping keeping out challenging voices
# Smothering : IMPORTANTLY theysit in the chair ofa proper journalistwho deconstructs them real news challenging it from all angles left/right up/down to get the truth for the public.

******************************
** Deconstructing this story **
..Jesus I know the WHAT Harra does but I don’t know WHY  ..I can only speculate.

Is it news ?
We know she actually spoke months ago..so it’s NOT NEWS ..it’s not new. Rather it seems to me Harra has been holding what he considers as dirt on some I mean ONE “top US critics on climate”.  So instead of reporting Today’s NEWS of what they actually did say after the Pope spoke

False short story rather than the long TRUE story than perspective
steps he took ..asked alarmists

You’ll notice from reality TV shows , that constructed stories are easier to tweet and share, cos they give you a simple meme (or 2) you are likely to share & retweet
..rather than the many lines it takes step by step to explain the complexity of REALITY.
***
You were probably angry cos in your mind you have a picture of
#1 The Pope coming to Congress to make  a big speech ABOUT CLIMATE
#2 This lady in the photo listening to him
#3 and then in your words “Rejecting Pope” by saying “We’ll ignore the pope on Climate says US politician (Republican Marsha Blackburn)” just as the BBC title says here on your post.
#4. And that is amplified by “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”

MISLEAD #1  Harra wrote “Pope Francis is to speak on the subject in an address to Congress on Thursday.
– NOW The speech did contain a significant climate plea (a repetition of one he made in his Encyclical *) BUT was general speech rather than a “Climate speech” . 90% about other topics , environment was only about 200  words out of 3000 odd and couched in careful language ..not mentioning Climate Change nor Carbon Dioxide. (words quoted below **)
MISLEAD #3. Therefore Republicans did  listen to the Pope
BUT did not react with words against the Pope’s Climate stance. I guess they may have spent time on the other 2,800 words

CLAIM #4 “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”
Hey that seems like strong dirt BUT
Hmm, all we have is Harrabin’s assertion that we can hear that “as part of a FORTHCOMING Radio 4 documentary series” .
#4.1 Google doesn’t show her saying anything like that before.
#4.2 We should be able to check the words and CONTEXT in future..but we don’t know when cos neither Harrabin nor the BBC website tell us when this prog will be broadcast.
Of course you’ll be screaming for a disproof, but why ? Let’s just say “we don’t know yet” and wait until we do hear those words in context, before judging.
—————————————————————————————.

* (Similarly that Encyclical was not actually “about climate”, it was about the humans & environment …Climate was only a small part. However of course activists can rightly say that plea was one of the Pope’s most important bits. If you think you are saving the planet from catastrophe then it’s more important than other issues even though you wrote more pages about them.)

** Detail of the plea
(- The Pope did not directly mention Climate Change or Carbon Dioxide but a few sentences seem to be a plea
\\ In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to  “redirect our steps,” and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.  I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States — and this Congress — have an important role to play//
(that’s backed by two further phrases :
1* “the environmental challenges we are undergoing, and its human roots”
2* “avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity”…ie 3 phrases in that massive speech)
Passionate journalists often report what is in their imagination rather than what happened in realityThere was no big confrontation cos the Pope didn’t use the words
\”Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech/
– by using ambiguous phrases the Pope dampens direct criticism

As <a href=”http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/pope-francis-skirts-environmental-tussles-in-address-to-congress/”>New York Times explains</a> there was no backlash against the Pope cos he didn’t do the big climate hype
“Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech (read it in full here). He’s wisely saving that message for the United Nations on Friday.”
(actually NEITHER did use them much on that Friday In a 3768-word speech, there is one sentence mentioning climate:
“I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.”)

————————————————

Evidence it was constructed news : The uncorrected version makes it seem like the report is contemporary news..but look at the correction.

Firstly : The article seems to be REAL NEWS about ‘the Pope’s speech to Congress and US politicians response.’
If Harra was interested in bringing you the truth, he would have simply waited 24 hours for the news instead of making it up.
OK he is the environment reporter.
#1. So if he wants to report on Republican response to the environment bit of the Pope’s speech..the best info would have come by waiting until after the speech and then calling the Republican’s up for their views. ?
#2. If he’s got some hot “dirt” on “Marsha Blackburn” -the best thing would be to call her and ask her, not just rely on third info from the radio prog people. It bothers me we can’t check his version yet,

But instead he chose to construct a misleading story, propaganda style
The key EVIDENCE against that is that the BBC title was later “CORRECTED”.
: The title was changed 1-2 days later to “Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on climate”
The correction note makes it clear that she did not say those words the title originally quoted as when she spoke she was speaking many months ago, before the Pope spoke on climate.
* Note the “s” at the end of “US critics”
Well how many does he actually talk about ? ONE

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE supporting Harra’s BBC news story ?
Applying the rule an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence I searched for external sources backing the key claims.
But I found no external source at all. NO, we just have BBC writer Roger Harrabin’s word that this is what she said.
I could find NO external confirmation of those 2 key claims
#1 “We’ll ignore the pope on Climate”..You’d expect lots of new sites quoting her views on the Pope’s climate words to congress.. but there weren’t any.

#2 “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”
Hmm, all we have is Harrabin’s assertion that we can hear that “as part of a FORTHCOMING Radio 4 documentary series” .
#2.1 Google doesn’t show her saying anything like that before.
#2.2 We should be able to check the words and CONTEXT in future..but we don’t know when cos neither Harrabin nor the BBC website tell us when this prog will be broadcast.
Of course you’ll be screaming for a disproof, but why ? Let’s just say “we don’t know yet” and wait until we do hear those words in context, before judging.

___________________
There are 2 obvious problems

1. This news story was written on Wednesday after the WhiteHouse address but BEFORE the speech to Congress, instead of waiting for actual speech on Thursday
, but was that about climate ? See how the Pope’s photo is labelled “The Pope’s recent encyclical was about climate change” I bet many readers were misled. In fact the pope only mentioned climate for a few minutes of his speech to congress (“only 225 words of his 3,396-word speech”)
For the Wednesday White address the Paragraph about Climate/Poverty was
186 words of his 616-word speech.

“An earlier version of this report implied that Marsha Blackburn’s comments were made in relation to the Pope’s address”
We know she actually spoke months ago..so it’s NOT NEWS ..it’s not new. Rather it seems to me Harra has been holding what he considers as dirt on some I mean ONE “top US critics on climate”.  So instead of reporting Today’s NEWS of what they actually did say after the Pope spoke , he decided to incorporate the dirt into the report so he can create a false impression of their reaction.
– A dirty PR technique he seems to frequently use is to try to smear the names of people challenging climate alarmism, instead of addressing the arguments one by one.
… He is very partisan you can be sure he’ll hardly cover an alarmist making a dramatic failed claim, like Gore saying 2015 the Arctic will be ice free, or someone predicting a large increasein temp by 2010,2015 etc. that never happened nor the IPCC chairman’s arrest and dismissal from day job on sexual harassment. So it’s not like he tackles alarmists equally.

See how Harra constructs smear
he quotes her

“I don’t think you will see me being persuaded.”
but early on he has framed her by saying
“she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming.”
em no she didn’t. See the difference in the phrases.
..but he ends by reinforcing the misinterpretation
“If no evidence will persuade Ms Blackburn of climate change, that shows how well-founded her views are.”
You will of course remember what he asserts rather than what she actually said

Then he says
\\She also rejected the theory of evolution.//
OK it is strange to say that you don’t accept the theory of evolution. (just as many people have unscientiifc hippy views eg Steve Jobs)
but what is interesting is that Harra chooses to reinforce with the phrase
\\Scientists say her views are “complete nonsense”.//
It seems sloppy ..what scientists ? what views ?
If something is beyond dispute then Just state what her views are, and what the SCIENCE says.
– When I see the phrase “Scientists say” in a news report it tells me, it’s likely spin. Cos of course you can cherry pick a few scientists carefully to give an impression that a particular OPINION is 100% proven.
To me it seems like he seems to be constructing a smear to say that there’s some official source that says all her views on science are nonsense.

** Note Harra chooses not to mention  that some extreme alarmists are creationists : “Warmist Katharine Hayhoe does not believe in evolution or big bang, but does in CAGW. ” says Twitter

Summary :
Not news It’s old info : Pope’s speech hardly mentioned climate : the BBC admitted they misled

BTW The old story is here
….web.archive.org/web/20150924174145/http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34342808
The title was changed and some of the sentences moved around but it’s mostly the same.
Except “Ms Blackburn declined to name the sources of her scepticism about mainstream science.”

he saw opportunity to sex it up to
…….”Ms Blackburn – who represents Tennessee, a big user of coal – declined”

Bottomline : You don’t know Harrabin, but I am

JustwhatRopgerHaarabi

but is this BBC story truthful ?
It seems a big story

is your choice, but what Pope said was true.

..but that was it’s job to create anger in people like you and re-inforce a belief.

thye make stuff up Harrabins post
and this

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34437703
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2015/05/31/new-open-thread-9/

222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Bottomline is you should be angy..but about how “writers” like Harrabin deceive
Without Harrabin the Environment would probably be no haze , no rhino extinction

In the real world people are suffering TODAY and

Bottomline the article is deceiptful propaganda.
And this reall yreally matters

cos the result of that writers actions

That we wou

(1) First The Malaysian CONTEXT would be is that that BBC reporter Harrabin is equivalent to appointing Najib’s mum as CNN’s only Malaysia correspondent.
“Now the News on Malaysia”
– “Unpatriotic troublemakers like jailed opposition politician Anwar are unlikely to sway Najib on 1MDB”
– “And here’s some new pictures of Najib with cute kittens”

There is ONE real world whereas there are dozens of fantasy views of the world.
Reality is full colour complex not black and white simple ..so long explanations are needed.

but good journalists help us get to the truth. See part (5)
Roger Harrabin the writer of that article is more like Najibs’s mum

There are 3 types of information source.
#1 PR : Corporations and  Politicians seek to promote their own agenda whilst at the same time excluding or damaging their competition’s.
#2 Partial Journalism : like a newspaper owned by a political party, who are open they have chosen a side.
#3 Impartial Journalism like the BBC, which receives public funding precisely so that it can remain above any special interests.

Normally BBC journalists do a useful public service : On issues like consumer products and politics ..they gather the evidence and test it by bringing in opposing viewpoints. You know like challenging corporations and politicians claims against each other.

However in certain issues the BBC management have failed to implement it’s own impartiality charter rules and the output of some staff has become like the worst PR excesses of
corporations and politicians.

Harrabin is a prime example his output is as if he works for GreenBlob corp. He uses all the extreme dirty PRtechniques to highlight their achievements, whilst at the same time he both ensures that the opposition are shown in a bad light and their viewpoints suppressed.

Wow EXTRAORDINARY… is it news ? is it true ?#1 It’s writer is Harrabin ..and I say he has a bad reputation for saying one thing which in time doesn’t stand up **
#2 Who says so ? Well Harrabin himself CHANGED this article : AFTER you shared it.
Harrabin went back and materially changed it, including changing the headline from :
“We’ll ignore Pope on climate, says US politician.”to “Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on climate”

Got that ? In the title he is quoting her, but she cannot have said those words, cos the interview was recorded months ago before the pope spoke on climate.

( note #3 This time Harrabin acknowledges the changes but he has in the past used STEALTH CORRECTION changing stories days later without leaving an acknowledgement just like his GuardianNewspaper friends and SkS sometimes do.)

Yes well, but I can hear you say “that woman still said some crazy things”
Yes so in a further comment I will mention them

xxxxx

** last month’s example :
BBC writer Harrabin comes up with UNIQUE extraordinary headline which was massively reposted over the web.
..but no supporting evidence turned up except for a firm contradiction.

I am familiar with him and have seen dozens of occasions when he make claims which then turn out out to be not what they first seem.
Yes LAST MONTH the SAME writer Roger Harrabin wrote :”AA joins protest at government’s green changes”
…Wow an extraordinary claim , and extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence, but when checked the AA websites I found no evidence to justify the headline.
Furthermore in time the AA issued a firm denial.
QUOTE :”Please rest assured that Edmund King, AA president, has been back to Roger Harrabin at the BBC pointing out that the headline and introduction to his piece didn’t represent the AA view as we only commented on VED and what our members thought of the proposed changes.
We also pointed out that members, such as you, were unhappy with the coverage.”

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/harrabin-making-it-up-as-he-goes-along/

Well ..What’s the takeaway ?
It’s this :
#1 The OLD title :”We’ll ignore Pope on climate, says US politician.”
#2 “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”
#3 the NEW headline “Pope unlikely to sway top US criticS on climate”

Is it Deconstructing REAL news or is it PR :CONSTRUCTING news to manipulate you ?

or Manipulative PR designed to play on your emotion ?#1 Harrabin admits he made that up
#3
You make claim, then you show your evidence ..that is the way. So lets look at that claim
#3.1 Note the “s” at the end of “US critics” How many does he actually talk about ? ONE

#3.2 Would you SHARE these BBC headlines ?:
1.”Jailed opposition politician Anwar unlikely to sway Najib on 1MDB” or even
2. “Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on abortion”
No of course you wouldn’t ..Those things are completely expected ..There is no NEW info that makes them news ..they are 100%predictable.
SO it’s NOT NEWS

Re Point #2

Harrabin has a reputation #2 Anyway any extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.

Anything back him up ? No no third source on the internet I can find.
.. There’s just his words :
\\as part of a forthcoming Radio 4 documentary series “Climate Change – Are we Feeling Lucky?”, she asserted that the earth had cooled in the last 13 years by 1F. And she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming.//

Is it truthful ? There is no real need to SHOUT today cos.Of course in the future we will get the full words and CONTEXT when the prog is broadcast
…but there is no broadcast date and no info on that prog apart from Harrabin posts.
It is quite an extraordinary claim that she said this ..and extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.

The ONLY evidence here is that Roger Harrabin says she said that .. no other source on across the web seems to back up that claim.

useful balanced

Wow, but hang on a moment
We wqill see the full context when it is broadcast. What is true is that Harrabin has said stuff that turns out to be unsupported last month his big reposted story wass

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

News vs propaganda
News informs you of NEW contemporary info, giving context, perspective, balance, validation.
Propaganda : Tries to spin any news item into an advantage for a cause. Lets test this piece :

NEW ? – The idea that Top Republican’s oppose climate alarmism is not new info ..It’s already known.

TRUE CONTEXT: No The report MISLEADS on context as it contrives to try to shoehorn an old piece of “dirt” into an event of today ..It contains NO new CONTEMPORARY info about what the lady or any Republican said in relation to the Pope’s speech (before or just after).
– #2 It misleads us to thinking the Popes speeches were ALL about climate  when they were 80-90% about other issues.
PERSPECTIVE : Is it proportionate ? Hey, there is one big interesting line that is the focus

…that she said: “I think we’ve cooled almost 1 degree (F).” ..Yes that is challengeable
And only made by ONE person  on ONE occasion so it is rather weak story. Harra re-titled the story with a plural, so he should really present evidence of flawed climate thinking of multiple Republicans.

BALANCE : Harra could have dealt with the claim quickly by calling her or her colleagues to challenge her ..but instead he chooses to call just one person : an opposer a top climate alarmist.

VALIDATION :Before we get angry or retweet we should seek validation from another source. Yet for
this report the main claims have only been seen by Harrabin. The big claim is not on the net elsewhere, we can only check it by listening a future radio prog.
Only then to me is it news, when we have listened to it and thefull context is the time to start retweeting.
Eamon : validate a claim before you get angry or retweet

Source Check ..What sources does Harrabin go to ?
#1. ‘Secondhand’ He didn’t actually go to ask her, but relied on words from “a forthcoming Radio 4 documentary series” recorded “earlier this year”
..We can’t check this source and we don’t know when it is

#2.Brian Hoskins, “said her remarks were “absolutely staggering”.
NOTE Harra is never going to tell you that the same guy Brian Hoskins described Climate Models as “lousy” and “terrible” in an interview with the Economist in 2010.
50% of Hoskins’ work is as figurehead for Grantham Institute for Climate Change, which is partially funded by Jeremy Grantham the millionaire behind the world’s largest green hedgefunds.

If the headline said something extraordinary like Eamon will say on a forthcoming radio show “I am really the Pope”
What would Harrabin do ?
He’d probably call up all your enemies and print the most extreme lines they said.
He wouldn’t actually call you or any of your friends

What is the first step a GOOD journalist would take ?
They’d call YOU Eamon up to ask if it’s really true and what’s your explanation.
And you’d say “oh yes we were playing some crazy game ata party and I said ‘I am the pope of Penampang”

Is the report truthful ?
OK The 1st shortcut : The BBC’s OWN CORRECTION : The report was edited AFTER you picked it up. With both the title and subtitle being changed
What’s Harra told us

1. Title : Ignore Pope on climate, says Republican Marsha Blackburn
2. Subtitle : “One of the most influential US energy politicians says she will reject the Pope’s plea to tackle climate change.”

You click cos of  the story in your mind

We have to base decisions on the TRUE world not the fantasy world

Green cloak

but we have to base our POLICY on the truth not just what story forms in our head
and we have systems to get to the truth.
And news media deconstructing news
and opposition politicians challenging policy decisions is part oftthat process

Passionate journalists often report what is in their imagination rather than what happened in reality

There was no big confrontation cos the Pope didn’t use the words
\”Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech/
– by using ambiguous phrases the Pope dampens direct criticism

As <a href=”http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/pope-francis-skirts-environmental-tussles-in-address-to-congress/”>New York Times explains</a> there was no backlash against the Pope cos he didn’t do the big climate hype
“Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech (read it in full here). He’s wisely saving that message for the United Nations on Friday.”
(actually NEITHER did use them much on that Friday
In a 3768-word speech, there is one sentence mentioning climate:
“I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.”
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/18/laudato-si-chapter-one-what-is-happening-to-our-common-home/

Congress transcript : http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/pope-francis-speech-to-congress-transcript-text-video-214016#ixzz3o8U8kau1

—————————

The story you were fed
“Ignore Pope on climate, says Republican Marsha Blackburn”

#4 So there is no record of Marsha Blackburn saying anything like Harra wrote she did.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: