It's getting hot in here

I was reading the local newspaper this past Sunday morning, and almost fell out of my chair laughing. My local paper employs a democratic hack for their senior editorial page writer. I can barely read his column anymore, even though I will give him credit for at least admitting his bias. Last summer he concluded a column by stating that there are some people who believe democrat equals good and republicans equal evil, and then proudly stated he was one of them. One point for honesty, one million points for political bias.
On Sunday said author began his column with the following rhetorical question:

Q: Do this country's news organizations have a greater obligation to their readers and viewers or to the federal government?
A: Are you kidding?

I reached the same rhetorical answer, but for what I'm sure are vastly different reasons. The reason I view the reply as ridiculous is the two options he offers are both wrong. The real joke lies in the obvious answer as to where a news organization's obligations lie. They lie neither with their readers and viewers nor government of any kind. Is it just me, or is the obvious answer that a reporter's obligations are to the truth - government and readers be damned?

If the truth hurts the government, or if it hurts readers, so what? After all a reporter's job is to report, isn't it? But I guess I'm asking too much from the modern mainstream media. Anyone with a brain should be completely disgusted with their unparalleled bias so blatantly displayed during the recent election season. Of course, if you're of the democratic persuasion, as many of my family and friends are, you probably view the pig-sty of campaign reporting as a fair and balanced overview of the natural order of all things. Or to put it another way, democrat good, republican evil. Not convinced? How about the doctored photos from the recent Israel/Lebanon war? Hundreds of examples. Blatant. Patent. Lies.

I could go on and on about the obvious political bias of the media at the expense of the truth, but even though I could fill volumes, I don't really have the time to type up about 30,000 pages. [Editor's note: Thank God!] So I'll just pick one off the top of my head. The great global warming hoax.

That's right, you heard me. The Great Global Warming HOAX!

Is the globe warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one really knows for sure, that's because science isn't even close to coming up with a definitive answer. By the way, that part isn't the hoax. That part's the truth. Take a moment to think back when was the last time you heard that reported. Personally I can't recall the last time I heard it reported that the majority of scientists either had no position or weren't yet convinced. What is printed however is Al Gore and his entourage endlessly repeating that science has concluded there is a problem, the time for science is over, and the time for politics is now.

He usually adds that all serious scientists agree; which implies only nut cases, lunatics and the such could possibly disagree with him and his proponents. He even likes to trot out the old "flat earth society" cliche to further ridicule his opponents. Not that there is anything wrong with a politician arguing politics. I would expect nothing less from Mr. Gore, just as I would expect nothing less from the right wing hacks spouting off all kinds of scientific mumbo-jumbo. My point is, no one in the media is asking Mr. Gore to back up his claim that everyone agrees with him. Not one single news source has the testicular fortitude to question what is so obviously a lie. Allow me: "Mr. Gore, why do you insist that less than 50% of the scientific community constitutes the vast majority of scientists?" I'm not holding my breath.

Reporters may or may not have an opinion on global warming. They may think that by spreading the message they are helping inform the public. They may even convince themselves they are doing their part to save the future of the world. Whatever their reasoning, one thing they are not doing is reporting the truth. In this example, reporters may believe they are obligated to their viewers at the expense of the government. But in reality, they are obliging their political affiliations and the environmental movement at the expense of their viewers. Which means, we all lose.

We all lose because shoddy science is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of real science. The truth is not even up for consideration. Again, is global warming a reality or not is a matter of science, yet to be determined. The fact that Al Gore and the environmentalists are allowed a free pass to discredit the majority of the scientific community is awful. The real victim in this case is the truth. So I ask any and all reporters once again, where do your allegiances lie, with your views and readers or with the government, or with the truth?