maggiekb at May 2nd, 2014 14:47 — #1
franko at May 2nd, 2014 15:14 — #2
i'm honestly surprised he went along with the suggestion to pick something else. i mean, they asked, and he's the scientist, and that was his answer.
jandrese at May 2nd, 2014 15:40 — #3
It's not like he's some special witness here. If he said no they would have just found someone else to take his place.
maggiekb at May 2nd, 2014 15:47 — #4
Personally, as a fellow journalist, I think he did the right thing. He was able to be a voice for real science in a place that doesn't get enough of it AND he was able to publicly point how how that place filters what news its viewers see.
nell_anvoid at May 2nd, 2014 15:50 — #5
By now, this type of ludicrous behavior at Fox should simply be expected. The on-camera nincompoops are only marching to the orders of Roger Ailses, There is little to no real reporting on actual events unless they fit the neocon-tea party narrative. Everything else gets sneers, inane banter aimed at your crazy bigoted old uncle and hysterical, paranoid aunt...or good old fashioned lies and misdirection. The audience knows what its getting and they are fine with it. They buy into it because they want to buy into it. Factual discussions about climate would induce severe cognitive dissonance that would ruin everyone's day. Such stuff does not get programmed.
The challenge for any good scientific communicator is how to slip some things past the director and leave the couch bozos fumbling for words...or at a complete loss. Such commentary is a much needed art form these days.
imb at May 2nd, 2014 15:53 — #6
FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!...Oh wait, he probably doesn't have racist things to say, carry on.
franko at May 2nd, 2014 15:54 — #7
well, sure, i get that. but wouldn't standing up for your principles have been the better option?
franko at May 2nd, 2014 15:55 — #8
ok, this makes sense to me. nice rationale - this works for me.
boundegar at May 2nd, 2014 15:55 — #9
I'm surprised they let him talk about science at all, instead of having him give an opinion on Benghazi.
jeff_fisher at May 2nd, 2014 16:22 — #10
The only reason I might possibly think that what he has done is better than agreeing, then talking about climate change anyway (those morning shows are live, right?) is that perhaps it will get even more attention this way.
gilbertwham at May 2nd, 2014 18:26 — #11
What the fuck is this Benghazi carry-on? I've seen nowt in the news in Merrie Olde Englande. Does that mean it's completely made-up, or true, or what?
ratel at May 2nd, 2014 18:26 — #12
He's paying the price now:
Scientific American Editor Flooded With Hate Tweets After Fox News Targets Him
Only because it happened a day ago
Fox News Ditches Obama Presser Because Reporters Not Asking About Benghazi
This is good news, of course. It means that Obama has won completely on Obamacare. It's basically a white flag and prostrate begging.
boundegar at May 2nd, 2014 18:56 — #13
EDIT: Misunderstood your question.
American diplomats were killed in Libya. The opposition has been trying for over a year to find a reason it's Hillary Clinton's fault. It's on right wing radio every frekin day, while the rest of us have moved on.
johnbrooks69 at May 2nd, 2014 20:35 — #14
Do Boing Boing readers vote? I know it seems like a waste of time, and many of the folks I vote for lose, but somehow we have to defeat this anti science , anti education movement that is turning the US congress into a juggalo gathering. (Some offense intended) Problems that could be solved (lets go solar) are ignored and we are going to sink unless people who want progressive change show up this November.
thecorrectline at May 2nd, 2014 21:21 — #15
How do politics work when a very small percentage of the populace control a very large percentage of absolutely everything? Badly.
The Koch brothers are supposed to have 2 votes between them. A more accurate # would likely range into the millions. Add Ailes, Murdock, etc and you see how progressives have an uphill battle, even with every progressive casting their vote.
imb at May 3rd, 2014 06:57 — #16
Yeah, plus I love how offense is intended as if everyone else but the commenter hasn't participated in their civic duty. The problem is that they have, and in spite of votes, policies are drawn for those like you mentioned, but the voters receive the blame.
the_borderer at May 3rd, 2014 10:00 — #17
Personally no. I am disillusioned with the whole system and have been for a while, although it took until a year or two ago for me to realise that I was libertarian-socialist.
I remember this quote from Stuart Craft, an Oxford city councillor when he announced he wasn't going to stand again.
I couldn’t stand on people’s doorsteps any more, telling them we were going to change things when that wasn’t going to happen.
If the politicians can't make a difference, then what is the point of voting? We don't need a new party running things, we need a new system!
billstewart at May 3rd, 2014 22:49 — #18
Well, duh! If you've got a show called "Fox and Friends", the obvious question is "Ok, so who are Fox's Friends, and what do they want to have covered on the news?" And somehow none of their friends want anybody covering climate change, especially if they're saying it'll do bad things for a long time unless we do something now to stop it.
crenquis at May 3rd, 2014 23:30 — #19
This article is nothing but a smear campaign!
I am shocked that the denizens of Boing Boing would impugn the integrity of Fox and Friends -- their commitment to telling the truth and nothing but the truth is beyond reproach.... Just look at how they have provided their viewers factual data about the ACA:
silkox1 at May 4th, 2014 13:31 — #20
next page →