Scientist Email Leak
By Cristina Johnson
In 2009, a series of emails were leaked from a British climate center. Years of private correspondence between climate scientists was made public, but the information found within was initially misunderstood. Critics have since given their interpretations, and the scientists have been allowed to explain themselves.
Fox News formed their own interpretation, framed in the following video:
Fox News Framing
Fox News formed their own interpretation, framed in the following video:
(00:00-1:08, 2:02-2:50)
Fox News has made it clear that it doesn’t believe global warming is a real concern, if real at all. One news anchor for Fox News said, “Damning emails have leaked out of the highest reaches of those scientists who think that global warming is, in fact, happening; that the polar bears are sinking; that Antarctica is becoming like the Bahamas.”
In accordance to that belief, the conversations found within the leaked emails were taken out of context. Fox News frames the story to be one of scientists manipulating statistics and information to prove a specific outcome: weather trends in favor of global warming. Fox uses the email quotes taken out of context to support its claim that global warming doesn't exist.
Factcheck.org debunks the meaning of the following quote by Phil Jones, director of climate research.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” said Jones.
“The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures,” Factcheck.org said. “Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception.”
Stewart, being Stewart, uses satire to poke fun at the scientist's leaked conversations in the following video:
(2:26-5:42)
Stewart's use of framing is quite different from Fox's. He focuses on the ridiculous aspects of the story, such as the temperature "trick" and the fact that officials actually think global warming is hoax and can be debunked. He satirizes the scientists, reporters, and politicians involved with the situation. His last quote loosely outlines his views on those who don't believe in global warming, especially the final line.
"But that's the point," Stewart said. "If you care about an issue and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined toward the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating, drunk, roaming the Arctic circle trying to scout (bleeping) polar bears--which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans, caused now apparently by God's tears."
Stewart frames the interpretation of the information leaked by scientists as being truthy, rather than true. He then proceeds to satirize the fact that people don't believe in global warming.
Factcheck.org said this about the emails, “The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.”
Although Fox News would like to convince everyone that global warming is a conspiracy theory, factcheck.org debunks this belief. The leaked emails may be unprofessional in some places, with questionable statements by the scientists, but none of the statements under question are in conjunction with actual scientific data. Some critics have said the scientists use "data manipulation," but this is a misrepresentation. Factcheck.org's further investigation proves this.
According to the Society of Professional Journalism's Code of Ethics, reporters should: "Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
This code was bent by Fox News in order for it to frame the story in the manner that it did. Quotes had to be taken out of context and information had to be withheld in order to frame the story.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” said Jones.
“The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures,” Factcheck.org said. “Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception.”
John Stewart's Framing
Stewart, being Stewart, uses satire to poke fun at the scientist's leaked conversations in the following video:
(2:26-5:42)
Stewart's use of framing is quite different from Fox's. He focuses on the ridiculous aspects of the story, such as the temperature "trick" and the fact that officials actually think global warming is hoax and can be debunked. He satirizes the scientists, reporters, and politicians involved with the situation. His last quote loosely outlines his views on those who don't believe in global warming, especially the final line.
"But that's the point," Stewart said. "If you care about an issue and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined toward the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating, drunk, roaming the Arctic circle trying to scout (bleeping) polar bears--which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans, caused now apparently by God's tears."
Stewart frames the interpretation of the information leaked by scientists as being truthy, rather than true. He then proceeds to satirize the fact that people don't believe in global warming.
Factual Evidence
Factcheck.org said this about the emails, “The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.”
Although Fox News would like to convince everyone that global warming is a conspiracy theory, factcheck.org debunks this belief. The leaked emails may be unprofessional in some places, with questionable statements by the scientists, but none of the statements under question are in conjunction with actual scientific data. Some critics have said the scientists use "data manipulation," but this is a misrepresentation. Factcheck.org's further investigation proves this.
According to the Society of Professional Journalism's Code of Ethics, reporters should: "Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
This code was bent by Fox News in order for it to frame the story in the manner that it did. Quotes had to be taken out of context and information had to be withheld in order to frame the story.
CO2
By Mason Lenches-Jhamb
Fox News Framing
Within the following videos, Fox News guest Joe Bastardi, along with Fox News reporter Sandra Smith dispute carbon dioxide as the chief contributor to global climate change:
(start at 1:25)
Fox News invited expert guest Joe Bastardi, a weather forecaster, to refute various claims made in a recently published book advocating global warming. When responding to numerous arguments made in this book, Bastardi spews seemingly factual statistics about the implausibility of global warming.
He vehemently proclaims, "C02 cannot cause global warming. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere for one. Two, its specific gravity is one and a half times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker, and its radiative processes are much different."
He rallies these "statistics" in an attempt to substantiate his claim and impress upon the audience a sense of his qualifications to make such a statement. Yet, he fails to elaborate on why these particular properties of carbon dioxide exclude it from the candidacy of increasing the earth's temperature. He omits these details, framing his statistics as easily drawn conclusions, that shouldn't be given a more in-depth analysis. He also fails to mention that his interpretation of climate change is one of a small minority.
Within another Fox News broadcast, reporter Sandra Smith states:
"The consensus has not been met among scientists on this issue, or that C02 actually plays a part in this global warming phenomenon as they've somehow come up with."
This statement gives merit to those who disagree with global warming, by framing climate change as more of a debate, rather than the entire respected scientific community versus a small number of dissenters. In addition, her statement isn't substantiated with any figures depicting the split among the scientific community. This lack of consensus of which she speaks, is then, more resembling of an authoritatively stated opinion instead of a concrete fact.
Both of these claims by Fox seem to align themselves with the minority opinion: that global warming is not occurring. Each purported "truth" fails to acknowledge the mounds of evidence that allude to the contrary. Within these reports, it is as if such evidence pointing to C02 as the cause of global warming ceases to exist. Furthermore, neither Joe Bastardi, nor Sandra Smith, possess the proper credentials to speak accurately about global climate change.
These two instances coincide in voicing doubts about the effects of carbon dioxide. They are framed in a manner that instills the audience with the impression that climate change is still hotly debated. In its failing to portray the other side of the issue, Fox frames global warming as: it simply isn't happening, scientists have not reached any valid conclusions, and carbon dioxide is certainly not the cause. Due to the alignment of skeptical coverage, Fox's viewers are more apt to see this urgent issue as a mere myth.
Stephen Colbert's Framing
In stark contrast to Fox's coverage regarding the effects of carbon dioxide, Steven Colbert acknowledges the harm it inflicts on the atmosphere. He sides with the majority's opinion that global warming is indeed happening.
"Now, radio nation, I know global warming is real folks. I have believed that ever since the box office success of Al Gore's movie."
Although "the box office success of Al Gore's movie" is by no means a substantial basis upon which to believe in the actuality of global warming, Colbert accepts climate change as a fact. By intertwining an outrageous justification with a well known fact, he brings a satirical aspect to a glum reality.
He proceeds in citing that:
"The evidence for global warming is mounting. The European Commission reported this week that since 1990 global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped forty five percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus all polar bears."
Instead of voicing a belief without evidence, he cites this statistic as a means of justifying his argument. Again, he decides to add a ridiculous assertion in order to come across as comical. However by claiming belief in global warming, and referencing a statistic on carbon dioxide increase, he recognizes the two as interrelated.
Colbert frames this story in a manner that is comical, yet he uses this comedic aspect as a means of attracting attention to issues that are far from laughable. In voicing his belief in climate change, he cites numerous statistics from credible sources. He places these facts amidst his jokes, in order to add an edge, making concrete facts more palatable to the audience. Colbert uses his satirical approach in order to frame this information as pertinent and simultaneously enjoyable. Within this frame, he deftly mocks those that are still, to this day, skeptical of global warming. For instance, knowing that global warming is real based on a movie's success, alludes to one's ability to reference any information to prove or disprove global warming (despite relevance or accuracy). Substantiating his claim with the European Commission's carbon dioxide statistic, he uses real data to assert the reality of climate change. While mocking and satirizing, with the inclusion of data, Colbert frames global warming as a truth to be accepted.
Factual Evidence
In this instance, Fox frames its coverage of climate change as an issue that has yet to receive any solidification. On the contrary, Steven Colbert recognizes the validity of the data that proves its existence. These two "news" sources proclaim "truths" that oppose one another. Who, then, should we trust?
When examining the claims made by Joe Bastardi and Sandra Smith, one can easily discern them erroneous. Bastardi stated that carbon dioxide can't cause a shift in climate change. When assessing his statement for truth on the Environmental Defense Fund's official website it is found that:
"Studies of the Earth's climate history show that even small changes in C02 levels generally have come with significant shifts in the global average temperature."
According to the majority of scientists, carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is in fact the cause of increased global temperatures. Bastardi's assertion is truthy, an outright distortion of fact in the face of evidence. Sorry Bastardi, but carbon dioxide does contribute to climate change.
When reviewing Sandra Smith's claim that scientists have failed to reach a consensus on global warming and carbon dioxide as its cause, it defies all fact.
"In February 2007, the thousands of scientific experts collectively known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there is a greater than 90 percent likelihood that people are causing global warming."
It is well known, that almost the entire scientific community acknowledges climate change as a reality to be dealt with. Smith's statement was made without the use of proper evidence, or any statistic for that matter. She spouted what she may have believed to be true, rather than a supported fact.
Fox framed its coverage in a way that gives viewers the impression that global warming, caused by carbon dioxide, has yet to come to light. By skewing its reporting, Fox has failed to mention any contradicting views. This violates the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. "They (reporters) should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
Fox takes the facts beyond its context, distorting the basis of global warming; According to Fox, carbon dioxide isn't contributing to a rise in temperatures and scientists continue to actively dispute climate change.
Colbert has a degree of transparency that Fox lacks. When saying he knows global warming is real, and that there is mounting evidence to support it, he speaks the truth. He supports his stance with factual evidence from the European Commission. Carbon dioxide levels are indeed on the rise, as are global temperatures. Although he intermingles factual information with satirical statements, his representation of the truth remains accurate. The satirical comments he makes serve as a weapon against those that choose to deceive the public. Outlets such as Fox are then subject to mockery in their failure to purvey the truth.
One would expect a traditional news source such as Fox to adhere to the truth, although this is not the case. Colbert portrays more truth in regards to carbon dioxide's effects than Fox.
Stephen Colbert's Framing
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
In stark contrast to Fox's coverage regarding the effects of carbon dioxide, Steven Colbert acknowledges the harm it inflicts on the atmosphere. He sides with the majority's opinion that global warming is indeed happening.
"Now, radio nation, I know global warming is real folks. I have believed that ever since the box office success of Al Gore's movie."
Although "the box office success of Al Gore's movie" is by no means a substantial basis upon which to believe in the actuality of global warming, Colbert accepts climate change as a fact. By intertwining an outrageous justification with a well known fact, he brings a satirical aspect to a glum reality.
He proceeds in citing that:
"The evidence for global warming is mounting. The European Commission reported this week that since 1990 global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped forty five percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus all polar bears."
Instead of voicing a belief without evidence, he cites this statistic as a means of justifying his argument. Again, he decides to add a ridiculous assertion in order to come across as comical. However by claiming belief in global warming, and referencing a statistic on carbon dioxide increase, he recognizes the two as interrelated.
Colbert frames this story in a manner that is comical, yet he uses this comedic aspect as a means of attracting attention to issues that are far from laughable. In voicing his belief in climate change, he cites numerous statistics from credible sources. He places these facts amidst his jokes, in order to add an edge, making concrete facts more palatable to the audience. Colbert uses his satirical approach in order to frame this information as pertinent and simultaneously enjoyable. Within this frame, he deftly mocks those that are still, to this day, skeptical of global warming. For instance, knowing that global warming is real based on a movie's success, alludes to one's ability to reference any information to prove or disprove global warming (despite relevance or accuracy). Substantiating his claim with the European Commission's carbon dioxide statistic, he uses real data to assert the reality of climate change. While mocking and satirizing, with the inclusion of data, Colbert frames global warming as a truth to be accepted.
Factual Evidence
In this instance, Fox frames its coverage of climate change as an issue that has yet to receive any solidification. On the contrary, Steven Colbert recognizes the validity of the data that proves its existence. These two "news" sources proclaim "truths" that oppose one another. Who, then, should we trust?
When examining the claims made by Joe Bastardi and Sandra Smith, one can easily discern them erroneous. Bastardi stated that carbon dioxide can't cause a shift in climate change. When assessing his statement for truth on the Environmental Defense Fund's official website it is found that:
"Studies of the Earth's climate history show that even small changes in C02 levels generally have come with significant shifts in the global average temperature."
According to the majority of scientists, carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is in fact the cause of increased global temperatures. Bastardi's assertion is truthy, an outright distortion of fact in the face of evidence. Sorry Bastardi, but carbon dioxide does contribute to climate change.
When reviewing Sandra Smith's claim that scientists have failed to reach a consensus on global warming and carbon dioxide as its cause, it defies all fact.
"In February 2007, the thousands of scientific experts collectively known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there is a greater than 90 percent likelihood that people are causing global warming."
It is well known, that almost the entire scientific community acknowledges climate change as a reality to be dealt with. Smith's statement was made without the use of proper evidence, or any statistic for that matter. She spouted what she may have believed to be true, rather than a supported fact.
Fox framed its coverage in a way that gives viewers the impression that global warming, caused by carbon dioxide, has yet to come to light. By skewing its reporting, Fox has failed to mention any contradicting views. This violates the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. "They (reporters) should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
Fox takes the facts beyond its context, distorting the basis of global warming; According to Fox, carbon dioxide isn't contributing to a rise in temperatures and scientists continue to actively dispute climate change.
Colbert has a degree of transparency that Fox lacks. When saying he knows global warming is real, and that there is mounting evidence to support it, he speaks the truth. He supports his stance with factual evidence from the European Commission. Carbon dioxide levels are indeed on the rise, as are global temperatures. Although he intermingles factual information with satirical statements, his representation of the truth remains accurate. The satirical comments he makes serve as a weapon against those that choose to deceive the public. Outlets such as Fox are then subject to mockery in their failure to purvey the truth.
One would expect a traditional news source such as Fox to adhere to the truth, although this is not the case. Colbert portrays more truth in regards to carbon dioxide's effects than Fox.
Temperature Rising or Declining?
By Kayden Burbank
Fox News Framing
Varney and Company on Fox News claim that global warming is not real, that it’s a “hoax.” They start with saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. The source of that statement is an interesting one, coming from the Wall Street Journal (refer to headline analysis of “CO2 is not a pollutant"). The co-anchor in the video explains that global warming has not even existed for the last ten years. The Fox anchor states that “the temperature hasn’t changed much since the Ice Age.” Fox anchor Franklin goes on to say “the sunspots on the sun heating up and cooling down are changing the earth’s temperature.” The female anchor then finishes up by claiming that “her hairspray has ruined the ozone more than global warming.”
Jon Stewart's Framing
Jon Stewart’s analysis on “The Daily Show” is basically summed up by him showing a clip of someone riding a creature through fog and snow, claiming this is how he actually got to the studio. Stewart goes on to say “Global warming is a hoax, because it’s cold today, where I live.” He is satirizing the claim by right-wing politicians that if it is cold where I am, the world must not be warming up. He then claims that scientists are not smart enough to create this complex hoax, and that is must be the man who pranked Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te’o, Ranayo Tuiasasopo.
Factual Evidence
Fox tries to frame the situation by using a quote from one of the first scientists to believe in global warming, in which he said he feels "duped," but they never explain what aspect he feels duped in, and assume he meant it about temperature change. It's proven by statistics that global temperature is climbing. Fox can make claims that it isn't getting warmer, but where is the evidence depicting that?
While Stewart is hilarious and convincing in his argument, he employs satire as well as uncertainty. He uses satire to present or attack both ends of an argument evenly. He makes fun of skeptics by pretending he has to ride wild beasts to work and that it's so cold there is no way that global warming could exist. He also mocks the people who claim that scientists would never "alter or change" data to support a claim that temperature is rising. It's framed to expose the stupidity of some of Fox's common ideas held about temperature change, not to prove or disprove the fact that temperature has been changing.
Ultimately, it’s about who is closer to the truth. Although both sides have their misleading stories, “fake news,” and holes in their arguments, reporting on the issue of global temperature changes by Jon Stewart is closer to the actual truth. Since he uses valid facts and statistics on his show, Stewart can be more trusted for a true representation of this issue than Fox. Fox tries to deny that there is global temperature change, while Stewart pokes fun at all the skeptics. This round goes to Stewart.
Immigration
By Monica Martin
In 2010 Fox News presented a news cast to shine light on a study that was conducted. This study claimed that global warming, over time, would lead more people from countries such as Mexico towards the United States. Fox framed this story as liberals trying to scare people into believing in global warming. Fox News compared the number of people that believe in ghosts to the number of people that believe in global warming, as if it's a mythical idea. There was information that Fox left out to push its own agenda. One piece of information that was omitted was a statement from one of the scientists that conducted the study, Mark Oppenheimer. “It’s a simplification, and there are a lot of assumptions... As we learn, the numbers will become more reliable," Oppenheimer said. The scientists knew their study was still in its infancy. Fox framed the story as though liberals were claiming immigration would definitely cause global warming.
The following commercial was released on Earth Day 2012 on MSNBC and Fox News stations.
Shortly after this video was aired, Stephen Colbert had something to say about it. He began by putting a spin on the situation, saying it would give republicans and democrats something to stand together on. He showed that the commercial was framed for a specific reason: to gain more liberal followers on the front of banning immigration. Two usually unrelated subjects were combined to convince people that they were the same issue. Colbert then continued to poke holes in the argument, revealing that the leader for the study is connected with white supremacists and anti-immigration groups. Ultimately, Colbert breaks the commercial down to face-value for the viewers.
Fox News Framing
Stephen Colbert's Framing
Shortly after this video was aired, Stephen Colbert had something to say about it. He began by putting a spin on the situation, saying it would give republicans and democrats something to stand together on. He showed that the commercial was framed for a specific reason: to gain more liberal followers on the front of banning immigration. Two usually unrelated subjects were combined to convince people that they were the same issue. Colbert then continued to poke holes in the argument, revealing that the leader for the study is connected with white supremacists and anti-immigration groups. Ultimately, Colbert breaks the commercial down to face-value for the viewers.
Factual Evidence
Fox frames its story, trying to point fingers and prove liberals to be the "bad guys." Yes, a study did say that global warming may push immigrants from Central America upward, but Fox's failure to give the whole truth about the infancy of the study created a vague and agenda-driven argument. Although Colbert put a satirical spin on the issue, the facts he gave were indeed true. He truthfully presented the agenda that CAPS had in mind. Both stories show that if framed correctly, any claim can be made into "fact," especially if that fact is needed to fuel an agenda.
Money Scam
By Hannah HendricksFox News Framing
(3:00-4:51)
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3953312/mary-matalin-global-warming-is-a-money-scam-
Radio talk show host Don Imus, along with Mary Matlin, former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney, discuss how global warming is a scam, created in order for scientists to get funds through the peoples' tax dollars. Fox frames this by blaming the scientists for distributing "science that has been deleted or massaged or suppressed" in order to get "trillions and trillions of dollars," according to Matalin. Fox also uses framing to get viewers to believe that the scammed money is being given to other countries, but the U.S is not regulating how those countries spend the money. Imus even said that the money is going toward buying "cocaine and hookers," framing our government to look irresponsible. Neither Matalin and Imus, although very passionate about there stance, provide any evidence to describe where the money is actually going, nor present any scientific evidence that global warming is a hoax. This partisan-biased discussion concerning climate leans heavily to the political right, which typically views global warming as an unimportant issue. Fox doesn't even bring up the other side of the discussion, which has evidence from studies that global warming does exist. By avoiding the other side, Fox is framing the story to have viewers only think about one side of the story. This leads to skewed views and false understandings about global warming.
Jon Stewart's Framing
(6:25-7:59)Factual Evidence
The fact is, global warming exists. Yes, according to Factcheck.org, it is true that the government is “spending billions of dollars” on “green energy.” However, all that money is going toward exactly what the stimulus package said it would be used for. Energy.gov debunks the claim made by Fox that funding for global warming is not being regulated and is just a way for scientists to scam their way into more money. According to Energy.gov, 3 billion dollars went toward carbon capture and exposure, 5 billion to environmental cleanup and 11 billion to energy efficiency. Fox had no evidence behind their claims that the money was being used irresponsibly, making it very easy to debunk their claim.
It is easy to say that global warming is just a myth created by scientists in order to collect funds. Fox was able to frame the story to appear that way, even though they never provided any solid evidence--except in the case where evidence was framed in a way to support their claims. Stewart is able to see the idiosyncrasies of Fox and uses satire to frame his own views on global warming. After seeing how easily Fox is able to feed out its claims, we as viewers may be easy to persuade, due to their professional look and reputation. However, it is vital to question what is reported on the news before we accept what we hear to be the truth, and not merely "truthiness".
It is easy to say that global warming is just a myth created by scientists in order to collect funds. Fox was able to frame the story to appear that way, even though they never provided any solid evidence--except in the case where evidence was framed in a way to support their claims. Stewart is able to see the idiosyncrasies of Fox and uses satire to frame his own views on global warming. After seeing how easily Fox is able to feed out its claims, we as viewers may be easy to persuade, due to their professional look and reputation. However, it is vital to question what is reported on the news before we accept what we hear to be the truth, and not merely "truthiness".
No comments:
Post a Comment