Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Peter Gleick (NOT) cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose

Peter Gleick (NOT) cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose

To my mind this report in the Guardian is the epitome of bad reporting and that is because the headline is not in fact substantiated by the actual story in any meaningful sense at all.

When you read a headline claiming this:

Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose

One would expect a few minor details like who has “cleared” him and on what basis that conclusion was reached.

Sadly all the good comrades at the Guardian offer in the entire piece is the vague sentence that I highlight in my screenshot below:

click for source

Struth that is as bad as saying his mum is sure that he didn’t do it and then reporting that as fact! Its truly bizzare and clearly ideological that this pudding should be so over egged in the cause of the Green religion, then again the faithful demand that their profits be seen as without sin even when their heartland is black with the pus of lies and deception.

Cheers Comrades

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Craigy says:

    Iain,

    Storm in a tea cup…..clutching at straws…..

    Even if he was found guilty, attacking him ignores what he found about the dishonest, denialists at ‘Heartland’ and the lengths they will go to in trying to distort the debate as they work against the public interest with their network of rightwing zealots.

    It is surprising that you defend a mouthpiece for corporate interests Iain, it continually surprises me the way reasonable, middle class, conservatives are backing organisations that work against their interests just because of your welded on, ideological position. I though you were smarter than that?

    While the real lying and spinning and absolutely dishonest, ideological reporting comes from the extreme right nutters in the Murdoch press (who would have thunk it hey!).

    This is disgraceful, but unfortunately this is normal for conservative behaviour in Australia these days……

    http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3507732.htm

    Violent, abusive, dishonest and completely against the public interest……I could go on….The supporters of this behaviour (extreme conservatives and the Murdoch press) should be ashamed if they have any decency at all.

  2. damage says:

    “…………….., it continually surprises me the way reasonable, middle class, conservatives are backing organisations that work against their interests just because of your welded on, ideological position. I though you were smarter than that? ”

    Oh the absolutely unbelievable irony. All said with a straight face. Bravo MrY.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    The whole point of my post was to highlight the very poor reporting in the Guardian, surely you would have to concede that the way that they have reported thsi matter in the piece that I cite is to say the least “intellectually dishonest “, it is reporting that Gleick has been “cleared” without any explanation or verifiable source for that claim. Now you can go on all of the wild cavorts that your heart desires about those evil “corporate conservatives” but it does not alter the fact that the Guardian piece is deceptive and misleading. Surely as a media man you can appreciate the argument that I’m making here.

  4. Craigy says:

    Trying to be fair Iain, I can’t see what you mean. The report was done, the paper reports the result with the caveat that they dont know what the investigation involved……

    He has admitted he lied to set them up…..

    So he is a whistle blower who has shed light on the strategy of the corporate denialists and the way they are distorting the debate with groups like heartland.

    Good work don’t you think?

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    Mate you are failing to see the wood for the trees here.
    The questions you should be asking are these:
    Who constituted the “enquiry”?
    What were its terms of reference?
    What is the evidence that he did not fabricate the document in question?

    The paper should not be reporting ANYTHING with that headline until they can back it up with a hard copy of the actual report rather than hearsay from an unnamed source.

  6. GD says:

    Even if he was found guilty, attacking him ignores what he found about the dishonest, denialists at ‘Heartland’ and the lengths they will go to in trying to distort the debate as they work against the public interest with their network of rightwing zealots.

    Oh Craigy, come on, your hypocrisy is glaring. Of course Heartland will try to discredit the hoax of global warming. And thankfully they are. They are a mouse on the mountain that is the global warming scam.

    the lengths they will go to in trying to distort the debate

    Perhaps if the global warming scammers actually allowed a debate, rather than attempting to obliterate all opposing views with claims of

    lying and spinning and absolutely dishonest, ideological reporting

    No Craigy, honest debate needs two sides to debate, not the one-sided view that you hold, whereby any disagreement is automatically ‘dishonest denial’.

    As for quoting Jonathon Holmes on Media Watch, sorry that doesn’t cut it. Holmes and Bolt and Blair have already had this one out, guess what? Holmes didn’t win.

    Time to catch up Craigy

  7. Craigy says:

    Okay Iain, I can see your point. I hope you hold every paper up to the same standard from now on. It will make it hard for you to quote your usual source’s though.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: