I was listening to the podcast of the April 8th edition of NPR’s On The Media today, and just had to retch at the interview with John Stossel. The 20/20 anchor was on the program to defend the side of the “Global Warming Is Nonsense” contingent. Here are a couple of exchanges that brought me up short: #

BROOKE GLADSTONE: You don’t believe that is the case [that the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming poses a serious danger]. The consensus seems to be clear. Why don’t you believe it? #

JOHN STOSSEL: Because scientists tell me that the people writing the alarmist reports do not reflect the majority of scientists who really understand it; that the way you characterize it is not the way I’ve heard good scientists characterize it; and that the idea and the tone of voice you use is very telling – it’s saying “Yes, there’s a crisis. How can you refute that? You’re such a jerk.” #

Really? Which scientists? Stossel never says, and Gladstone never asks. She’s diverted effectively by his whine that she’s pre-judging him, but instead of taking it like a man and countering her with evidence, he just complains that she’s implying that he’s a jerk. #

Look, maybe it’s true that Stossel’s contacts in the scientific community are right to pooh-pooh the evidence. I’m willing to hear them out. But how are we to know or judge their claims without knowing who they are or why they believe the way they do. This is sloppy he-said, she-said journalism, completely unenlightening and not at all informative. Stossel’s rhetoric is hollow; it just sounds like he’s making a point. #

But here’s the thing that really almost made me throw my iPod against the wall. Keep in mind here that Chrichton has been belittling environmental science of late… #

BROOKE GLADSTONE: In December, you featured novelist Michael Crichton on 20/20, and you praised him for contradicting something most people believe and fear. You went on to say that environmental organizations are fomenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money. Why use a fiction writer to refute the scientific community? #

JOHN STOSSEL: Because he’s famous, and he’s interesting, and he’s smart, and he writes books that lots of people read, and I could interview the scientists for 20/20, but more people will pay attention when this particular smart fiction writer says it. #

Sweet Jeebus, John… do you hear yourself? You’ve just told us that you don’t particularly care about Crichton’s scientific credentials or the worthiness of his argument. All you care about is that he’s famous. That response tells me more about your character and values than anything about the nature of your argument. I think it’s the stupidest, most baldly cynical thing I’ve ever heard anyone in the media say… and that’s saying something. #

Don’t know if I get a vote in this, but Stossel’s my choice for Wanker of the Week. #

#

• No Related Post

Tuesday, April 12th, 2005 @ 8:20 pm Rants, Truth Matters
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.