Debunking the NY Times' Sloppy Hit Piece on Gore

[NYCGirl]

Yesterday, Drudge breathlessly reported a coming "hit on Gore" from The New York Times. Today that hit has come, in the form of a state-of-the-art piece of slime from Bill Broad.

This may be the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting I've ever seen in the NYT. It's got all the hallmarks of a vintage Gore hit piece: half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo. As usual with these things, unless you've been following the debate carefully, you'll be left with a false impression -- in this case, that scientists are divided over the accuracy of Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH DEBUNKING HERE

For those who are (still reading), let's summarize: Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.

Broad, and The New York Times, should be embarrassed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/debunking-the-nyts-slopp_b_43310.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. K&N so more people can see it n/t

[NYCGirl]

2. Well, this is not nearly as sexy as Olbermann and his young girlfriend, so

it needs all the help it can get. Thank you!

[NMDemDist2]

8. KO has a young girlfriend???

I gotta go look for that one :rofl:

[NYCGirl]

10. The thread has been near the top of the pile all day so far, it should be easy

to find!

[n2doc]

3. Let me guess that Mo Dowd will be writing another Gore smear column soon

The NYT never has changed its tune. If Gore doesn't run I think it will be because he is convinced that he could not get his message out through the MSM "filter"

[frylock]

4. This may be the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting I've ever seen in the NYT..

welcome back from your coma. You need only check the works of one Miller, Judith to find the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting you've ever seen in the NYT, or any other rag for that matter.

Still trying to understand why the NYT and WaPo have any credibility whatsoever.

[garybeck]

5. is it an editorial or an article?

do you have a link to the NYT piece?

if it's an editorial, I'd say oh well, there you go. Also remember that the editorial page regularly publishes editorials calling for impeachment and some really good stuff so it naturally follows there will be some BS there to.

If it's an article, ala their coverage of WMD in 2003, then I say raise hell.

[NYCGirl]

7. Link to the original article — it's in the Science section and not an editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087%0A&em&en=7b7338256ee3de7a&ex=1173931200

[garybeck]

11. looks like they're "poking the bear"

maybe this will piss off Al just enough to do something about it :)

[NYCGirl]

12. Well, he will be speaking to Congress next week. NT

[RestoreGore]

15. it should piss you off to do something about it

he already is.

[garybeck]

19. are you implying

that i'm not doing anything about it?

i've been trying to do something about it for 18 years.

just look here
http://solarbus.org

[RestoreGore]

23. I'm stating doing something about this hit piece.

I wrote the NY Times to defend Mr. Gore on this issue. Did you? And I have been doing something about it for over twenty years, but that wasn't my point.

[depakid]

6. More lies from the Times

They really are trying to win the race to the bottom against the Post.

Their Owner and especially their editors should be ashamed of the roles they've played in bringing us Bush, potential financial chaos and of course- a disastrous war.

[Cha]

9. It's the Ol'

Gray Whore.

Gore is taking his case to the people and bypassing the mediawhores who have screwed him in 2000(as long as I've known) through 2007.

Recommended.

[NYCGirl]

13. Kick

[suffragette]

14. Nicely done

Very clear and comprehensive debunking of the NYT article.

As to the NYT article itself, I think some people are becoming afraid, very afraid of Gore.

[EC]

16. I have to wonder

exactly what would be the motivation of the scientists that are putting out the warnings about globel warming? What do they have to gain?

They have no agenda, no motivation other than to warn, so why is there still an arguement from the oil companies, the ones who DO have something to gain and a motivation to make people take their side. THEY have the agenda...So maybe we have to remind people that the oil companies have a vested interest, where the scientists do not...

[NYCGirl]

17. The Oil Lobby is willing to pay any "scientists" $10,000 to deny reality:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/

[EC]

21. Yes, I know that,

I guess I asked the wrong way...I'm wondering what they think Al Gore's and the scientists warning about global warming, agenda is...what does Al Gore have to gain, or the scientists? They don't benefit from warning the people...there's no motive other than trying to correct the problem...they don't make money from any lobby to cut fuel consumption, so what exactly is the evil the non-believers are accusing us (Al Gore and scientists and believers) of gaining? Anyone paying them?

[NYCGirl]

22. The wingnuttiest of them thinks that the Global Warming fighters want to somehow

bankrupt the US (of course, they never seem to figure in all the money that can be made with new technology). If the oil companies are willing to shell out (no pun intended), they're worried about losing their bankrolls.

[Canuckistanian]

18. Both articles should be saved

As an illustration of how they use the same arguments time and time again.

An excellent debunking.

[NYCGirl]

20. It is excellent work. NT

[Blue_Tires]

24. ttt n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. This is not a "hit piece"

They interviewed a couple scientists who have some minor disagreements with some of Gore's points, but they all generally stand behind him.
Broad sought a diverse sampling of opinion and got some diverse opinions.
This is not a "hit piece".

[kay1864]

26. From the HuffPo blog comments...

"It seems to me the next step is letters to the NYT editors and ombudsman about this grossly biased example of "balance."

I couldn't agree more.