ABC uses Fox tactic to make Stewart seem like climate change denier

By David Edwards and John Byrne
Thursday, December 10th, 2009 -- 9:08 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

ABC uses Fox tactic to make Stewart seem like climate change denierHas Fox News met its match?

Last night, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann reported on a segment in which ABC used a clip of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart to make him look like a climate change denier. But in fact, the full clip shows that Stewart was arguing the opposite.

Olbermann names ABC News producer David Wright "Worst Person in the World."

"This is the sound bite they played in Mr. Wright's report tonight," Olbermann began.

Stewart: "Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh!"

Story continues below...

Olbermann then played the full clip.

"Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked via the very internet you invented. Oh!" Stewart mocks. "Oh, the irony. The iron-y. Actually, the real story is not quite that sensational. Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not!"

"No, of course not, unless you have, at a, no journalistic qualifications, b, no journalistic ethics, or c, you are falsifying the news to fit a personal political agenda," Olbermann remarks. "At Fox when they do, they make an excuse. At The Wall Street Journal, they don't even bother to do that. At ABC when they do, they're supposed to fire somebody. Might have been a producer, but the piece has his name on it. David Wright of ABC News, until we hear otherwise, today's 'Worst Person in the World.'"

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast Dec. 9, 2009.


Download video via RawReplay.com

Fox, in fact, did the very same thing earlier this month. This video is from Fox News' Fox & Friends, broadcast Dec. 3, 2009.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • dvRant
    I completely agree with Keith Olbermann on Fox and ABC's shameless editing of Jon Stewart to make him appear to be a climate-change denier. Kinda like what Olbermann and MSNBC did way back when, when KO blared Rush Limbaugh's infamous I HOPE HE FAILS "quote" across the screen, pulling it completely from context and shifting its meaning 180 degrees. Of course, they knew the its full context was "If Obama pursues the policies of Jefferson or Reagan, I hope he succeeds;but if he pursues policies that will lead this country to socialism then I hope he fails." Or, when during the election campaign KO asked Carly Fiorina if McCain was capable of running a corporation and she responded with a suspiciously abrupt "NO...", MSNBC knew that the almost comically-audible snip! was truncated from her complete statement of "...and neither is Obama or Boxer or any politician." Olbermann and MSNBC are well-known for doing this but always get righteous when it's done against their ideology. This is why KO has only his choir to preach to and why he'll always be fighting for second place, looking up and smelling Bill O'Reilly's butt. No wonder he's bitter, the ol' floozie.
  • margatefam
    what's with everyone calling each other a retard? I feel like I'm on the playground in 5th grade. Ugh.
    If you don't like what you hear then try coming up with a word that isn't a slur that hurts people with special needs.
  • turnip
    Whether you are convinced that the 'consensus' of the IPCC is accurate, or not. That is not the issue if we are speaking of 'solutions'. The fact stands that the proposals like Cap and Trade, no nothing to curb pollution, and will likely exacerbate the pollution problem. I'll say it again. The bill. Does NOTHING for the environment, but does make already privileged entities richer. I always gauge an unknown by the intent. The intent here is to tax the globe, and level the playing field so that we are all slave labor. That is what the bill is about. That is the solution. You will not be able to afford heat - not because of it's cost, but becuase your living standard will be reduced to that of your trading partners, ie. the standard of China and India.
  • joedee1960
    looks like ABC is screwing up left and right. Read this link too:

    http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/12/abc-recycle...
  • JakeW83
    Michelle Malkin is hot.
  • davidrvelasquez
    Sure,... if women who hear voices get you hot.
  • Spire
    Poor Jon Stewart. He must feel like a pinball. Fox takes one sentence and says he's for Climategate, Olbernann takes another and says he doesn't believe in Climategate. Both get it wrong. Both represent corrupt journalism. If you watch the whole thing Stewart ends with berating the scientists for cutting corners and thereby giving the Right all the fodder they need to celebrate by heading to Alaska to skullfuck polar bears. In between he brings up "hide the decline" and the destruction of the original raw data. At which time he looks depressed and says, "for fuck's sake." He doesn't know what's going on anymore than most of us at this stage. He was just bringing it up. No media that mattered touched this thing until Stewart put it on the table, and did a brilliant job. Yet both Fox and Olbermann utterly simplify snippets for their own ends. You expect this with Fox, but Keith really disappointed me this time. But he was on the bandwagon of Climategate Deniers just like everyone else in the msm.

    Sorry Pete. I think we just got fooled again.

    http://www.vidivodo.com/329554/jon-stewart-talk...
  • texasaggie
    Didn't read the article, did you? Go back and read it again and this time see who it was who broadcast the edited line from Jon Stewart.

    And for what it's worth, the emails did NOT say what has been reported like 'cutting corners' or 'discarding original data' in order to hide anything. The data still exists, but the notebooks that it was first recorded into were disposed of in the early 80's because there was no room to store them. And this was before anyone was cognizant of what might result from greenhouse gases.

    There was no decline to hide. What was under discussion was why recent tree ring data disagreed with actual temperature measurements. To keep the tree rings and discard the actual measurements would not only be foolish, but no ethical scientist would think of including false data in his calculations. He would throw it out as was done.
  • hmmm
    question. how do you know this related to tree rings? i heard michael mann claim this in order to cover his ass, but before, when phil jones who sent the email was asked about it, he claimed not to remember. the words hide the decline was something that a "keith" did, not michael mann. nor was mann included in the email.
  • texasaggie
    Because that is what they were talking about when the subject came up. That's what he had to explain when the data from actual temperature measurements didn't agree with the inferred data.
  • Spire
    It is a puzzlement. But I think I heard that the "decline" and hiding it had to do with the Medieval Warm Period. This interp also made it into the Michael Mann cartoon out there, so it must be true. They also had to iron out the subsequent Little Ice Age the other way around. That's okay because, if one hand is in boiling water and the other hand is frozen, statistically you're okay.
  • The actual context of the "hide the decline" comment has to do with the decline in correlation between tree growth rates and temperature. Tree rings (whose thickness correlates with growth rate) are used as an indirect way of measuring temperatures back before there were records of actual temperatures. These are called "proxies" and are only accurate if the thing being looked at really does change in a consistent way with temperature.

    With the tree rings there is good correlation of temperature with growth rate in the older data, but for reasons not fully understood the correlation gets worse (declines - there's that word) when you get to recent times. The "trick" being discussed to "hide the decline" in this correlation was to substitute the actual measured temperatures for the tree ring data at the point where the correlation breaks down. This is done quite openly, and is well understood by those the email was addressed to. It is only a trick in the sense of salvaging the valid part of the tree data and substituting actual measurements in the modern era where the proxy is no longer accurate.

    Sorry if that seems long-winded, but that's about as simple as it gets, and that's why it's so easy to distort the real meaning.
  • hmmm
    you both have completely missed my point. how did michael mann know what phil jones meant when phil jones stated he does not remember what he meant in the email?

    you are assuming what hide the decline means. stop assuming. you do not know what it means, the only person who knows what he meant says he does not remember what he meant.
  • You're working too hard to make it seem confusing by stripping it of context.

    The email discussion that it was snipped from (dating from 1999, before even the clueless deniers were claiming a cooling trend) concerned the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the well known "divergence problem" of a group of Siberian tree ring cores for which direct temperature measurements diverge from the temperatures implied by tree ring thickness, beginning about 1960. This could be due to pollution or other confounding effects.

    The actual quote is "“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years" which means that he was plotting the actual measured temps (marked as such) along with the tree ring proxy data to clarify where they diverge. Does this sound like a dastardly plot to hide declining temperatures?
  • hmmm
    "You're working too hard to make it seem confusing by stripping it of context."

    the full quote is:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    i am not stripping anything, the man that wrote it claims he does not know the context. you do not know what it means.
  • texasaggie
    Yes, you were stripping something, the email discussion in which the quote you posted was embedded. Read Jeffrey K's post that you were replying to.
  • texasaggie
    Regardless of your statement about the context, it is obvious from the full quote that you yourself posted that what they did was add in REAL temperatures. How anyone can claim that this is somehow dishonest is beyond comprehension. Seems to me that it would be dishonest to NOT include the real temperatures.
  • hmmm
    i have not drawn any conclusion, nor did i claim anything to be dishonest. according to the MSM, "hide the decline" means growth ring temperature divergence, "trick" means accepted scientific method. according to phil jones, he doesn't know what any of it means. you reading into what you want to believe it does not make it what phil jones meant.

    phil jones could come out and clarify it but he hasn't has he?
  • texasaggie
    And you still haven't responded to the point that you are claiming that Keith Olbermann was guilty of falsifying what Jon Stewart said ("Fox takes one sentence and says he's for Climategate, Olbernann takes another and says he doesn't believe in Climategate.") when Mr. Olbermann clearly was defending Mr. Stewart's position ("Olbermann then played the full clip.").
  • Spire
    That's just it. He did not play the full clip.
    Watch the 3 minute clip I posted.
    It was not Stewart's opinion that is important, but what Stewart showed. Maybe the real story here is why Climategate was such a non-issue among the msm for over a week or so (not including the BBC who sat on it for a lot longer).

    Stewart is one of the most highly trusted person in America, possibly the world, but definitely in the News media subculture of our nation. Both sides want him on their side. My point is that both sides were fairly shoddy in trying to do that while avoiding the meat and potatoes of his piece. It is not so much falsification, I guess, than mis-direction. On the other hand, at least CNN seems to have taken on the issue a bit. There might be corporate implications here, but I don't do business stuff.
  • texasaggie
    I hadn't seen Stewart's show, but I am somewhat concerned about the impression he made in the clip you referenced. He (or his people) didn't seem to dig into what the emails were actually referring to and accepted at face value what the deniers were claiming they meant.
  • glenn_uk
    Taking a few words entirely out of context seems to be the modus operandi of climate change deniers. And quoting other heavyweight "sceptics" like the esteemed Glenn Beck, of course, which was also done in the ABC report.

    There's nothing much else they can do, after all - there being no peer reviewed genuine scientists to quote giving the right message.
  • lorn
    Poor countries are upset because millions in aid that gave them health care is being diverted to carbon trading funds, derivatives and associated schemes.

    This is the essence of the Global Warming crowd.
    They are selling a grand lie, that this is about helping to save the earth, while it is really a money game with a much darker agenda.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environme...

    Taking things out of context? Do you mean like associating all people who doubt the cap&trade with Glen Beck? Yeah, I hate assholes who take things out of context just to make a point.
  • texasaggie
    It isn't the loss of aid money that has the poor countries upset, as I suspect you well know. What they are upset about is that they are the ones primarily suffering from climate change caused by the rich countries, and the rich countries have absolutely no intention of doing anything to either stop the damage or to compensate for the damage already done.

    I don't understand how anyone can look at icecaps melting, glaciers disappearing, spring starting earlier, species moving northward and up the mountain, measured increases in storm strength over the ocean, measured increases in temperatures world wide, increased acidity of the oceans helping to destroy coral reefs and shell fish, measured rises in the ocean, and all the rest of it and then sit back and say that global warming is a fraud. One would have to either be deliberately or subconsciously deceitful in order to ignore what is happening world wide.
  • lorn
    Uhhmmm no aggie dear, it is the loss of money as this clearly indicates.....

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/...

    You really are a good texan, dumb, sticking with your talking points no matter what, and making shit up as you go.

    All of the environmental devastation you mention actually falls short of describing how bad things are. However none of your hyperbole changes the fact that this entire Copenhagan joke is akin to throwing virgins into the volcano for all the good it will do us. But it will enrich Banks, brokerage houses, further beat down the poor nations (as my link proves) and generally make a lot of cash under the false premise of saving the earth.

    Now go give George Bush a big kiss, you play for the same team.
  • texasaggie
    And also read the article that you referenced. No where does it mention that the developing nations are concerned over the loss of money. Their concern is clearly stated in the very beginning.

    "The text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal,"
  • texasaggie
    And while you are at it, read the following article in The Guardian, and read the whole thing, not just the parts you like.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/...
  • texasaggie
    Funny, but I would have bet a good amount of money that you were a staunch Bushie. Anyone who promotes denialism is obviously of the Bushie camp who tries to ignore or distort science (reality) in favor of further enrichment of the oil industry. ("the Global Warming crowd. They are selling a grand lie,")
  • lorn
    Wow Texas, it is hard to imagine how your arrogance and belligerence could trump your stupidity, but they do.

    "National aid budgets dedicated to reducing global poverty would be raided to establish a “climate fund” to help developing countries to adapt to climate change, under a British plan tabled yesterday in Copenhagen."

    That is the opening paragraph of the first link cited. Once more for the intellectually challenged Texan.........
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environme...

    That article goes on with half a dozen quotes to that effect...........as does the second link I provide for you.

    Does your mommy have to feed you and change your diapers too?

    The problems of environmental devastation are real, and largely caused by industry. The solution does not involve throwing virgins into volcanos or supporting the carbon cap slush fund administered by the IMF, Banksters, and other corporate robber barons.
    Fcuk you, and trolls like you, for trying to use the environment to sell your corporate money grab.
  • texasaggie
    "Three hours after the "Danish text" had been leaked to the Guardian, Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the group of 132 developing countries known as G77 plus China, spelt out exactly why the poor countries he represents were so incensed. "The text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal," said the diplomat."

    This is the first paragraph of your link cited in the paragraph where you said, "It is the loss of money as this clearly indicates...." and it is obvious that the article said nothing to support your statement. You really need to get your act together and stop being a "useful idiot" of the energy corporations.
  • It can go both ways. T Boone Pickens has a pro global warming agenda which calls for Texas and half the midwest to give HIM a huge swath of land through eminent domain so he can develop wind energy stations. But how can you hate a guy for "saving the eath".
  • The corporate interests in global warming will end up making the earth sicker in my opinion. It's still about profit for these guys. Oh, and it's the same guys on both sides, don't be fooled.
  • DesertWren
    You can hate a guy for saying he thinks the U.S. is "entitled" to Iraq oil because, after all, we did go through the trouble of invading Iraq. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/pickens-us-...

    There is nothing wrong with making a profit if you also consider what all the costs to society are. I do not think T. Boone Pickens really thinks about this unless he can make good P.R. out of it and it doesn't hurt his bottom line.

    For instance, you don't hear too much about him buying up water rights around the country or to what detriment that might have on people. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08...
  • SteveHampstead
    Please Keith Retard does this every day!! OMG!! OK! Here is 1 Keith Report Sarah Palin Slashes Special needs children budget by 50 PERCENT!!! Fact 2007 Budget was 515,000 she allowed it to go to 756,000 in 2008!! Now How Did Keith spin this?? They asked for 1 million!! OK So you Liberal retards think he has a right to say She slashed the budget? So if ask for it its a Budget?? So in Liberal thinking I guess I can write off 140,000,000 from my Taxes I played the Lottery I was in the running but in the end I didnt get it!! So I can write off. Amazing!!! And for Keith to talk about ratings?? Wow!! His are down 58 percent from last year. Oh right the Liberal way he was Given a raise!!
  • edset
    What the fark are you even talking about? Are you one of those special needs kids he talking about? Your drivel makes little sense and to top it off you went off the road to crazyville mid comment. Go sit down with your juice box and cookie.
  • lewscannon
    Wow what a bunch of crappy run on sentences that switch points midstream it's like punctuation only exists when you Need to prove a point!!! So in Conservative thinking cutting education budgets was good because look we got spell check and nobody really needs to know when one sentence ends and another glorifying St Sarah and how much crap She has to put up with because of all the lies the liberal media bends the truth to prove the point that she is as stupid as she seem she didn't even write her Book!!!!!
  • texasaggie
    Go read the article. You aren't making any sense at all. Note in particular who it was who played the full quote, not just a small fraction of it.
  • davidrvelasquez
    Sounds like you've been drinking from moldy teabags.
  • unclejoe40
    oh please...thats your proof that ko fudges facts?

    palin hates retarded children...look how she treats her own
  • Satan
    You're spaztic retard, just so you know.
blog comments powered by Disqus