Only yesterday the Guardian had an editorial about climate change, which commenced with the words "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is the mantra of the courtroom, but it is also the motivating ideal of good science – as well as good journalism".
Today we have an article by Anushka Asthana, Policy Editor, reporting on the fact that six of the Shadow Cabinet are climate sceptics. Quoting Tim Montgomerie, Editor of Conservative Home, the article states him saying "Some think, 'What is the point in taking all these decisions if India and China and others row ahead?"
Yet nowhere in the article does it point out that those querying the point of taking 'all these decisions' are, in fact, wasting their time. Nowhere in the article does it point out that decisions to reduce carbon emissions are dictated by the EU and that our politicians have no option but to implement those decisions.
Surely if good journalism is about writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then should not mention of the 'EU effect' have been made? To be fair, the Guardian is not the only newspaper guilty of what can only be described as 'sloppy' journalism - and this sloppiness can be considered as presenting 'skewed' information, in the same way that the climate 'scientists' also stand guilty of 'skewing' information.
No comments:
Post a Comment