Climate change was almost entirely absent from the political discourse this election season, receiving less than an hour of TV coverage over three months from the major cable and broadcast networks excluding MSNBC. By contrast, those outlets devoted nearly twice as much coverage to Vice President Joe Biden's demeanor during his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan. When climate change was addressed, print and TV media outlets often failed to note the scientific consensus or speak to scientists.
A two-part Media Matters examinantion of the largest newspapers in CO, NH, NV, OH, PA and VA from July 1-August 15 and from August 16-October 31, 2012 revealed a variety of shortcomings in the way clean energy and regulatory issues are covered by those publications.
On Sunday, the Denver Post published an op-ed about climate change by Americans For Prosperity's Sean Paige, but did not disclose AFP's close ties to the Koch brothers -- fossil fuel magnates who benefit financially from convincing the public that our consumption of fossil fuels is a harmless indulgence with no ill effects. The companion counter-argument by children's author and astronomer Jeffrey Bennett tellingly noted "Despite any debate you may hear in politics or the media, there is no scientific doubt that global warming is tilting the odds the wrong way."
In his op-ed, Paige suggests that we are simply experiencing "natural" "climate fluctuation" and argues that the specter of "climate change" is "the ultimate all-purpose excuse" to evade responsibility for disaster or increase regulations.
Deriding Americans concerned about climate change is nothing new for AFP. Nor is it surprising, if one knows that AFP was founded and bankrolled by David and Charles Koch, whose Koch Industries is a major player in fossil fuel markets. The Denver Post's failure to explain what AFP is, which speaks to Paige's potential agenda and the trustworthiness of his claims, is a significant breach of the duties it owes to its readership.
Furthermore, in providing Paige and AFP such a prominent platform, the Post has contributed to an unfortunate national trend in failed media coverage of the wildfires in the West - ignoring or diminishing how climate change increases the risk of fire there. Paige's column dismisses the effects of climate change as a "cop-out," and completely ignores significant research indicating climate change has contributed to warmer and drier conditions. A study by the U.S. Global Change Research Program sums it up:
Wildfires in the United States are already increasing due to warming. In the West, there has been a nearly fourfold increase in large wildfires in recent decades, with greater fire frequency, longer fire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. This increase is strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, which have caused drying of soils and vegetation.
Denver Post columnist and local radio host Mike Rosen drew criticism this week when he questioned the citizenship status of President Obama. Media Matters looks back at his long record of extreme and hateful rhetoric.
Within the last 7 days, the Denver Post has published two opinion pieces on voter ID laws, specifically arguing for why Colorado needs one. Both pieces rehash common myths about voter ID laws, including the popular conservative argument that the number of citizens without an ID card is too small to be significant and the false equivalency that because you need identification to do a multitude of other things, such as "travel by air" or "operate a motor vehicle," then it's reasonable that you should need one to vote. From this morning's Denver Post editorial:
The case has been made that voter ID laws could disenfranchise a significant number of eligible voters, disproportionately harming minorities, seniors and low-income voters.
Those were among the arguments made by 16 Democratic U.S. senators, including Colorado's Michael Bennet, who last summer asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to examine voter ID laws in various states. [...]
A 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a voter ID law in Indiana, a state that also does not fall into the higher-scrutiny category, made it clear there wasn't anything inherently discriminatory about requiring voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot. [...]
So long as it is paired with administrative adjustments to help those voters who want to get an ID, we think it would be a positive step toward ensuring those who show up at the polls are who they say they are. There's nothing wrong with that.
Despite the Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that is cited by the editorial board, these laws are restrictive to voters. A study of new voter ID laws passed last year alone show that another 5 million citizens will be impacted in the upcoming election -- especially the elderly and communities of color.
The Denver Post's editorial board claims there is nothing wrong with voter ID laws, "so long as it is paired with administrative adjustments" to help voters acquire ID cards; the board is essentially agreeing to impose a burden on people who wouldn't have been previously burdened -- all to stop a non-existent problem. As the Brennan Center for Justice found in its 2007 study of voter fraud, the allegations of widespread voter fraud "do not pan out." Even prominent voices in favor of voter ID laws, such as Hans Van Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation, have previously admitted that there is not "massive fraud" in elections.
Mike Rosen, an opinion writer for the Post, also weighed in on voter ID laws in a column from last Thursday. From the Denver Post:
Across the nation, Americans are routinely required to show a photo ID when they travel by air; operate a motor vehicle; buy alcohol at a liquor store, restaurant, bar or sporting event; write a check at a grocery store; get a job; rent a car; apply for a passport; make a credit card purchase; apply for a loan; get a marriage license; adopt a pet; open an account or cash a check at a bank; get medical care; fill a drug prescription; pick up tickets at the will-call window of a baseball park or theater; rent an apartment; close on a house; or get a hotel room, to mention just a few. [...]
How tough is it, really, to get a photo ID? There are 200 million licensed drivers in the U.S. with photo IDs. Non-drivers can secure general-purpose photo IDs at government offices. Obtaining one is much easier than a driver's license; there's no written exam or road test.
And why would anyone want to suffer the inconveniences of going without a photo ID? Only a racist or political spinmeister could claim that blacks lack the common sense to accomplish this simple task. And you can be sure that anywhere photo ID laws are passed, Democratic community organizers would be out in force getting their core voters qualified. Yes, illegal immigrants and other lawbreakers might have trouble getting a valid photo ID, but why should that bother you, unless you're a Democrat who assumes most of those people would vote for your party?
Despite Rosen's assertion that it can't be that "tough" to get a photo ID, a 2006 study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that as many as 13 million people don't have ready access to citizenship documents. Without citizenship documents, getting an ID becomes problematic and potentially expensive.
Rosen also seems to disregard the fact that identification requirements for travel, purchasing alcohol, filling a prescription, etc. are fundamentally different from voting, since the former are not constitutionally protected rights. As ACLU South Carolina executive director Victoria Middleton explained in a William & Mary Election Law Society post:
Photo IDs are required for many activities these days, from boarding a plane to purchasing a six-pack of beer. When asked if it was unreasonable to ask an individual to present an ID to vote, Middleton said, "It's not a constitutional right to buy Sudafed or become a frequent flier." She continued, "People fought and died to win the right to vote."
Last week, we noted that AM 850 conservative radio host and Denver Post columnist Mike Rosen said he supported building Park 51, the Islamic cultural center proposed in lower Manhattan, but that its construction should be "followed by the hijacking of an Iranian plane right into that building and blow it to smithereens." The comment came during a debate with Colorado based progressive author and AM 760 radio host David Sirota and KHOW's Peter Boyles.
After Rosen's bizarre endorsement of another terrorist attack in New York City sparked widespread controversy the right-wing talker devoted his entire column in today's Denver Post to a response. Rosen's excuse? He was kidding -- it was only satire!
Isn't terrorism and religious hatred hilarious?
Rosen writes (emphasis added):
Although my comment was obviously satirical, various lefties are intentionally misrepresenting it, out of context, as if this were truly my position.
My serious opinion on the mosque is a matter of record and can be found in my Denver Post column of Aug. 26, in which I wrote, "Opponents aren't arguing that government should bar the mosque on private property. They're engaging in moral suasion, urging New York Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf to abandon this location on the basis of propriety and build it somewhere else. Yes, Muslims have feelings, too, but given the religious mission of the 9/11 murderers and the inordinate loss of non-suicidal, non-Muslim life in this case, the sensibilities of survivors and families of those killed should take precedence."
This online jihad against me is just another tiresome example of the way lefties play the game. Anything goes and truth, honesty and ethics are no barrier. I'm not surprised, nor am I impressed or intimidated.
While it is hilarious to read Rosen critiquing the "honesty and ethics" of anyone, his overall response is disingenuous at best.
For a moment, let's accept Rosen's excuse that he was being satirical. What was the underlying idea behind his position? Essentially what you'd expect, that all Muslims are responsible for the extremist, terrorist actions of only a few and that building Park 51 so closely to ground zeros rankles the "sensibilities" of some.
Whose "sensibilities" are offended by the move to build Park 51? People who blame all Muslims for the events of 9-11. People like Rosen.
Satirical or not, his position on Park 51 is hateful, Islamaphobic, un-American and deeply divisive.
Speaking to Michael Roberts for Westword's media blog, Rosen also took a swipe at MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for identifying him as a Denver Post columnist when Olbermann named him "Worst Person in the World."
This spin led to the item on MSNBC's Countdown, during which host Keith Olbermann identified Rosen with the Denver Post, not KOA. That seemed wrong to Rosen, who notes that "I'm known primarily by my radio show. The fact that I write a once-a-week column in the Denver Post is nice but tangential. It goes to show that Olbermann and his people didn't do any vetting on this. They didn't make any attempt to find out if it was the truth. Maybe Olbermann believes that was my actual position, in which case Sirota is responsible for that misperception. But you'd think the staff would spend at least a few minutes to find out if that could be taken at face value or not."
Rosen used his Denver Post column to respond to the controversy over his comments at the debate and within that very Denver Post column cited a previous Denver Post column to defend his more serious thinking.
How's that for "tangential."
The word actually better describes Rosen's relationship with the truth and logical thinking.
Don't hold your breath for another debate between Rosen and Sirota. The right-wing host has firmly tucked his tail between his legs, saying he has "no interest in doing anything with David Sirota again."
Sirota provided Media Matters with the following response:
In the last few weeks, we've seen mosques desecrated, we've seen Arab Americans violently attacked for their religion, and we've seen a criminal cite right-wing talk radio as the reason he was going to kill people at a non-profit foundation. So words - especially from public figures in public forums - have real consequences, and it's frankly sad to see that Mike can't simply apologize for his crass statements. He can say people who take offense are humorless, but he hasn't explained how his comments were funny. Why hasn't he? Because they aren't funny - they were offensive and dangerous. And the reason I pointed them out was not because I have some personal desire to embarrass a local radio host here in Denver, but because I fundamentally believe that silence in the face of violent and hateful rhetoric is complicity.
You can share your thoughts about Rosen's extreme rhetoric. You can contact KOA AM 850 here, email Rosen here, or contact his sponsors here. While you are at it, you can email the Denver Post, which employs Rosen as a columnist.
Numerous media figures have pointed to a sentence from a 2001 speech by Sonia Sotomayor to characterize her or her comments as being "racist" while ignoring the point of Sotomayor's speech, which undercuts their criticisms.
Some media figures have postulated that if a white male or a conservative had made the equivalent of Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark, they would be branded a racist, "run out of town," "properly banished from polite society," or "railroaded off the [judicial] bench."
Numerous conservative media figures have misrepresented remarks Judge Sonia Sotomayor made during a speech at Berkeley in 2001 to smear her as a racist and a bigot.
Numerous media outlets uncritically reported the assertion by Sen. John McCain's campaign that Sen. Barack Obama "voted against funds for American troops in harm's way." However, none of these outlets noted that McCain himself has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor did they mention that Obama has voted in the past to provide funds for troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Denver Post, ABC News, and The Washington Post all uncritically reported that Sen. John McCain, during an August 14 appearance in Aspen, Colorado, responded to criticism that he had changed his position on President Bush's tax cuts by stating he originally opposed them because they were not accompanied by spending reductions. None of these outlets noted that when McCain voted against the tax cuts in 2001, the reason he gave in his Senate floor statement was not that they were not accompanied by spending cuts but, rather, that "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."