Is News Corp. Failing Science?
Representations of Climate Science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Pages

AARON HUERTAS, DENA ADLER



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

News Corporation is one of the world’s largest media companies. Under its Global Energy Initiative, the company has publicly committed to engaging its audiences on sustainability issues and the company publicly touts climate change initiatives among its successes.

Despite News Corp.’s public commitment to environmental sustainability, a snapshot analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS) finds that recent portrayals of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section are overwhelmingly
misleading.

UCS’s analysis finds that:

• Over a recent six-month period, 93 percent of Fox News Channel’s representations of climate science were misleading (37 out of 40 instances).

• Similarly, over the past year, 81 percent of the representations of climate science in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section were
misleading (39 out of 48 instances).

The entire report is here: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will endeavor to keep the aircraft's windows closed no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who will not attempt to open any of the aircraft's windows, who are dependent upon the plane's structural integrity, who believe that opening the aircraft's windows is not a good idea, who believe that rapid decompression of the cabin would not be a positive experience, who believe that they are entitled to ample leg room, to reasonably good food, to a safe landing, to you name it. That...that's entitlement. And they expect that the pilot should just give it to them. And they will struggle to keep those windows closed no matter what. And I mean, the pilot starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who have not paid for seats in first class. Forty-seven percent of Americans do not have seats in first class. So my message of opening the aircraft's windows doesn't connect. And the pilot will be on the intercom talking about cabin safety and oxygen masks and all that. I mean that's what they do before every take-off. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility, purchase seats in first class and open the windows to let in that oxygen. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the economy-class aisle seats that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at opening the windows one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the pilot or not, what it looks like when the cabin is on fire."



The original remarks may be found through these links:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-beverly-hills-fundraiser-20120922,0,2317962.story
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video

EXCLUSIVE: ’2016 Obama’s America’ Filmmaker Reacts To President’s Slam; Looking For Network To Air Before Election; Says Mainstream Media Refusing Coverage

By DOMINIC PATTEN | Tuesday September 11, 2012

...

DEADLINE: What do you think of the criticism the film has received?
D’SOUZA: The criticism of the film actually bothers me less than the neglect of the film. If I were Michael Moore and I were to make a film that was the No. 2 political documentary of all time, I would be on every network. I would be on Meet The Press, and I would be profiled in The New York Times, and I would be all over MSNBC. Instead large sectors of the press are refusing to cover the film. They are just pretending it doesn’t exist.

...

http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/exclusive-2016-obamas-america-filmmaker-reacts-to-presidents-slam-looking-for-network-to-air-before-election-says-mainstream-media-refusing-coverage/

Review of 2016: Obama's America

D'Souza's film is based on the premise that President Obama (due to the psychological effects of the absence of the President's father in his son's life) is compelled to fulfill what D'Souza claims are President Obama's father's goals or dreams.

D'Souza implicitly claims that President Obama wants to make up for "neocolonialism" by weakening the US's influence in the world (by unilaterally reducing the US nuclear arsenal as much as possible) and simultaneously by allowing the US to be drained of its wealth (by compensatorily transferring it to the countries that suffered under "neocolonialism&quot .

Throughout the movie, there is a frequent display of poverty in the third world; i.e., ostensibly in parts of Indonesia and in parts of Africa. D'Souza, near the end of the movie, informs his audience that US citizens are rich by comparison to the average individual living in the third world. Thus, the conclusion that D'Souza presumably wants to terrorize his audience into thinking is that President Obama is going to reduce the average, lower middle-class US citizen to the abject level of poverty that has been so frequently seen up to this point in the film. This seems to be the film's essential point to its newly fiscally "conservative" target audience of Independents and Republicans.

Another theme that the movie presents is that President Obama sympathizes with jihadis. (Notably, Osama bin Laden could refute that delusion were he alive to be asked.)

Still another unsurprising theme that manifests itself near the end of the film is the implicit need to fear Islam and an Islamic world conquest.

Beyond these few points, the rest of the film is essentially unremarkable with respect to its content: the content is that of a propaganda piece.

The quality of production is poor - for example, in one interview scene, the camera operator focuses on the back of the chair in which D'Souza is sitting instead of keeping D'Souza's face in focus while D'Souza is posing a question to his subject.

Perhaps it was this focus on an empty chair that inspired Clint Eastwood.

In summary, this film is purely a propaganda piece that is not worth wasting either money or time on.