The Saga Continues: FOX News on An Inconvenient Truth [UPDATED]
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 05.23.06
Yesterday we covered the Drudge Report's baseless attack on Al Gore, and today we learn via Think Progress (they seem to be following An Inconvenient Truth closely) that: "Fox News host David Asman asked his guests to discuss the following question: 'If people buy into [Al Gore’s] global warming hysteria, will it put him in the White House and our economy on the skids?' Steve Forbes answered yes, and called Gore’s new movie 'a real recipe for more socialist regulation.'"
Full transcript:
ASMAN: Al Gore’s new documentary, An inconvenient Truth, it hits the theaters this week. If people buy into his global warming hysteria, will it put him in the White House and our economy on the skids? Steve, first off, is it gonna get him in the White House?FORBES: No, if he believes that’s gonna get him in the White House, he needs to rub on something stronger than this sunscreen.
ASMAN: Alright, but if his global warming agenda somehow gets mixed up into our agenda, the national agenda, what’ll it do to the economy?
FORBES: It will ice the economy. And after all, some people do believe the DiVinci Code, so some will believe the DiGore Code. [Laughter] But the fact of the matter is, the policies that result from it would hurt the economy, would create unemployment. It’s a real recipe for more socialist regulation.
Think Progress mentions that the Apollo Alliance has a plan to "develop alternative fuels, increase energy efficiency, rebuild and expand public transportation networks and come up with other initiatives to reduce fossil fuel use" that would create more than 3 million jobs in the US. Too bad that it isn't obvious to these people that something that is un-sustainable on the environmental side can't be sustainable on the business side. :: Fox News: ‘Al Gore’s Global Warming Movie: Could It Destroy Our Economy?’, ::Apollo Alliance, ::An Inconvenient Truth - Coming to a Theatre Near You, ::An Inconvenient Truth Trailer Available at Apple
Update: Oh boy! Here's more:
That’s the problem. If I thought Al Gore’s movie was as you like to say, fair and balanced, I’d say, everyone should go see it. But why go see propaganda? You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go see Al Gore’s films to see the truth about global warming.
This comparison of Al Gore's film with Nazi propaganda (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!) was brought to you by Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, an organization backed by, among others, Exxon. He's the same person who in the past defended Exxon CEO Lee Raymond’s $190,000 per day compensation without mentioning that he had ties with the company he was defending.
Think Progress concludes that "[since] ExxonMobil doesn’t have a substantive answer to Gore’s movie, it bankrolls people like Burnett to smear Gore personally."
With regard to the Nazi reference, we'd like to invoke Godwin's Law:
Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is, in Internet culture, an adage originated in 1990 by Mike Godwin that states:As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
This adage was formulated because many people compare anyone and anything they mildly dislike with Hitler. There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made the thread in which the comment was posted is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
Via :: Exxon-Backed Pundit Compares Gore To Nazi Propagandist
Anyone who watches Faux News obviously has no concern for their own mental welfare.
It's good to see what the other side is saying, though. Not only does it show how uninformed they are, it's also a good source of laughs. ^_^
I can't believe the extent of some people's ignorance. It's also funny how they immediately assumed Gore's move is a bid for presidency in the future. Okay, for all we know, it might be, but still, there's certainly nothing wrong with calling for more attention towards environmental matters. Oh that's right. Certain people are pretending environmental issues and problems don't exist.
Man, Al Gore is really getting some great free advertising. It makes me wish a theatre near me would be playing it. (Kinda seems counterintuitive to drive 100 miles to see a movie about how we need to drive less., among other things.)
And some people thought that The Passion of the Christ was a historical documentary. In fact, they were protesting the Da Vinci Code when I went to see it. And the same folks will probably be protesting Gore's movie.
Gee, I wonder how investing in new technologies and green innovation is going to ruin the economy? Maybe I'm just not getting that old "supply and demand" cliche. Apparently "deny and defend" is a better model.
Fox news itself has become rediculous. They are nothing more than an entertainment show to the likes of Jerry springer. Its not the news anymore, its what will make people watch. I have seen Fox news anchors drop the Nazi bomb too many times now in their closing statments. At this point i dont even think its worth considering comments that come from that faction as being worth the time to debat because, as i am sure many people have seen allready, they dont debat.
Hmm, I just noticed that the guy in the first pic looks a bit like Steven Colbert.
Hasn't any of you American's had the uncontrolloble urge to 'disable' Fox through some means?
eg.
*. Blockade the building
*. Jam the transmitter
*. Legal action
and so on and so forth.... talking about it and making movies about it isnt going to do anything.......
BTW - I am a complete passivist - but Fox just gnarls the hell out of me....
Hasn't any of you American's had the uncontrolloble urge to 'disable' Fox through some means?
I do something simple - I take all of their networks out of my TV's programmed channels. In my home, they don't exist. No Faux News, no Faux Sports, no local Faux, and no F/X (which is tough, since I like "The Shield").
Certain leading political figures also get the mute button whenever they show up on screen.
I highly recommend both actions.
aaaaaaaaah. these people need to be smacked. .. . or enlightened.. .but smacked first.
There was an advanced screening of An Inconvenient Truth today on the U.C. Berkeley campus. I posted my initial thoughts here:
http://www.hodgeslab.org/2006/05/an_inconvenient_truth_al_gore_1.html
Funny...Fox "News" talking about propaganda.
Pot=Kettle?
You guys are drinking the kool-aid just like those you say are doing it by watching Fox News. You believe anything Gore says and don't believe anything Fox News says.
"I've seen thine enemy and it is me." ...or something like that.
As a scientific community, we have been thoroughly convinced that the world was warming and cooling at least two times each. With all due respect, I think we need to keep that in mind when we we call anyone that doesn't agree with us idiots. that is the very definition of being closed minded.
we we call anyone that doesn't agree with us idiots. that is the very definition of being closed minded.
No, the definition of "closed-minded" is "Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas." Denial of climate change and haranguing liberals is not a "new idea". People have weighed the arguments and come to their conclusions. There is an extraordinary amount of scientific consensus on the matter. And the people who deny it have strong financial and ideological motives to do so.
When someone then calls them an "idiot" or something else, it's the result of a logical conclusion based on reason, facts, and experience with such people.
Being "open-minded" doesn't mean tolerating nasty people who are out to deceive and destroy.
Any hysteria made by the movie will be temporary...and blown out of proportion by the media. Just like the rising gas prices, people start cutting back alot then they get used to the prices and they go back to their old ways. I'm guilty of this too.
Green technologies can help create a better business. Look at Walmart. They are moving toward green technologies such as skylights and solar as well using energy conservation. Why? Natural light pushes more product and solar is a great long term investment to offset rising energy prices, and energy conservation just saves money.
As far as what to do with fox news? I get irritated with them too but the best thing to do is reach out and educate people. I try to show the many sides of the issue.
Global warming could be cyclical and natural but we don't have to take the chance. There are many more advantages (geopolitical, health, economic) to going with green renewable energy.
"Global warming could be cyclical and natural but we don't have to take the chance."
That's the thing they did; create doubt.
Fact is, there's a scientific consensus that global warming is human-made and real, but special interests have been very successful in making people believe that it's a coin toss.
I suggest you read this and this.
I absolutely hate the fact that wanting a more efficient home, better gas mileage, healthier air, and lower energy costs has become this political grudge match. As soon as you throw a politician into the mix you get two self-righteous sides strongly opposing each other.
It doesn't matter if his facts or opinions are right or wrong, Gore has done nothing but transform a rapidly growing grass-roots green movement into a politically entrenched he-said/she-said. If his intention was to draw attention to the issues, he should have funded the film, not stared in it.
I am disappointed in Tree Hugger and the fuel that they are adding to this fire. The audience of Tree Hugger is already pro-Green and pro-environment, and instead of furthering the cause of spreading the good word, this type of smear campaign against conservatives only further distances the people who need converting the most. Congratulations.
"It doesn't matter if his facts or opinions are right or wrong, Gore has done nothing but transform a rapidly growing grass-roots green movement into a politically entrenched he-said/she-said. If his intention was to draw attention to the issues, he should have funded the film, not stared in it."
WHAT?!
And who would have starred in the film? Would it have been as mediatized? And if so, would it have been any less attacked? Even conservatives who speak up on things that go against the monetary interests of big corps get smeared, as well as non-partisan scientific groups. Gore has been an environmentalist for 30 years and he can damn well make the movies that he want to make. He's the victim, here. Stop blaming the victim please.
As if it's Gore that's trying to turn the environment into a political debate and not the corporations with businesses based on "dirty" things who have a lot to lose and are backing politicians in both parties in the US.
"I am disappointed in Tree Hugger and the fuel that they are adding to this fire. The audience of Tree Hugger is already pro-Green and pro-environment, and instead of furthering the cause of spreading the good word, this type of smear campaign against conservatives only further distances the people who need converting the most. Congratulations."
WHAT?!? bis
Treehugger only reported false and/or crazy things that have been said about a global warming movie.
"this type of smear campaign against conservatives"
WHAT?!?!?!^2
Once again, you are confusing the victim and the aggressor, here. And the fact that the people who said these crazy things are conservatives has nothing to do with it; they could be communits for all I care, if you say false and/or crazy things, you need to be called on it.. Especially if you say them to millions of people on TV. Since this is a blog about the environment, it's only normal that false and/or crazy things about the environment are mentioned..
lots of conservatives understand and accept global warming theory. they have plenty of economics-based arguments, for example: many believe the best way to solve the problem is to make the country wealthier as there is a clear relationship between income and caring for the environment. if your life is difficult, you're focused on getting by today and maybe tomorrow, not the health of the planet in 50 years.
there's a lot more to it, but instead of saying they're just a bunch of idiots, it would be far more productive to can the knee-jerk partisanism (both sides), listen to the reasoning, and explain why government intervention would be more effective than relying on economic forces to solve the problem.
"there's a lot more to it, but instead of saying they're just a bunch of idiots, it would be far more productive to can the knee-jerk partisanism (both sides), listen to the reasoning, and explain why government intervention would be more effective than relying on economic forces to solve the problem."
That's a couple of strawmen; people here aren't saying that all conservatives are idiots (that'd be idiotic), but these people at FOX News certainly seem to fit the bill.
Also, the interventionism argument has been made elsewhere, but not here. Why bring it up? Who here argued for interventionism, and why did you feel the need to defend free for all? You're arguing alone...
In any case, I feel that some things can be left to economic forces, and some just can't because that just encourages extremely destructive greed and short-term thinking that we'll all regret later. Why think in binary terms (all one or all the other)? It's a complex problem... The goal is to find what works, not to boost one ideology over another no matter what (facts getting in the way..) like those FOX News people.
i guess i need to clarify my argument.
the majority accept that global warming is a problem... even forbes, in these quotes, seems to be talking more about policy, not the existence of global warming.
interventionism was brought up in the forbes quotes multiple times... it seems to me, that was the essence of what he said there. economic policy is at the core of what they are defending. are you denying that?
yes the nazi comparison is way over the top and just sick, but in focusing on that, it seems to be inspecting a sidebar to their argument and the poor delivery of the presenter, not the intent of his argument which a lot of fox news viewers (even free-thinking ones) support.
i have no idea what that free-for-all comment is in response to, but we fully agree on all strategy... even the interventionism that you support as well. i'm responding to the above comments when i say that the helpful response would be to demonstrate how short-sighted their political objectives are instead of thinking up ways to hide the existence of fox news.
I think there is some confusion as to the folks being called idiots in this discussion. Conservatives aren't idiots, Fox News anchors are idiots.
This shows one of Fox News' little secrets, they form their questions in a way that you're already getting their opinion on the subject just by reading it. Seriously, though, they're taking something as important as climate change and make it look like those of us who are concerned about are a bunch of crazy anarchists who want to destabilize the economy and hate America.
Btw, I hope somebody recorded this and sticks the video on YouTube or something. The transcript is one thing, but the actual video must be absolutely hillarious!