About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox & Friends crops Jon Stewart quote to suggest "Climategate" emails made him a global warming denier

December 03, 2009 12:02 pm ET — 81 Comments

While discussing the purported "Climategate" emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, Steve Doocy claimed that Jon Stewart "really took a shot at Al Gore," then aired a clip of Stewart stating, "Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented." But Doocy -- in a possible violation of a recent Fox News memo on "Quality Control" -- did not air Stewart's subsequent statement in which he said the emails don't "disprove global warming," but do offer ammunition to global warming deniers.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Doocy highlights Stewart's "pretty extraordinary" statement that "[g]lobal warming completely debunked" by emails

From the December 3 edition of Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: Speaking of which, next week, you know the president of the United States is going to be heading to Copenhagen en route to pick up his Nobel Peace prize. Extraordinarily -- Copenhagen is going to be all about global warming and climate change and stuff like that. Extraordinarily, take a look at this. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, which has historically bashed Republicans and, you know, not bashed Democrats, really took a shot at Al Gore. Look at this.

STEWART [video clip]: Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh the irony. The iron-y.

DOOCY: It is pretty extraordinary that Jon Stewart would be taking a shot at Al Gore, who's been on his program a couple of times. But at the same time, the mainstream media for the most part not covering this whole "climate-gate" thing. It just seems to be us and bloggers like you.

MALKIN: That's for sure. And that is because most of the mainstream media have been the official enablers of the climate-change cult, and I did a column yesterday that was in the New York Post, another one of the few outlets that will tell the truth and expose this entire "climate-gate" scandal and highlighted the "climate-gate" deniers within the Obama administration.

Everyone from John Holdren, who's been a global warming hysteric for the last 30, 40 years, to Carol Browner, who has a very sordid record of destroying data herself, to Spencer Chu, the energy secretary, who earlier this year compared Americans who challenged a lot of this cult mentality about global warming and climate change to unruly teenagers. So, there you go. These are the people who are supposed to represent sound science in the Obama administration, and not a single one of them telling Obama to hold on a minute and take a look at the new information that's come out.

KILMEADE: I understand that people don't have their whole lives to dedicate to climate change, but if you read these emails, you don't need to be a scientist to understand. They actually say the word "trickery" when it comes to numbers and to reach conclusions. I don't know how the president could continue to show up in Copenhagen. He doesn't have a plan. He doesn't have an approved -- cap-and-trade is not even approved. So he's got nothing to say.

Fox & Friends aired the clip over the caption, "All The President's Deniers; Evidence Surfaces That Data Was Manupulated."

But Stewart went on to say, "Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not," but it is "catnip" to deniers

From the December 1 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:

STEWART: Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, the irony, the iron-y. Actually, the real story is not quite that sensational. Basically, emails stolen from scientists at one of the leading study centers for global warming show them discussing them discussing their work a bit -- how do I put this -- casually.

WENDELL GOLER (Fox News White House correspondent) [video clip]: He wrote, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. 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.

STEWART: See, it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here's what's great about science. In disagreement, we go back and look at the raw data.

GOLER [video clip]: University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.

STEWART: Oh, for fuck's sake. Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s. Laminated. What did you keep?

GOLER [video clip]: The scientists say the kept something called value-added data.

STEWART: Value-added data? What is that? Numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of Energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE [video clip]: The fact that this whole idea on the global warming, I'm glad that's over, gone, done. We won, you lost, get a life.

STEWART: All right. We knew Inhofe was going to say that. I mean, that guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a slushee and gets a brain freeze. "If global warming is real, why does my head hurt?" But by the way, that quote was before he found out about the leaked email story. But that's the point. if you care about an issue and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined toward the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys, who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to skull-fuck polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans caused now, apparently, by God's tears.

Recent Fox News memo calls for "zero tolerance for on-screen errors"

A Fox News memo posted by FishbowlDC on November 23 acknowledged "a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months" and stated that in the future, "there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors" and "[m]istakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the 'mistake chain,' and those who supervise them ... up to and including termination":

Subject: Quality Control We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced: Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in this effort.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mary59 (December 03, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
      8 1
      Hmm...Fox News and quality control....tilt!!**&&

      This would require the demise of most of their programming.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bad News (December 03, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
        3 4
        Fox News and Quality Control?
        That's kind of like Pledges trying to Climb a Greased Pole.
        Fox News, "The Home of Mis-information"
        Only the 1st Amendment protects them from receiving a Criminal Citation.

        Speak truth to power.


        Mr. News
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bsherman (December 03, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
           
        If you'll note the Quality Control memo states:
        "there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors"

        "on-screen" in TV lingo means roll-in video, graphics and titles. So basically all they are saying is they are not going to misspell things, show the wrong books, and run the wrong clips. The anchors, reporters and hosts of course are free to say whatever the heck they want to whether or not it has an factual basis. They are not subject to the "Zero Tolerance" policy.

        That "Zero Tolerance" policy is just a ploy and means absolutely no change in the way Fox conducts themselves.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by only_myschly3567 (December 03, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
      8  
      I knew Jon wasn't playing on the sarcasm thick enough...

      Yes Ms "ABC News reported 2 million, oh wait, no, that number was just pulled out of my a$$", somehow, you and all the other dimwits who think fact-checking their enemy love this story, and people who actually care about facts and reality, and check out what that "trick" is, they are somehow not caring about lies and misinformation! :O How do they do it?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Major Tom (December 03, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
      6 1
      By misquoting someone... doesn't that equate to a hoax?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Publius39 (December 03, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
         
      Even though I know that she doesn't work directly for Fox, can someone tell Michelle Malkin that our energy secretary is Steven Chu, not Spencer Chu.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (December 03, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
      8 1
      I'll be watching the "Daily Show" tonight to see how Jon Stewart dismantles these hacks.

      "Oh, woe is us! We and the bloggers are the ONLY ones who are even mentioning this!" (Of course to them, "this" is the term "climategate.")

      No one else is covering the email issue? This is just CNN. If Fox and deniers knew how to do searches, they'd find more coverage. It's just the MSM isn't calling it "climategate."

      http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/12/02/snow.climate.emails.cnn

      http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/02/climate.stolen.emails/index.html

      http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html

      Fox - wrong on this, wrong on just about everything else.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (December 03, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
        6  
        Stewart should have a lot of fun with this one.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (December 04, 2009 10:35 am ET)
        1  
        Just to put this tired "the mainstream media doesn't talk about this" nonsense constantly parroted by Malkin and her ilk into proper perspective, I first saw this CRU email imbroglio mentioned in a lengthy piece which started ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. It was fully two days before the pantloads at Fox starting shrieking about it.

        I'm just sayin'.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Kabong30 (December 03, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
         
      Of course we aren't gonna call out the multiple other news outlets that did the exact same thing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (December 03, 2009 12:30 pm ET)
      5  
      Actually Deuce-y, that's not what he said AT ALL!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (December 03, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
      10 1
      Wow, and the brain-dead folks who watch this claptrap will believe that Jon Stewart, a satirical COMEDIAN, actually believes what was said in the truncated clip. It's called PROPAGANDA, folks. These people can send out all the memos and apologies they want, but the truth of the matter is that these "mistakes" are done INTENTIONALLY and are only apologized for when they are caught.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by westofkanye (December 03, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
           
        Stewart is an astute newsman(when it fits) or a satirical comedian(when it fits). Nice spin, bintx.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Oklad (December 03, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
      7 1
      The folks on the Clown Couch should know better than to mess with Jon Stewart... Anchor Baby irony deficient Malkin speaking of "Cult mentality"?.. Dumb,Dumber and Dumbest...
      .
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (December 03, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
      7 3
      How could Doocy (or whoever it was on FoxNews who monitors Jon Stewart's show for tidbits) have NOT understood that Stewart wasn't saying that GCC had been debunked by the emails? That it was hyperbole? How does one miss that?

      Of course, Stewart shows that he doesn't really understand why one would have adjusted data, rather than just raw data. I've emailed his show to try to explain why.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cannonball (December 03, 2009 1:14 pm ET)
          2
        Exactly what I was thnking last night while watching the show. But it still doesn't explain why raw data is dumped. My guess is computer storage. Once the data is quantified and qualified, it isn't needed anymore and there is only so much space. Do you agree?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (December 03, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
          3 16
          I guess like there is no need to keep old e mails that the president writes. Oh wait when you found out Bush was dumping e mails you all on the left went nuts, but when the left does it, they just need space on a server. Hey, here is an idea, take the millions the UN gave you and get another server. They were dumped because it was exposing them as frauds and knew under the freedom laws they would have to hand them over. I smell a Enron here.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (December 03, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
            10 4
            The original emails should be kept. Just like I shouldn't use a reference book in a library to write a paper, then throw that book away!

            But no original data was destroyed here, dunce. The weather monitoring stations still have that original data.

            How do you NOT know this - we've explained it here day after day recently. How dumb are you that even after having something explained multiple times, you still don't get it?

            The data was dumped a generation ago, when storage space wasn't so easily acquired - hard drive space didn't used to be so cheap like it is now. When Bush did it, he had no excuse, and he was trashing original, irreplaceable information.

            The original temperature data is still readily available from the same places that it was originally gathered! If that data will expose them as frauds, your side should start gathering up that data from all those sources, and start proving them to be frauds. Go for it. Waste your time on a wild-goose chase - we'd love for you to do that, in fact! Maybe that would stop your side from spewing the nonsense you do that poisons our national debate!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (December 03, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
            14 1
            when you found out Bush was dumping e mails you all on the left went nuts

            That's because when the president deletes emails, he's broken the law.

            Make a note of it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by srichardson (December 03, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
              5 1
              That mark person only spews republican talking points he hears from Fox. Other than spewing Fox trash all he does is downgrade people. We need to stop addressing his stupidity and maybe he will go somewhere else.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by ScienceBuff (December 03, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
            7 1
            Discarding of that extremely small amount of data took place in the 1980s, about a quarter of a century ago. What kind of idiot believes that something incriminating was known then that isn't known now and can't have been found in the ensuing decades? That's aside from the fact that NO DISCARDED DATA WAS UNRECOVERABLE FROM THE SOURCE.

            Last point: electronic data storage was extremely expensive in the 1980s.

            I've yet to see any of these denialists concede that the small amount of data was discarded a long time ago. It fits their narrative better to pretend it was a recent event.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jeff191 (December 04, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
               
            One of your many mistakes is to conclude that scientists are on the left.If you had any conception of how scientific research is carried out and its results are endlessly tested , discussed and peer reviewed, you would be aware that no one who puts a political agenda ahead of pure research would ever receive the approval of the scientific community. But life is just easier for fox fans who can merely claim conspiracy theories every time the real world doesnt match up to their fantasies
            Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (December 03, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
          7 4
          Both posters here and climate scientists have repeatedly explained why the original data was not saved by the climate scientists.

          It wasn't "destroyed". The weather monitoring stations have the original data still. The climate scientists just don't have it in to provide in a FOIA request from the deniers.

          And there's no reason to keep it. It's saved other places. They used data that was adjusted for reasonable reasons, and they ran out of storage space back in the 1980's, a generation ago.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (December 04, 2009 9:15 am ET)
            4  
            FWIW.

            "Never memorize something that you can look up"

            --Albert Einstein
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Jollymon (December 03, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
        4 8
        Wow Dell, not only do you think you are the know-it-all troll police of this site, now you are telling Daily Show writers how to understand this issue?

        *slow golf clap*

        Media Matters is lucky to have a blooger such as thou posting here. You really need to find a new hobby and spend less time at the pc. Really.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (December 03, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
          6 1
          Wow, jolly. Sarcasm AND know-it-all advice at once. Ironies abound.....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Jollymon (December 03, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
            2 6
            Sarcasm yes. Know-it-all advice? Just making a statement of my opinion on observed tendancies by a self-absorbed poster, that is all. I don't claim to know everything about everything, unlike someone else I could mention...hint, hint.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (December 03, 2009 6:51 pm ET)
              4 4
              Yeah, because you got beat down by me under this screen name as well as under a previous screen name, we see that your choice was to make a personal attack, making yourself look crude and out of line.

              Your personal attack doesn't reflect badly on me. It reflects badly on you.

              Jon Stewart made a statement that shouldn't be left out there, so yeah, I provided his staff some advice. I think that's exactly what a responsible adult should do - make sure their heroes correct mistakes or misstatements. I am not sure at all why someone would object to being corrected if they're wrong, but what's clear is that you objected when I proved that YOU were wrong, and so you have a kneejerk reaction to my very appropriate advice to Jon Stewart!

              Whining like that, Jollymon, makes you look like a whiner. It doesn't do anything to make me look bad.

              And the very next time I need advice from you, I'll be sure to let you know. I am not ashamed, nor should I be ashamed, that I know more about this topic that Jon Stewart does. I am baffled as to why you think that my knowledge is a bad thing, or that exposing others to my knowledge is a bad thing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (December 03, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
                4 4
                Here's the offending section of the commentary from The Daily Show.

                STEWART: Oh, for f**k's sake. Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s. Laminated. What did you keep?

                GOLER [video clip]: The scientists say the kept something called value-added data.

                STEWART: Value-added data? What is that? Numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of Energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.

                But it's not true that "it doesn't look good." If scientists didn't scrub data for these kinds of issues, that would be something that didn't look good. Scientists behaved totally properly in this instance, and Jon Stewart bought into the rightwing spin that adjusting the data was a thing that looked suspicious.

                I am baffled as to why Jollymon would think that it's a bad thing to disabuse Jon Stewart from buying into a rightwing talking point!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jollymon (December 03, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
                  4 5
                  What the hell are you blabbing on about? You use multiple screen names here? What a loser. I just have the one. And I'm just stating facts about you. You are the one that just wasted two posts "whining."

                  I love how you can't see that you act like its your sole responsibility to tell people the facts as seen from your point of view. That is one of the most arrogant, self-centered attitudes I have ever seen. I just enjoy pointing that out to you. Not my problem you can't deal with it. And keep living in your delusional world. You have never given me a "beat down." You make me laugh. At least you didn't give yourself thumbs up yet, but I know you will soon, you can't resist it. ;-)
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (December 03, 2009 10:37 pm ET)
                    4 5
                    No, you're the one who I believe got teed off at me under one screen name and came back with a new one with a chip already on your shoulder.

                    I am not sure why this was such a difficult thing for you to understand - oh, wait, no, I'm not actually too surprised that you couldn't figure this out.

                    And no, you're the one who was whining about me. After being attacked unfairly, responding is not equivalent to whining.

                    Let me give you a clue - here's the definition of whining. It fits what you did!

                    Whining is a feeble, peevish complaint. Your complaint that I shouldn't inform Jon Stewart's staff of a problem with him buying into the rightwing slant was incredibly feeble. It showed your preconceived ideas about me - you were already peeved about me, and simply used this as an attempt to make me look bad.

                    You're the whining one, not me.

                    This place is 100% for people to express their opinions. Again, if I didn't know you, I would be stunned that you don't understand that this a perfect place to tell people the facts as seen from one's own point of view. It's crazy that you don't grasp that fact.

                    But in this case, with this issue, I wasn't even doing that - I was explaining to the staff of the Daily Show that there really isn't an issue with the manipulation of some of the data, and informed people know this. This isn't an opinion issue in any way! It's not 'from my point of view'. It's the way it is!

                    The clearly delusional person is you. You whined about me and made a personal attack that had nothing to do with the posting that MMFA had made.

                    So, you can continue to make a fool of yourself, or you can stop. I hope you continue to make a fool of yourself - I really enjoy it when goofballs like you can't figure out that you're hurting your own credibility and I am laughing at you!! Please continue.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jollymon (December 03, 2009 11:14 pm ET)
                      4 5
                      Again, I have only this one screen name, and have only ever used this one, unlike you.

                      You are a self-righteous, self-centered twit who takes your opinions way too seriously and thinks you are an expert on everything because you read blogs. Sorry, but if you think the staff of the Daily Show needs correcting from you, YOU are the utterly and completely delusional person. Again, I am simply pointing that fact out to you. Deal with it.

                      And did you read your own words? "This place is 100% for people to express their opinions...I would be stunned that you don't understand that this a perfect place to tell people the facts as seen from one's own point of view"

                      So your opinions and your point of view are facts? Do you even read what you write? What a joke!

                      And do you think I care about credibility on a blog? All you care about is thumbs up and getting approval from others. How sad is that? I am hardly the fool here, because I don't take myself seriously, whereas you obviously do. Pathetic.

                      And if you are so smart, why are you wasting your time blogging when you obviously should be a writer for the Daily Show. Well? Go on. Apply smart one.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (December 04, 2009 2:19 am ET)
                        4 5
                        Yeah, right, you've only used one screen name. I don't believe you, like I said.

                        I know that Jon Stewart needed correction on that issue. I didn't think it. It wasn't my opinion. It was fact.

                        My opinion is not fact. I never said nor implied that my opinion is fact. It's too bad that you feel compelled to expose your lack of reading comprehension in such a way. The way that my "opinion" about the facts is relevant here is that I determine which subjects I am going to talk about, and which ones I should defend with factual information. It is a fact that I am often a very good defender and explainer about factual information. I am not sure why you suggest that's a bad thing, but, believe me, it's not a bad thing at all.

                        And you clearly have a bug up your butt about me, and this is about your antagonism towards me, not about anything I actually did wrong.

                        And that's your problem, not mine.

                        And how I choose to spend my time, and why I spend my time the way I do, is none of your concern, nor is it in any way relevant to any discussions we should be having here. Yet you somehow think that by attacking me, you're making valid points?

                        You're still just a whining baby, and you're still just making yourself look foolish, but please, continue. I love it when crazy fools like you get yourselves all worked up like this, and you mark yourselves as posters not to be trusted or listened to.

                        I wouldnt' care a lick if I never got another thumbs up, but it's indisputable that they are a sign of positive approval from the community if you get them all the time, or a lack of credibility if you don't get them hardly any of the time. I guess you've been a lesser recipient. I get plenty, but I don't care a whit about them. I simply happen to understand what they mean - the fact that I understand what they mean doesn't equate to me craving them, but simple-minded person you are, you somehow conclude that the fact that I understand what they mean supports your invalid allegation.

                        And yeah, I take myself seriously. I understand my capabilities and my weaknesses, and you don't seem to understand how foolish you look here - you aren't as self-aware as you appear to think you are.

                        So, please, continue to make a fool of yourself. I am thrilled to continue to help you in that process if you so choose. It's up to you!
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by bintx (December 04, 2009 10:21 am ET)
                          3 2
                          Give it a rest. Sorry, but I agree with Jollymon. You seem to think that you are the board police. You tell everyone who to ignore, when you believe that their points are "off topic," and what we all SHOULD be believing and not believing. Your take on the Stewart piece bears no semblance whatsoever to what he actually said or meant. I guess his sarcasm flew right over your head, too. As for the thumbs up crap . . . hon, I can almost guarantee that you come back often during the day just to see how many you have.

                          Oh, and I'm just me, a middle-aged lady from West Texas.

                          [BTW, you've never gotten a "thumbs up" from me . . . I find your posts to be pompous and uninformative as heck.]

                          So, just get over yourself . . . you're not nearly as important as your over-inflated ego would lead you to believe.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (December 04, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
                            2 2
                            I don't care how important or unimportant you think my posts are. When I start caring about your opinions or anyone else's, I will be sure to let you know. I'm not sure why you thought that I did care. Hopefully this post has cleared that up for you.

                            And I will continue to point out troll posts when I think it's helpful. If you don't think it's helpful to stop threads from going off topic, that's your choice. I'm baffled as to why you think that I should listen to you on that subject either.

                            And you're totally wrong about "my take" on the Stewart thing. I got his sarcasm, but he wasn't being sarcastic about the comment "it doesn't look good." He was being serious. He was clearly saying that it doesn't look good - that it's a thing that looks like a chink in the armor. And since it's not, his saying so hurts the effort. He said it puts wind in their sails. But it only does that if one buys into the rightwing spin of things.

                            It's you who had his comment fly right over your head.

                            And please, don't ever give any post a thumbs up that you don't want to, mine included. The only posts I give thumbs ups to are on long threads where I expect to come back multiple times, and I typically hit every one BUT my own so that I can later come back and find my comments as well as new comments to see if anyone has replied to me as well as new posts.

                            I don't care how many thumbs up I get. That doesn't change the fact that thumbs up ARE an indication of the community's feelings towards the credibility of the post. I don't think it in general says much about the poster, but I am sure that some people vindictively downrate other posters or reflexively uprate other posters. The ratings are mostly reflective of the quality of the post itself, as it should be, but I would continue to post exactly as I have posted if I never got another thumbs up!

                            So, you don't like me. Good. I am not posting here to make any friends. I don't care if you like my posts or not, or think that I'm pompous or not. And I am baffled as to why you think your assertion about your personal feelings towards me have any place on this site in any case. Personal attacks are out of place here.

                            And your assertion that my posts are uninformative? Clearly your personal animus has clouded your vision. But that's your failing that you need to examine.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Blueneck (December 04, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
                              3 2
                              I, for one, am grateful that you post here and commend you for almost always remaining clear headed, rational, and informative as you deal with the hordes of right wing trolls and thread derailers that contribute nothing to the discussions and exchanges here. I am certain at this point that many of them are paid to post here, or they have way too much time on their hands. I am certain that many of them post under multiple handles and recycle their identities after being banned for violation of the terms of usage--a veritable dance of sock-puppets. If they think their lame arguments and fact free rants convince anyone but their fellow dittoheads they are dumber than a packet of cheesecloth condoms. Polite, diplomatic, conciliatory, or civil goes nowhere with these a$$hats. Even if you don't need it I just wanted you to know that many of us do appreciate your posts and I personally thank you for your efforts. As for the trolls--I heard Limbaugh today recommend that you all take a bath with your toasters (don't forget to plug them in).
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by Jollymon (December 04, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
                          1 3
                          Dell, thank you for proving my point and showing that it is you who are truly foolish. Spend another ten paragraphs telling us how you AREN'T self-absorbed, arrogant and self-centered. Its priceless.

                          And thanks bintx for pointing out that fact about Dell again, its appreciated. But I'm sure Dell will just claim you are another screen name of myself. If it wasn't so funny it would be sad.
                          Report Abuse
        • Author by MiniTru (December 03, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
             
          a blooger (sic) such as thou
          Sometimes the retorts just write themselves.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Jollymon (December 04, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
              1
            Oh no! The indefensible spelling error retort! How original! I should break my fingers for such a mistake as that!

            Az long az ewe undersuud whot eye ment iz all dat matterz.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (December 03, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
      1 1
      Oh boy - Stewie's gonna' bring his A-game for his next episode
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (December 03, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
      3  
      That word TRICKERY again instead of TRICK used for the second time today.

      It is like the word dither....they all use the same words.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by markbfoot199 (December 03, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
          8
        I like this word better, investigation.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bsherman (December 03, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
             
          It's already being investigated. It took a long time to find. But my perserverance paid off and I uncovered this information in a very difficult to fin place - USA Today.

          http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html
          Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (December 03, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
          5 1
          Here a better one: RIGHTWINGLACKEY.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
    • Author by boulderhippy (December 03, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
         
      I have to give Jon Stewart credit for touching a subject that the major news networks won't even get near.

      Fox should have given him credit and produced his entire comments. Of course most of the programming on Fox is opinion and is presented as such.

      The other networks are censoring the news so they are no better than Fox.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (December 03, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
      2 10
      hahahhahaah

      The point in the story is that the press on the left is even now making fun of these e mails. I guess MMFA did not want to talk about that either.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (December 03, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
        7 1
        That could be defined as conservative missinformation, how?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (December 03, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
        8 1
        Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN who does POLITICAL SATIRE. It is his JOB to make fun of politics. He is NOT part of the "press on the left."

        However, the point of his story was that Fox truncated Stewart's SATIRICAL piece last night on how the talking heads on the right were making more out of these e-mails than exists to make it appear as if Stewart AGREES with the talking heads on the right which, of course, wasn't what he was doing at all.

        Flew right over your head, didn't it?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (December 03, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
        3  
        Wow! Jon Stewart's a journalist?!

        Seriously?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DAWUSS (December 03, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
          3 2
          Some people here call him the most trusted name in news...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (December 03, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
            5  
            But, it's because he does his political satire so well. Stewart is not a member of the "press on the left." He's an actor and a comedian who specializes in political satire.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by baba19 (December 03, 2009 10:18 pm ET)
                 
              And the major networks should have taken notes. Personally, I like watching Stewart because he'll showcase as ridiculous what the major networks pander to.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff191 (December 04, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
           
        The press on the left? Where? The village voice? air america? Trust me as someone who has viewed your great nation from Canada and Europe, all of your major news outlets usually provide a very conservative slant on things
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (December 04, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
             
          Some of us have noticed.
          Its very embarrasing to consider their output to the international communities, and the impressions of america that they give to those communities.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by jbraskin4786 (December 03, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
      6  
      Remembering what he did to Hannity a few weeks ago, Jon's going to have a classic episode tonight!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bsherman (December 03, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
         
      I can't wait till Stewart gets a hold of that video clip. Time to tear Fox & Friends a new one.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bob139 (December 03, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
         
      Just when you think Fox can't be any more sophomoric, they quote THE DAILY SHOW as a headline source of news. Think about it - In the same breath, Fox says that ABC, NBC, CBS didn't cover Climategate, but The Daily Show did. Do they not get their own absurdity?

      I mean, who's side is Fox Management on?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bob139 (December 03, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
         
      Notice how the show's producer had the graphics ready when Malkin mentioned to member sin the Obama Administration. This was obviously cordinated ahead of time.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (December 03, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
      6 1
      From a Fox News Memo:

      "When in doubt, PARSE quotes and PARSE video to make your point. Don't be afraid to flat-out distort what the source actually said. Bend and twist it to fit our agenda, as we are the arbiters of reality."

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tuersm3856 (December 03, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
      2 9
      Okay, forget Fox "News". They've been given the green light to talk about "climategate" so that it appears to be a left-right issue. Forget the leaked e-mails, the scientists under investigation and stepping down, Al Gore canceling his Copenhagen tour... Forget Ken Lay helping come up with the carbon-credit scheme...

      Why are so many of us in love with, and invested in, the concept that humans destroying the Earth? Why are so many of us willing to sacrifice our human rights, prosperity and lives?

      Is it some sort of deep suicidal programing? Is it that for all the evil we do these days we desperately need to feel self-righteous about something? (e.g.: Christians who "sin" as much as any other person, yet look down on others who maybe don't know the Bible that well or don't go to church that often)

      We all need to take a look inside ourselves and eradicate the guilt and self-hatred. Most of it is unwarranted and is simply the result of brainwashing. Love yourself, your species, and set your mind free. Don't worry. I'm not too good at it either, but I'm trying.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ruby (December 03, 2009 3:18 pm ET)
        11  
        You think attempting to make changes in our behaviors, in order to preserve the value of the earth for future generations, is suicidal programming?

        Sorry, but I think the opposite. I think that continuing to blindly pump chemicals into the environment, pour oil and garbage into oceans, pollute the air, endanger the lives of the other creatures who inhabit this world, all while ignoring the very real consequences of those actions seems more like self-destructive behavior to me. I don't think killing my planet is "setting my mind free".

        Thanks, but I'd rather take care of my home.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tuersm3856 (December 03, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
            3
          "I think that continuing to blindly pump chemicals into the environment, pour oil and garbage into oceans, pollute the air, endanger the lives of the other creatures who inhabit this world..."

          I'm with you there! I'll just put it this way: you ask the Black Panthers (civil rights), the Red Stockings (women's liberation)... legitimate grassroots movements that were unfortunately co-opted and steered into serving the very establishment these activists set out to dismantle.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (December 03, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
        5  
        tuersm3856 -
        I see what the problem is here. You apparently choose what you want to believe and adjust the facts you'll accept to fit that choice. We, on the other hand, believe what the facts show us and conduct ourselves accordingly.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (December 03, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
        7  
        Why are so many of us willing to sacrifice our human rights, prosperity and lives?

        Wow. Fearmonger much?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (December 03, 2009 5:01 pm ET)
        4  
        "Why are so many of us in love with, and invested in, the concept that humans destroying the Earth? Why are so many of us willing to sacrifice our human rights, prosperity and lives?

        Is it some sort of deep suicidal programing? Is it that for all the evil we do these days we desperately need to feel self-righteous about something? (e.g.: Christians who "sin" as much as any other person, yet look down on others who maybe don't know the Bible that well or don't go to church that often)"


        I take your comments sincerely, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Environmental concerns have absolutely nothing to do with guilt. When humans are responsible for ecological change -- whether it's the pollution of a single lake or an increase in greenhouse gases worldwide -- I could care less whether or not anyone feels guilty. What is far more pressing is what actions can be taken in the present so that as few people as possible now and in the future suffer and sacrifice as a consequence.

        The very real and frequent public assertions that concern for the environment or concern for poor people or concern for those who face discrimination must be rooted in self-hatred and guilt, frankly, seem to me to be a far more pressing concern than the dubious guilt and self-hatred that they presuppose.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by PurpleState (December 03, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
      6  
      You know, it was 67 degrees today in the Northeast. Yeah! Northeastern US! In December!

      Chances of Fox commenting on the warm weather confirming climate change? ZERO.

      It's going to snow next week up here!

      Chances of Fox commenting on the snow disputing climate change? LIKELY.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (December 03, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
        3 1
        It snowed here yesterday and we're expecting more tonight and tomorrow. Snow is also in the forecast for Houston . . . the fact that these unusual weather patterns are occurring is evidence of climate change. Global "warming" doesn't mean that everybody's weather will be unseasonably warmer . . . it means that their will be shifts in weather patterns. Tornadoes where none have occurred in the past, snow where it rarely, if ever, snows, drought in tropical areas, rain in deserts.

        When these folks on Fox tout abnormally cold temperatures, they are confirming global warming.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (December 03, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
          1  
          their????? "it means that there will be shifts in weather patterns."
          Report Abuse
        • Author by baba19 (December 03, 2009 10:39 pm ET)
             
          Thank you!
          Unfortunately, Faux will be referring to the anomalous temperatures in the 80s and the batch of e-mails as proof global climate change doesn't exist until believing in it is more profitable than oil.

          Why haven't all us "libruls" started vehemently pronouncing climate change non-believers, teaparty crazies, and (not to get too far off topic) anti- public option/single payer/universal healthcare miscreants as unpatriotic and savages? Isn't that what you do when "your president" is in power?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by srichardson (December 03, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
        4  
        I'm in Oklahoma and the past two days it's been in the 60's. The days before that it was warm enough to wear short sleeves. It's December 3rd guys. We should be freezing our cojones off. I wish these deniers (like the wonderful Inhofe from Oklahoma!) would use some common sense and look around them. It's like denying the sky is blue or the grass is green.
        And the wonderful Inhofe comment was sarcasm!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (December 03, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
          4  
          Come out to West Texas . . . we're in a deep freeze!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (December 03, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
          1  
          We feel your pain, with Inhofe as your Senator. any chance he'll leave office? Please?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (December 03, 2009 10:55 pm ET)
            2 2
            Inhofe was just reelected last year. I think we're stuck with him. He's actually going to Copenhagen next week too. Ugh.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Cephas (December 03, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
         
      What is more disturbing is how Stewart can recount the various admissions by climate change scientists that they intended to fudge the data . . . and, then just say that it doesn't really matter and that that still doesn't disprove (or, even challenge?) the theory based on that manipulated data.

      Sounds like Jon has more in common with Sen. Inhofe than he thinks.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (December 03, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
      3  
      Someone mentioned a "hoax" earlier. Haven't people been prosecuted for perpetrating hoaxes? The couple who tried to pull one recently about the kid in the balloon? Faux "News" would have an indictment running to thousands of papers and every one of the items could easily be proven in court. Of course mean old Media Matters is just nit-picking.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Rixic (December 03, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
      1  
      Quality control only applies to scenarios where the misconduct is really really really obvious. Taking words out of context like the example presented in this post does not fall under this policy. The brain dead crowd that glue themselves on Fix NotNews, due to their low cognitive complexity, could not possibly decipher such foible.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by melissa0859 (December 03, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
         
      FNC's contempt for it's own viewers is so great that they don't trust them to actually be informed. Of course, those who tune in only to have their limited view of the world reaffirmed and stroked deserve exactly what they recieve. It's the ultimate catch-22 of ignorance, and it's obviously profitable for both parties. Sad and embarrassing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by removeconsfromamerica (December 04, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
         
      You people fail to realize, guess who wrote the Cap and Trade bill? The oil companies wrote the cap and Trade Bill. The "progressive" media refuses to tell you this. Face it, anything the "liberal"establishment supports, the sheep support, you are no different than Fox news sheep yourselves.

      The oil companies wrote the Capand Trade Bill. You idiots still want this? You morons really want to be taxed 15% more on your electric bill? You tards really want this Cap and Trade garbage? Why? Because Al Gore supports it?

      You really want Goldman Sachs running this carbon exchange?
      If this email escapade stops cap and Trade, so be it. Only a real zombie would support this crap.

      i'm no wing nut, however Cap and Trade is the end of working people. It will destroy us by taxing us to death, all because Al Gore said so? Get a grip, stop being sheep
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (December 04, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
      1  
      I don't think that's what Fox News meant by "error". Their entire network is predicated upon quoting people out of context and mis-paraphrasing. Oh, and making stuff up as part of commentary, which is 80% of Fox News.

      The quote was 100% accurate...just incomplete.

      You guys are thinking that "error" means a lapse in journalistic integrity. At Fox News? Come on.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.