If anyone thinks that it's kind of weird how one news story after another seems tied to the threat of climate change—or climate crisis (!), or climate emergency (!)—your intuition is onto something. People need to be made aware of the left-wing organization called
Covering Climate Now, an advocacy initiative founded by the
Columbia Journalism Review,
The Nation, and
The Guardian (UK). This fear-mongering propaganda group consults, advises, and supports (i.e., feeds stories to) nearly 500 media outlets around the world, with an audience of two billion readers or listeners. Of course, it is funded by several of the usual left-leaning and progressive charitable-funding foundations and mainstream and legacy media organizations.
Some of its partners include:
- MAINSTREAM MEDIA: CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC News, CNN, PBS News Hour, Reuters, etc.
- MAGAZINES & JOURNALS: Nature, Scientific American, Rolling Stone, HuffPost, Mother Jones, New Scientist (UK), The Intercept, Newsweek, Maclean's (Canada), The Independent (UK), etc.
- NEWSPAPERS: Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, Miami Herald, Seattle Times, Toronto Star (Canada), etc.
- RADIO & PODCASTS: Gimlet Media, Global Dispatches, Crooked Media, Post Script Media, Science Friday, etc.
Remember the Trusted News Initiative, that global coalition of Big Tech as well as Big Media organizations designed to combat disinformation (like Hunter Biden's laptop)? Yeah, it looks like we have another version of that with this Covering Climate Now collusion. It's all about getting the media coverage needed to propagate scary scenarios about a climate crisis that's about to hit us. For real. This time. Soon.
Stephen H. Schneider said it best in a 1989 interview with
Discover magazine:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method—in effect, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And, like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.)
Mainstream, legacy, and social media continue to hemorrhage credibility.