Year 1, Month 1, Day 8: To the Local Murdoch

The Boston Herald is the paper equivalent of FOX News here in Boston. They’re owned by Murdoch, and they’re about as likely to print my letter as they are to endorse a Bernie Sanders presidential campaign (on the other hand, they’ve done some good arts coverage in the past; I have some nice clips from the Herald back in the day). I wasn’t feeling particularly inspired this morning, but I thought a few 9/11 references might up the sensationalist content of my letter. Perhaps that will, er, stimulate them.

The evidence indicating human causes for global climate change is overwhelming and points to a rapidly approaching crisis of unimaginable magnitude. Our media choose instead to ignore or ridicule mountains of scientific research, instead highlighting one or two oil-funded denialists who argue to the contrary. Let’s put it in perspective. Remember the build-up to the Iraq war? Our print and broadcast media became cheerleaders for the Bush administration’s preemptive attack on another nation, an attack predicated on the flimsiest of evidence. If the evidence for Iraqi WMDs had been as strong as the evidence for human causes of climate change, we would have found piles of nuclear warheads on every street corner.

Or, to put it another way: the media’s dismissal of decades of validated research is painfully reminiscent of a chief executive who received a Presidential Daily Briefing in August of 2001 headed “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US”; a president who responded to urgent warnings from intelligence officials by saying, “There, now you’ve covered your ass.” The eagerness of our news establishment to downplay the most urgent threat our civilization has ever faced in favor of celebrity scandals and fashionable irrelevancies is just another version of “Now watch this drive.”

Warren Senders

Go ahead. Write to your local Murdoch fishwrap. Use small words.

letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com

Lotta good stuff on climate change here, and here. I think the problem is more one of misinformation than anything else, and the answer is focusing on correcting that, and showing/exposing those who are blatantly misleading, and how they can’t be trusted; because either they are dissembling, or they don’t know the facts of the basic issue and trying to lead people as if they do.

In other words, a misrepresentation should do more negative to the misleading person’s credibility, than it does positive to advance their false argument. That is not the case right now. At least with respect to one side of the political equation, because the other side of the political equation doesn’t seem to know how to focus on or show this, thinking everyone otherwise knows what they know and sees things the same way, instead.

On another front, it is amazing how much influence one foreigner — Murdoch, has had in reshaping the information of our democracy.

If Democrats knew how to go to the root of a non policy problem, rather than always either a) complain about it, or b) argue over or focus on the effects each time or the periphery, their attention would be directed at the anti trust and conglomeration issue in media.

But that would be too obvious, for Dems, I guess.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *