global warming wsj style

There is nothing the guys at the Wall Street Journal like better than to discredit the New York Times. Now that Rupert has taken the lead, this tendency has turned into a necessity for all Dow Jones affiliates. If Rupert had his way, the NYT would disappear from the face of the earth. That would be a shame because the NYT is without a doubt the best newspaper on the planet. 

Having said that I do not always agree with the NYT, nor do I always disagree with the WSJ. But it is clear that the latter is more obviously biased than the former. The WSJ is also more deviously biased, advocating a position that materially benefits the rich and powerful. I.e. the NYT editorials may stress a liberal point of view, but that point of view does not necessarily serve to make someone really rich. The same cannot be said about the WSJ. Here opinion is clearly in service of making money.

One area where the NYT and the WSJ like to do battle is global warming. It is a problem that is real and should concern us greatly. It appears all the writers and columnists at the Times grasp that, although not all think it is a real emergency. There is a range of opinions from, "We need to take action now," to, "Well maybe it won't be so bad if we contain it."

The WSJ has no such distinctions. Their stance is clear. Global warming is not a problem. Like mayor Larry Vaughn on Amity Island, the WSJ maintains there is nothing to worry about. The situation is under control. Not because they know or because someone says so, but because of business. If there was something to worry about, it would affect business and that would be bad. Ergo, there is nothing to worry about, period.

The latest salvo in this battle is Thomas Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded." It apparently tries to warn us of impending doom. Mr. Friedman thinks global warming is a key issue. Against that, the WSJ puts reviewer Bjorn Lomborg, author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."

I need to point out that "environmentalist" is not an official title and everyone from Mr. Lomborg to drill baby Guiliani can call themselves an environmentalist. Chances are that those who feel the need to do so have something to hide, but that is another matter.

In trying to make fun of Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lomborg uses the following line. "By 2030, will the evening news feature weather, other news and sports?" The WSJ was so taken in by this "absurdity" that they decided to highlight it by printing it in large letters as an excerpt in the middle of the page. Surely, nobody in their right mind would think this could happen?

Guess what, my friends, take a look at the evening news! The evening news in 2008 IS weather, other news, and sports. The evening news, especially on local stations such as KTVU Fox and others has been that way for years. More than five years ago, a "liberal" Bay Area weekly added up all the time spent on various stories on the local evening news. It found that more time was spend on weather -and obvious weather for that part- than any other story. Not only that but weather is often the first and key story on the news.

Obvious weather, such as KTVU reporters standing in the midst of Sierra snowstorm and saying, "Yes Julie, it is snowing here in Truckee." And that is in the Bay Area, a part of the country that has -according to Rand McNally- the best weather in America. One can only wonder what happens in places where there is weather.

Yes, folks, that is what is happening to America. A constant barrage of non-events interspersed with commercials to dumb us down. Take a look Mr. Lomborg. The future is here! You don't have to wait until 2030. 

Enjoy!