2011-06-08 07:52:07Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Dana Nuccitelli

Post discussing the US media interviewing primarily those who oppose GHG regulation:

Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation

2011-06-08 10:11:16First graph
John Hartz
John Hartz

The description should include the year the survey was taken.

2011-06-08 10:18:50
Alex C


• I think that the several hyperlinks embedded into "On top of all that, polls have consistently shown that over 70%" are rather... hidden(?) - just the way I would do something like that: "(such as here, here, and here)."  Not a big deal either way.

• "of the 199 guest interviews on these network news programs, only two might be classified as climate scientists" - since this is only about Michaels, perhaps a better way to phrase this to remove the confusion as to what *exactly* is the subject:

"of the 199 guest interviews on these network news programs, only two might be classified as interviews with climate scientists"

Otherwise it seems that the interviews are being called climate scientists.

• The EPA Regulation section seems empty, and out of place in the discussion.  There aren't any figures about media imbalance, so I'm not sure why it is in there, especially without any links to sources that could back up your points.

• "Lest we lay all of the blame on Fox, while the network and its affiliates are responsible for a large proportion of the imbalance in question, there also appears to be a failure amongst other networks to adequately cover the subject."

Hm, not sure if "lest" is the right word here, as it's most closely synonymous to "In case," and I don't think that fits with the structure of the sentence as well as maybe "Before" or "Though we may lay all..."


That seems to be it, I like it.

2011-06-08 10:30:42
Dana Nuccitelli

Good comments, thanks guys.  I'm keeping the EPA Regulation section, but changed the name to 'Validity of Criticisms'.  I'm trying to clarify that I'm not saying there are no valid criticisms of EPA GHG regulations, because there are.  The problem is that most of the critics also oppose better solutions.  It's an important point - they're not objecting because GHG regulations are inefficient, they're objecting because they oppose all solutions.

2011-06-08 12:00:20
Andy S


Dana, Joe Romm posted on this earlier today.

I haven't read either article closely to see if you and Joe cover the same ground or not. I'm just adding this link in case you missed it.

2011-06-08 14:07:21
Dana Nuccitelli
Yeah I saw the article on CP first, but thanks Andy. We cover a lot of the same ground, but I prefer the way my post is organized :-) I tried to tie it in with the various consensuses too, so it's a bit different.