recently I asked if the media could be sued & most answers were

[donsu]

no

so today I'm asking HOW can we sue the media for withholding info and knowingly changing info?

what makes me bring up the idea again was this KOS article:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/10/171218/386

The NOAA & the White House

If you saw climate scientists on the cable news shows and in the paper shortly after Katrina claiming that global warming wasn't a factor in the increased number of hurricanes last fall, odds are, you saw what one expert source told me was 'the most disgusting example of politically motivated deliberate disinformation I've ever witnessed".

-snip-

Just as an example of one of the ways the wool can be pulled over the eyes of the public; conflate 'hurricane' with 'storm'. The number of tropical depressions forming off the coast of Africa won't be changed by localized warming in the western Atlantic and Gulf. But any storms that subsequently pass over those waters will most certainly be affected. A tropical depression may become a category 1 Hurricane, a Category 1 may intensify to a Category 4. Therefore, since a hurricane is defined by intensity, it would be disingenuous to imply that warming would not increase the number of hurricanes.

-snip-

Reliable DarkSyde government climate science sources confirm to me that in their own experience, and to best of their knowledge about coworkers, scientists holding the consensus view, that warming is a factor in hurricane intensity, were effectively muzzled, while others who were willing to present a minority view among climate researchers and storm meteorologists were given the greenlight to appear on cable news in the aftermath of Katrina. Several have told me that they were more or less 'warned' not to talk to the press and the directives came through unofficial channels leaving no paper trail.
-snip-
--------------------------------


are we too stupid to figure out how to stop the bushmilhousegang media.

or, if not stop, then have an alternative media speaking out every time the bushmilhousegang media lied and spun.

[Fridays Child]

1. The problem will be that there are contradictory studies out there...

...which support both sides of the issue. Of course, when you look at the studies that reject global warming, they're probably commissioned by the very industries that are the worst polluters. But it seems that the "potential conflict of interests" approach to evaluating truth doesn't count for much anymore.

[donsu]

2. the problem is the gagging of scientists by the bushmilhousegang

and the murdering of scientists by the bushmilhousegang

(wonder what the death count is re: journalist vs. scientists)

[Fridays Child]

3. What issue do you think has the best chance of success in court?

The murder of scientists and journalists? The gagging of scientists and journalists? The actual lies being told? I think they're all worthy of litigation but which one is most likely to succeed?

These people are murderers and they have the full resources of the federal government behind their crimes. There is no way to prove the crimes. And, if whistleblowers a) are willing to come forward and b) can make it through both the figurative and literal attempts at assassination to testify in court, there are still the muddy waters of our theories versus their theories to navigate. Can it be done? I just don't know. I've lost faith in the system.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. This is a consumer issue. A new supplier (Al Jazeera) will appear soon.

[donsu]

5. kick

nt