La division de noticias de Univision se apresta a recordarnos, como vimos recientemente, que tiene una agenda política que va más allá de la inmigración.
Columnists and editorial boards of national news outlets hope President Donald Trump will institute taxation of carbon dioxide, citing “prominent” Republican support for such “climate action.” In February, The New York Times editorial board, a Washington Post columnist, Time magazine and a CNN.com opinion columnist all ran pieces endorsing a carbon tax. Post columnist Robert Samuelson cried “two cheers for a carbon tax” in his headline. In order to sell the idea, the media used descriptions like “blue-collar climate plan” and labeled it a tax that “could win over” Trump. The general premise of a carbon tax is that energy companies will be taxed for every ton of carbon they emit, making the price of carbon based energy increase and the demand decrease.
Univision's news division is quick to remind us, as we recently saw, that it has a political agenda that extends far beyond immigration.
Do liberals really think cartoons aimed at five year olds should be pushing climate change propaganda? One Slate writer does. Slate’s parenting advice columnist Melinda Wenner Moyer whined that cartoons just don’t have enough climate change indoctrination. Moyer wrote on Feb 6, that said she found it strange that when she mentioned climate change to her five year old, he said he didn’t know what it was. Moyer argued that, since her son was learning scientific things like “A cheetah can run 70 miles per hour” and “Venus and Earth are about the same size,” those cartoons should be warning him about the “hugely important environmental issue” of climate change.
Hitting a journalistic nadir, the New York Times ran a deeply silly environmental piece by Tatiana Schlossberg (aka Caroline Kennedy’s daughter), “Trump Has Choices to Make on Climate Policy – What Would You Do?” written in the condescending style of a choose-your-own-adventure story at a 6th-grade reading level.
For years, the liberal media have given Bill Nye a platform to rant about his liberal views and now Netflix will give him an entire show. Nye, “The Science Guy,” is one of the media’s favorite global warming alarmists. He will star in a new Netflix show called Bill Nye Saves the World which will debut in the Spring of 2017. Variety’s TV Editor Laura Prudom reported that the show will attempt to refute religious leaders and politicians who espouse “anti-scientific claims.” Nye told Variety each episode will take on “complex scientific issues facing us today” such as “vaccinations, genetically modified foods and climate change.”
“Conscientiously” committing a felony is OK if done for environmental purposes, says the Daily Beast. On Feb. 6, 2017, the Daily Beast published an article reveling at the news that eco-activist Ken Ward, who appeared to admit he had committed a felony, was walking free. The article was written by Ted Hamilton, co-founder of the Climate Defense Project, which offered Ward legal help in his trial. He argued that committing crimes in defense of the climate is moral and necessary.
New York Times reporter Justin Gillis is a man on a mission to save the planet from the depredations of global warming (rebranded as “climate change”). The activist environmental reporter was at it again in the paper’s Tuesday Science section, “Cooling Language About a Warming Earth" (too ideological even for the news pages?). Gillis, who regularly pushes the idea of a looming environmental apocalypse in the Times’ newspages, has a bad habit of taking the front page to declare warming “records” which may not or do not actually exist, and then not deigning to explain the discrepancies, which apparently don’t matter to the “ordinary reader” anyway.
A federal agency discredited a common argument of climate skeptics in 2015, but now a whistleblower has accused the agency of misleading the public and playing politics. Not that anyone watching the network news would know it.
For several years, climate skeptics argued there had been a “pause” or hiatus in global warming beginning in 1998. Then, in June 2015, a paper from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration erased it. Many news outlets reported that NOAA study and accepted its claims, but on Feb. 5 or 6, the network evening news shows said nothing about the new whistleblower’s evidence against it.
California’s “exceptional drought” isn’t exceptionally bad any more. Winter storms have been good for the state, pulling it out of the worst rating from the U.S. Drought Monitor. However, this “huge improvement” barely registered with the broadcast networks that had blamed “climate change” for the crisis.
CNN.com reported on Jan. 26, that “California’s drought is almost over.” For the first time in 36 months, no part of California was under “exceptional drought.” It also showed that only a small portion of the state still in “extreme drought,” but cautioned the drought is not “officially over” yet. But with nearly twice the normal amount of snowpack for the time of year, there were reasons for optimism.
Should the mainstream media lead, to borrow a term from religion, a great awakening? Yes, in a sense, suggested longtime journalist Steven Waldman in a Thursday Washington Monthly piece. “Donald Trump and his campaign have pushed the idea that each of us has our own truth, or ‘alternative facts,’” wrote Waldman. “Suddenly I feel like journalists are the most religious people in America. I don’t mean that journalists are suddenly enamored with the supernatural, but rather that we’ve re-embraced the idea that there’s a thing called ‘truth’ -- an absolute value that lives above and apart from the world of framing and spin.”
One of the most frightening unknowns for the liberal media is how President Donald Trump plans to rein in the rampaging Environmental Protection Agency. The Trump administration recently banned the agency from using its social media accounts until further notice. This apparently spooked CBS Tuesday, because on Evening News they glorified the efforts of environmentalists who are trying desperately to save EPA’s research data out of an irrational fear Trump will lock it up.