Editor & Publisher column calls for abandoning 'objectivity' stance

Christopher Alleva
A column last week in Editor and Publisher called on newspapers to abandon the posture of objectivity and become active advocates for the cause of anthropogenic global warming alarmism. The pretense of objectivity has, of course, been fundamental to the self-image of most mainstream media. But Steve Outing writes:
...there's clearly scientific consensus that humans are altering the planet's climate, and that the effect is accelerating. Stronger hurricanes, melting glaciers and sea ice, worse wildfires and longer fire seasons, more severe droughts and flooding, and more frequent bizarre weather events overall.

The few critics of the consensus are a small and shrinking group, who to most observers seem irrelevant. To the mainstream, they may as well be flat-earthers.

Why is it, then, that mainstream coverage of climate change is still mired, too often, in he-said, she-said reporting where both "sides" get their time? When the evidence is so overwhelming to support the idea that humans are changing the climate, why should the news industry give the tiny number of skeptics a higher percentage of time within a news report on their viewpoint than they deserve?
Mr. Outing needs to get out more. The shaky foundations of the models of the alarmists are being exposed, and important highly respected climatologists do not agree with the anthropogenic hypothesis. This call to become outright propagandists demonstrates the weakness of the advocates' case.
A column last week in Editor and Publisher called on newspapers to abandon the posture of objectivity and become active advocates for the cause of anthropogenic global warming alarmism. The pretense of objectivity has, of course, been fundamental to the self-image of most mainstream media. But Steve Outing writes:
...there's clearly scientific consensus that humans are altering the planet's climate, and that the effect is accelerating. Stronger hurricanes, melting glaciers and sea ice, worse wildfires and longer fire seasons, more severe droughts and flooding, and more frequent bizarre weather events overall.

The few critics of the consensus are a small and shrinking group, who to most observers seem irrelevant. To the mainstream, they may as well be flat-earthers.

Why is it, then, that mainstream coverage of climate change is still mired, too often, in he-said, she-said reporting where both "sides" get their time? When the evidence is so overwhelming to support the idea that humans are changing the climate, why should the news industry give the tiny number of skeptics a higher percentage of time within a news report on their viewpoint than they deserve?
Mr. Outing needs to get out more. The shaky foundations of the models of the alarmists are being exposed, and important highly respected climatologists do not agree with the anthropogenic hypothesis. This call to become outright propagandists demonstrates the weakness of the advocates' case.