That anyone gives any sort of credibility to the Sun King, Rupert Murdoch, is surprising. Leaving to one side the extraordinary widespread hacking involving his newspapers - who me? knowing anything? - the fact that the Murdoch presses have their own agenda even if it runs counter to the facts of life, is nothing new. CommonDreams provides one recent example.
"Tales of Grotesquely Irresponsible Bias: Likening themselves to Soviet biologists "sent to the gulag" for politically unpopular views, 16 prominent climate change deniers took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue there is "no compelling evidence" we need to do anything "dramatic" to stop "global warming" (sic). At the same time, 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable, but scientifically accurate, essay saying, actually, there is - and the WSJ refused to run it."
"Tales of Grotesquely Irresponsible Bias: Likening themselves to Soviet biologists "sent to the gulag" for politically unpopular views, 16 prominent climate change deniers took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue there is "no compelling evidence" we need to do anything "dramatic" to stop "global warming" (sic). At the same time, 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable, but scientifically accurate, essay saying, actually, there is - and the WSJ refused to run it."
Comments