L.A. Times will no longer print letters that deny climate change

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Oct 21, 2013.

  1. mocgator

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +552
    The government medial complex rolls on. This is George Orwell at it's finest. "We'll tell you what to think and believe." It's now OK to censor opinions or facts when you don't agree with them or they don't fit your agenda. Especially when there is a mountain of empirical evidence proving that the Global Warming extremists are wrong.

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...onger-print-letters-that-deny-climate-change/

    The Los Angeles Times will no longer publish letters from climate change deniers, Times letters editor Paul Thornton wrote earlier this month.

    “Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published,” Thornton wrote. “Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”

    “Thornton’s decision could well leave a few editors wondering if they should follow suit,” Graham Readfearn writes in the Guardian.

    Elaine McKewon, the author of an Australian study of newspaper coverage of climate change, told Readfern she hoped the Times’ decision would give “other mainstream media outlets the courage to stop appeasing the climate denial noise machine.”
  2. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,654
    Likes Received:
    2,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,314
    Pravda-West has spoken and Communism is the next rule of law.
  3. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,734
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,760
    what? they won't run letters with factual inaccuracies? That's Orwellian! That's Pravda! That's Communism!!!!
  4. JohnC1908

    JohnC1908 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Neptune Beach, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +786
    If that were only the case. Lots of questions on this subject and to only print what they agree with seems to be a bit shady.
  5. wgbgator

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,805
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,523
    Why "shady?" The LA Times is a private entity. If they wanted to, they could just print pictures of cats, or do away with the "letters to the editor" section altogether. Its certainly within their rights to set the ground rules in their own forum, in this case the terms of debate adhering to a consensus view among scientists.
  6. fredsanford

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,834
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,131
    Nor should they print letters that defy the existence of gravity.
  7. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,734
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,760
    but what if, deeply in your heart, you're convinced that gravity does not exist and claims of it are simply a communist plot? or maybe a muslim one?

    Actually, I'm not sure I agree with the Times on this. But eventually, you have to draw a line. The Times-Union is still running letters claiming that Congress is exempt from the ACA.
  8. harwil

    harwil Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +134
    Is this still owned by Sam Zell, or has it gone through bankruptcy?
  9. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,094
    Likes Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,006
    the definition of fact seems to be a subjective one though and when it comes to global warming the only fact is that a LOT of people have made a LOT of money from the public that could have been put to productive uses but enriched those who presents theories as facts and then scramble to change the facts later when their theories prove to be inaccurate.

    Some people (quite a few in fact) would tell you it is a fact that Jesus is the son of god and the only way to not burn in he11 for eternity is to accept him as your personal savior. Should they quit printing editorials that espouse anything different?
  10. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    While there are many opinions on global warming, there is agreement on the cause of "smog" and Times employees have likely sucked down enough. Does that explain any of the nonsense?
  11. channingcrowderhungry

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,766
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Ratings Received:
    +675
    Similar to the time there was discussion about having separate sub forums on Too Hot for each political party, only a true fool would want to isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints, no matter how ignorant they think that viewpoint is.
  12. GatorFanCF

    GatorFanCF Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,908
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +789
    * If it's a private enterprise they can do whatever they desire, good or bad as long as they're not violating law.
    * I give them credit for announcing their position rather than just stonewalling letters - at least you know
    * I have nothing more to add; but, it seems like a stronger position if there are 3 bullet points.
  13. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,654
    Likes Received:
    2,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,314
    Nor is there the existence of trickle-up economics.
  14. gatorchamps0607

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    39,984
    Likes Received:
    746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,711
    And how do you know its factually inaccurate? Ill keep it easy for you so you don't have to strain yourself, you don't.
  15. sappanama

    sappanama VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,521
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +140
    can you link to those facts, not just an interpretation of data, but facts that are not assumptive and questionable. Now, I do think that we have an effect but I have not seen factual proof. The facts seem to be more on the side of natural cycles as the predominate player than co2 emissions due to cars and planes etc... otherwise why aren't the climate alarmists riding bikes and sailing across the seas rather than flying and using gas/diesel powered boats
  16. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,654
    Likes Received:
    2,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,314
    It's narrow minded and set in stupidity.
  17. wygator

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,284
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +817
    Classical logical fallacy of arguing from authority.

    Lazy way out.
  18. GatorRade

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,773
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +591
    Well, it's better than the Daily Mail's strategy of simply reporting all climate studies as skeptical, regardless of their actual nature.
  19. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,824
    They won't run letters that blaspheme the church of climate change. Unless you are so utterly daft as to think climate change is on par with, I don't know, GRAVITY, then the word "consensus" only means science isn't taking place, yet this is the only word you hear climate change "scientists" say.
  20. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,824
    And lo and behold, someone so ignorant of science that they actually do think "climate change" is on par with gravity. That is "climate change", formerly global warming. Notice how gravity doesn't need to get renamed every 10 years to keep up with its imploding credibility.

Share This Page