Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

recently I asked if the media could be sued & most answers were

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 11:28 AM
Original message
recently I asked if the media could be sued & most answers were

no

so today I'm asking HOW can we sue the media for withholding info and knowingly changing info?

what makes me bring up the idea again was this KOS article:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/10/171218/386

The NOAA & the White House

If you saw climate scientists on the cable news shows and in the paper shortly after Katrina claiming that global warming wasn't a factor in the increased number of hurricanes last fall, odds are, you saw what one expert source told me was 'the most disgusting example of politically motivated deliberate disinformation I've ever witnessed".

-snip-

Just as an example of one of the ways the wool can be pulled over the eyes of the public; conflate 'hurricane' with 'storm'. The number of tropical depressions forming off the coast of Africa won't be changed by localized warming in the western Atlantic and Gulf. But any storms that subsequently pass over those waters will most certainly be affected. A tropical depression may become a category 1 Hurricane, a Category 1 may intensify to a Category 4. Therefore, since a hurricane is defined by intensity, it would be disingenuous to imply that warming would not increase the number of hurricanes.

-snip-

Reliable DarkSyde government climate science sources confirm to me that in their own experience, and to best of their knowledge about coworkers, scientists holding the consensus view, that warming is a factor in hurricane intensity, were effectively muzzled, while others who were willing to present a minority view among climate researchers and storm meteorologists were given the greenlight to appear on cable news in the aftermath of Katrina. Several have told me that they were more or less 'warned' not to talk to the press and the directives came through unofficial channels leaving no paper trail.
-snip-
--------------------------------


are we too stupid to figure out how to stop the bushmilhousegang media.

or, if not stop, then have an alternative media speaking out every time the bushmilhousegang media lied and spun.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. The problem will be that there are contradictory studies out there...
...which support both sides of the issue. Of course, when you look at the studies that reject global warming, they're probably commissioned by the very industries that are the worst polluters. But it seems that the "potential conflict of interests" approach to evaluating truth doesn't count for much anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. the problem is the gagging of scientists by the bushmilhousegang


and the murdering of scientists by the bushmilhousegang

(wonder what the death count is re: journalist vs. scientists)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. What issue do you think has the best chance of success in court?
The murder of scientists and journalists? The gagging of scientists and journalists? The actual lies being told? I think they're all worthy of litigation but which one is most likely to succeed?

These people are murderers and they have the full resources of the federal government behind their crimes. There is no way to prove the crimes. And, if whistleblowers a) are willing to come forward and b) can make it through both the figurative and literal attempts at assassination to testify in court, there are still the muddy waters of our theories versus their theories to navigate. Can it be done? I just don't know. I've lost faith in the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is a consumer issue. A new supplier (Al Jazeera) will appear soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC