Scientific American Editor: Fox Told Me I couldn't Talk About Climate Change

[Stuart G]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Catherine Thompson – April 30, 2014, 9:19 AM EDT...

An editor with Scientific American magazine said Wednesday he was shot down by a Fox News producer when he said he wanted to talk about the impacts of climate change.


Michael Moyer appeared on "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday morning to talk about tech trends for the next decade. He tweeted that he suggested the number one trend for the future would be climate change impact but was told to choose another topic instead.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fox & Friends producer wanted to talk about future trends. I said #1 will be impacts of climate change. I was told to pick something else.

— Michael Moyer (@mmoyr) April 30, 2014
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that while misinformation about climate change was more or less common among cable news channels, Fox News led the pack by airing misleading coverage 72 percent of the time. The network's denial of global warming has been a subject of late night mockery, from Jon Stewart to "Saturday Night Live."



Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scientific-american-editor-fox-news-climate-change

---

Absolute Proof.....Fox News Has No Clothes...Now...When this gets out, and it will...Fox News Will Be Shown To All, Even those that watch it..
How Absurd It Is.

[liberal N proud]

1. And that is how you feed the propaganda to the masses

Control the content of the message!

Block what you don't want the masses to hear and make up shit to support what you do want them to hear.

[Stuart G]

3. Yes, but this time, they told this to the wrong person.

I think many of the other media outlets will pick this one up. There will either be an apology, or an argument about Fox News..
An Argument to.. end all arguments.....good....butter please...

[liberalmike27]

20. Wait...What??

Are you implying that FOX obfuscates, and keeps certain opinions and programming off the air? Nooooo, I just can't believe that man--it's the "fair and balanced" television news talking network.

[Cha]

47. +1!!!!!!!

[Auntie Bush]

26. Right... make up some false situation and then spend all their time stating it wasn't true.

[mountain grammy]

2. Because fair and balanced and freedom...

[Sunlei]

4. republican fox seems to want all the Americans living in the new tornado, desert & flood zones to be

'news worthy' disaster stats. What good is a republican tabloid press without some horrific disaster to send their, It sucks to be you! 'reporters'" to.

[derby378]

5. It's censorship, plain and simple

If we jumped on FOX News half as hard as we did on Soviet media, Murdoch would be out of a job by now.

[billhicks76]

38. Coward

He shouldve brought it up anyway.

[freshwest]

45. Wouldn't make it on air. They'd have edited the video or cut his mike, O'Reilly style.

Their owners don't allow anything that damages their other business interests. Their number two share holder, a Saudi prince, said years ago he didn't want America to get off oil because it was bad for his business. Never would be shown. Very high level of censorship by corporates.

[billhicks76]

57. It Was Live

Let them cut the mic then. Show their audience their true colors. If climate change does hit the fan then people will be coming for them. Guess that's why every police dept in the country in being given military surplus HumVees and other deadly equipment as we sit docile doing nothing but complaining on the web.

[freshwest]

58. Their audience agrees with the mic getting cut. No learning process will take place. And some of us

are not doing nothing but complaining on the web. We are involved in our communities to take care of things before they blow up. Fox heads, though, will count on their own deadly weaponry to shoot any person they think is gonna come and get theirs. They have been carefully trained.

EOM.

[billhicks76]

59. I Agree But

Yes I also do things in the community but protesting the police build up isn't one of them anymore since it's a big target on your back but we did do it years ago. I think if this scientist got his mic cut for explaining climate change there would be a percentage of viewers who would be turned off by it. People watch tv but don't always buy into all the bs and if you can snag a few viewers it's worth it.

[TexasProgresive]

6. That won't make a difference

to those sitting in their underwear watching FAUX SNOOZE.

[Stuart G]

7. For some..just a few...it might..

This one will go viral.
.A few might decide that is it.
A few less watching that stinkpot is good.

[TexasProgresive]

9. Maybe

I think those who have bought into climate change denying will just shrug it off. To really get them to turn away from FOX will take FOX doing something unforgivable like endorsing Obama or the ACA or admitting that they have be lying to their viewers about most everything. Oh and maybe if they replace the "Stepford" anchors with real journalists.

I'm not sure where they will find real journalists- they have become as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth.

[vlyons]

18. Roger Ailes,

president of Fox News Channel, and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group, has to drop dead. He's old enough to have a fatal heart attack.

[Botany]

8. But climate change is still a matter of debate among scientists

Please remember Fox News was set up and designed to push lies and propaganda.

[TexasProgresive]

10. Question

Do the writers of the 2 articles rejecting "human caused" global warming accept that the earth is warming and climate is changing?

[daleo]

44. Were those two articles peer reviewed

Or beer reviewed.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

55. sneer reviewed. n/t

[Eleanors38]

60. Rear-reviewed.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

61. *snarf*

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

11. Yesterday, I happened to tune in to Fox for about ten minutes

I was curious to see if they were covering the Sterling story. It was Neil Cavuto's show. They flashed on the screen a photo of Cavuto at the beach wearing nothing (i.e. nude) but with his genitals depixilated or digitized out like in Japanese pornography. He read mail he'd received from Fox viewers at the nursing home and the retirement community about how sexy he was. I'm not kidding ... it went on and on.

[2naSalit]

28. Seems to be all they have left

is to put their "reporters" on naked because nudity is what their ire is based on (sometimes) and since they can pay someone to distract with nudity... anything BUTT the actual news... pun intended.

Interestingly, and I don't mean to sound callous about this but I was talking to my neighbor about this yesterday, the areas that were hardest hit by the week-long storm are the areas where a large portion of the "god's will climate deniers" and anti-gubbamint folks are. Hope they figure it out this time around.

[Curmudgeoness]

40. I am surprised that they would be so transparent

in showing that the emperor (I mean "journalist&quot has no clothes.

[mnhtnbb]

12. What did he expect from Faux News?

[get the red out]

13. Propaganda agenda

I love it when the obvious propaganda agenda of Fox News is outed mainstream.

[yellowcanine]

14. And he still appeared on Fox? Shame on Michael Moyer.

He is supposed to follow the science, not what is politically correct on Fox.

[Android3.14]

22. Damn right.

The scientific community needs to shun those who participate in the American Century of Stupidity, and the Democrats should shun fellow Democrats.

[Aldo Leopold]

27. +1

[SomeGuyInEagan]

30. +1.

Their business model is to stir up the crazies on behalf of the advertisers who want that demographic.

Why would a serious scientist even bother? Perhaps he (naively) thought he could make a dent? Or didn't know what Fox is (I work with STEM PhDs and they can get pretty deep into their research and pretty detached from the rest of the world, but in his field, the Fox standard line on this is solidly known).

My guess is that he won't make that mistake twice.

[tazkcmo]

33. That was my thought

I guess he needed the money.

[HomerRamone]

15. They're "fair" because they "balance" the Librul Media. Their audience will think they're just

on the side of truth. No repercussions here...

[oldandhappy]

16. glad this got posted

Thank you.

[Fred Sanders]

17. The Zombie Apocalypse is near, the brainwashed Fox crowd is the seeding.

[Phlem]

19. I'm a subscriber.

Can't wait to see the next issue!

[Brigid]

21. Please do tell us when you get it.

[Phlem]

42. Will Do!

-p

[erronis]

41. I started a SciAm subscription in the early 60s

I could read each issue cover to cover and think I understood most of the articles (I was in my early teens.)

In the last few (5+?) I've found it trying to appeal to too many segments and no longer just hard science. I found NewScientist and ScienceNews better sources but have also been turned off by the absolutely stupid advertising that SciAM and ScienceNews allows on their pages. While I understand the need to raise revenues I think that this type of magazine is losing subscribers (and therefore advertising revenues) by pandering to "stuff that sells."

[Phlem]

43. I hear ya.

I've been debating on switching to NewScientist but I think the subscription was slightly more than SciAm. I liked NewScientist a lot, I should pick up one up @ the store. Fortunately my mother in law renews it for me every year as a birthday present. I like rolling it up and beating my right wing family in law over the heads with it.



-p

[burfman]

53. I loved it too

My dad had a subscription back in the 60's when it covered Psychology which it dropped in the 70's and my father stopped the subscription too. I however as a kid liked looking at all the articles about space probes and such. I even remember the magazine running an ad for a small nuclear reactor that would fit on a table top. And the Amateur Scientist section was completely over the top which I miss greatly. I posted a response in this section about the Forest Mims hiring fiasco, which I think was a big mistake on the magazines part. The magazine just isn't as fun and awe inspiring as it used to be in the 60's.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

23. I suspect the only thing that would influence the loyal cretins

Would be secret video of a rw pundit orgy on the penthouse rug. With Dominican children.

But only if it was reported in shocked tones by Megyn.

[freshwest]

49. They'd just label him a Democrat and run with it, doncha know. n/t

[BlancheSplanchnik]

50. true point. oh pardon me a moment.....

Ok. I'm back.

[freshwest]

52. Watch out. Next dose of Faux and you'll barf a lung or maybe a kidney. n/t

[BlancheSplanchnik]

54. Lol!

Reminds me to sign up on the Donor's program....

[perdita9]

24. How is this news?

Fox won't let any of their employees talk about climate change except to sneer at it.

[Plucketeer]

25. I predict this revelation

will change nothing. Please remember to taunt me with derisive comments once this has gone viral and loosened one of the legs of Fox's stool.

[burnsei sensei]

29. The Fox establishment make themselves ridiculous without even trying.

The man is an authoritative figure, speaking on his specialty.
Will the hysterical crowd just let him speak?

[hsueh-li]

31. It's not just Fox News.

The other networks also suppress ideas and information--just not as blatantly as Fox.

[geretogo]

32. Amazing how censorship is portrayed as fair and balanced in a Totalitarian Corporate State .

[ThoughtCriminal]

34. He could talk about future trends in propaganda

There's always an alternative topic that can make a Fox host squirm.

[Skittles]

35. people need to STOP TREATING FOX NEWS LIKE LEGITIMATE NEWS

it is CONSERVATIVE TRASH FOR STUPID PEOPLE

[TeamPooka]

36. Fuck Fox News.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Faux Nooz

[Curmudgeoness]

39. So what topic did he choose to go with?????

I am glad that he is speaking out about this. Any fuel we can put on that fire.

[7962]

48. Apparently he spoke about robot driving cars; new earth like planets, etc.

But after reading some of his tweets he kinda comes off looking like a bit of an ass. Ones having nothing to do with the climate change issue just sound like he's being crass.

[freshwest]

46. Breaking: FNN viewers glad FOX stops NWO shill trying to force CFLs on them.

This story of how FNN kept this man from talking about Al Gore's Global Warming will resonate with them as a protector of liberty.

They'll stock up on freeze dried rations and ammo to fight off UN troops forcing them to use solar panels.

You know it's coming.... Muahaha!

[burfman]

51. Hey Scientific American - what goes around comes around - remember Forest Mims??????

Hey Fox is just practicing what Scientific American did itself back in 1988.

A long, long time ago Scientific American used to have a great Do-it-yourself section. Way over the top of anything else anywhere - how to construct lasers, telescopes and transistors and the like from scratch. When the editor of this section passed away, they went around looking for someone to take it over. They considered hiring Forest Mims, who wrote many excellent books on do-it-yourself electronics and would have been a great addition to the magazine. However because of his personal views they did not hire him and it was a great loss for the magazine. I myself do not share Forest Mims views or that of FOX - but I respect Forest Mims ability to write about interesting projects especially in electronics. One shouldn't judge people by their politics alone.........

Here's the Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims#Scientific_American

In May 1988 Mims wrote to Scientific American proposing that he take over The Amateur Scientist column, which needed a new editor. Despite concern about his views, he was asked to write some sample columns, which he did in 1990.[42][43][44] Mims was not offered the position, due, Mims alleges, to his Christian and creationist views.[45][46] The ACLU of Texas offered to take his case, but he declined.[47]

Evidently Mr. Mims has a lot to say about Scientific American on his web site: http://www.forrestmims.org/scientificamerican.html

[calimary]

56. Not surprising. Their partisan agenda is more important than impartial facts.

Kicking this!