Scientist: Murdoch media empire has cost humanity one to two decades in battle against climate change

When the time comes, rather soon, that the members making up the AntiChrist realize they are going to lose they'll start slamming every red Destruct button they have on their desks, just as any true mental asylum Maniac would do.

If they can't have the planet then neither can Jesus.

And we're all in the middle. Crunch time soon.

Thank you for the post JanforGore. Excellent information and continued EXPOSURE of the criminal conduct of Rupert Murdock in manipulating and deceiving people all around the world.

The fate of the world, held hostage to the whims of a greedy, old, rich, fart....oughta toss him to the polar bears but I wouldn't want to be mean to the polar bears.

This is where I get depressed with my generation.
We have known this sh*t for 50 years now!
And we are still letting big oil rule our lives, like a drug.
I think the 'tippng point" occurred with the 2000 election.
It might be too late now to make much difference.
But I will continue planting trees and conserving energy for our grandchildren.
I maintain a sliver of hope that the baby boom won't be remembered as the generation that f*cked up BIG TIME!!!

Very interesting film, thanks for posting
F. Seitl , W. Nierenberg, F. Singer...what lies and deceit from this group of hacks!
This proves ...when science and politics are combined it's best to do your own research for the facts. Another fine example of mass media and ignorance!
Water melons...:):)

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/22/207940/how-rupert-murdochs-news-corp-ca...

The contrast between what News Corp.’s chairman says and what its employees actually do is a stark illustration of the company’s attempt to play both sides of the climate issue.

I have previously written about how Jack Bauer became first-ever carbon-neutral torturer as Rupert Murdoch says “Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threat.” Sarah Pavlus has more in a Media Matters repost.

“Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats,” Rupert Murdoch declared in a 2007 speech announcing News Corp.’s new climate initiative. “We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.”

“We can do something that’s unique, different from just any other company,” said Murdoch. “We can set an example, and we can reach our audiences. Our audience’s carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours.

“That’s the carbon footprint we want to conquer.”

Four years later, News Corp. has achieved its goal of carbon neutrality. Yet no media outlet in the United States does more to aggressively undermine climate science than Fox News. The network regularly distorts data, fabricates controversies, and smears climate experts. One of Fox’s top editors has even ordered reporters to cast doubt on the basic fact that the planet is warming. And Sean Hannity has used his Fox show to tell viewers that global warming “doesn’t exist.”

The contrast between what News Corp.’s chairman says and what its employees actually do is a stark illustration of the company’s attempt to play both sides of the climate issue.

When Murdoch launched his company-wide initiative to radically reduce News Corp.’s carbon footprint and combat climate change, one business expert said that it “could be one of the most brilliant strategic moves I’ve ever heard of.”

With Fox News, explained Joe Priester of the University of Southern California, News Corp. had secured a lucrative spot with conservative consumers but had alienated those at the opposite end of the political spectrum. By launching its climate initiative, the company could make a play for more liberal consumers too.

But now Murdoch’s attempt to promote — and profit from — contradictory messages on climate change could put News Corp. on a collision course with its green-conscious advertisers, as environmental organizations that have partnered with the company start to speak out on the damage being done by Fox News.

* * *

Both Murdoch and his son — heir-apparent James Murdoch, who has cultivated an image as an environmentally-savvy businessman — have heralded the financial benefits of News Corp.’s climate initiative. The company’s focus on energy efficiency has, they say, saved it millions of dollars while simultaneously cutting carbon emissions.

But News Corp.’s climate program — officially named the “Global Energy Initiative” — boosts its bottom line in another important way: it’s very appealing to advertisers.

During his 2007 launch speech, Murdoch said the initiative was, in part, about “how we develop relationships with advertisers,” later adding, “Our advertisers are asking us for ways to reach audiences on this issue.”

Three years after Murdoch’s kickoff event, Liba Rubenstein, the director of the initiative, made a similar case at a conference hosted by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “[W]e see great opportunity in incremental revenue from various companies who want to promote their own green practices on our platforms, and so it’s important for us to be a legitimate platform for that, if they’re going to spend their dollars with us,” she told attendees.

There’s an undeniable disconnect between the climate-activist image News Corp. promotes at a corporate level and the skepticism Fox News dishes out to audiences on a regular basis.

Successfully profiting off of both, therefore, requires some serious spin from corporate representatives.

In News Corp.’s annual report, shareholders are told Fox News is an “unstoppable” profit machine, with ever-increasing affiliate and advertising revenues, and a reach that spans “over 98 million Nielsen households.”

Similarly, in the run-up to negotiations with cable distributors this year, News Corp. chief operating officer Chase Carey told an investor conference, “Fox News Channel, in terms of finding a channel that has the enormous importance to its segment of the market is second only to ESPN.”

Setting the stage for significant fee increases, Carey said, “That’s what you live for in the cable business to have a channel that a sizeable segment of the audience needs to have. We head into our renewals on Fox News later this year in a big way. We have an opportunity to move Fox News to a place where we are able to capture the inherent value and importance of that channel to the marketplace out there.”

But when speaking to a different constituency — environmental advocates — News Corp.’s message changes significantly. At last year’s Pew Center conference, for example, Rubenstein actually downplayed the reach of Fox News.

In a panel discussion, the Pew Center’s Katie Mandes asked Rubenstein how News Corp. “interface[s] with Fox News,” which Mandes described as “particularly representative of the skepticism” on climate change.

In her response, Rubenstein did not deny that Fox News promotes climate change skepticism. Rather, she said it was an issue of “corporate versus editorial” and that the company would never “mandate” content in any of its businesses. Rubenstein then suggested that relatively speaking, the network wasn’t watched by very many people.

“Fox News,” said Rubenstein, “only reaches a few million”:

It’s also important to remember, we are — everyone here is very focused on the U.S., certainly the world is looking at the U.S. from a political perspective to be a leader, but for us, when we think about reaching a billion people, Fox News only reaches a few million, so, in the grand scheme of things for my initiative, when we’re talking about penetration and awareness, what we do in India and China, is also very important. I’m not going to say more important, but it certainly reaches a lot more people. So Fox News is obviously influential, but it’s not large, compared to Avatar, compared to our films and our TV shows. So, that is, for us, a lot of where we spend our time because the reach is much broader.

News Corp. has built an extremely successful cable news brand around a variety of high-profile personalities — such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck — who broadcast climate misinformation on a regular basis.

These hosts tell their audiences: “The debate’s over. There’s no global warming“; “We’re in a cooling period“; and “Do I believe scientists? No. They’ve lied to us about global warming.”

[READ: Fox News' Top 10 Lies About Climate Science]
more
____
Again, they know the facts, yet they lie for profit and they actually admit it. What happened to the investigation of them? It's been quiet the past few weeks. All forgotten now because they can buy their way out of it I suppose. At least this criminal behavior is being exposed on sites like this. But so what... because of their lying we've only done untold damage to the planet and the future. No biggie.

A new class of American has come up in the ranks. They believe in using bullying startegies to get what they want, in effect giving themselves above & beyond a "one vote" in how things are run. Onlookers began seeing their success at it and began copying it.

Successful oil cartel (news media) CEO's do it & they pull down the heavy bucks. It's really the only way to get all the food sprinkled on top of the water in this fish bowl. The other starving fish of course don't like it, but the fat fish pay for armed bodyguard fish and pay off the politician fish so... by buying off a few key fish over to their side the rest of the fish can go straight to hell whining every inch of the way.

And being laughed at. Once a society has enough people who come to this level of awareness just how to obtain more than their share of the sprinkled food, that amazingly looks a lot like thousand dollar bills, that society has reached a point of irretrievable moral decay.

And quite unsalvageable.

Think of it like this as a malignant, runaway cancer. In such a case there's only one remedy left in the grab sack and that's a lit laser scalpel. Much as it pains people to hear there's only one man big enough and smart enough to wield such a scalpel and his name is in the Bible. No mortal man has the power required for such surgery.

They've all been bought off.

At what point will we hold media and the politicians whose pockets they line criminally liable for the effects of climate change?