Before I get down to my topic, I should note one thing. I know that newspaper filler (stuff they throw in to fill up space) does not reflect real editorial or news biases. Newspaper filler is just that–filler. And, I should be clear, it is humble filler stuffed into the Post-Dispatch about which I am fulminating. All I can say is this is Saturday, and I don’t want to think about the big stuff all the time! I just wanna gripe abut the unacknowledged (maybe even unconscious) rightwing bias in our news media!
The particular filler in question is actually more humble than my disclaimer makes clear since it is in a sometime segment called TV Note, located under the weekend television listings. It is an article titled “Penn & Teller are Cold on Global Warming” by Glenn Garvin. It is much condensed and reprinted from the Miami Herald. If you are interested in the full article it can be found here. I hasten to add that there doesn’t seem to be any redeeming value to be gleaned from the full content.
This article reviews a Showtime TV program by the comedians Penn & Teller that aims to get laughs by debunking the threat of climate change. All well and good; that is their right. It is even the right of the reviewer, Garvin, to agree with this point of view.
The problem lies with the way that Garvin expresses his unapologetic bias. He simply launches into his own climate-change denying diatribe, treating all his assertions as fact:
Consider it a certainty that the Climate Police will lock up Penn & Teller after the show. Not only does it feature interviews with some scientists who aren’t totally sold on the idea that the Earth is toast, it whispers an even more inconvenient truth: A lot of the scariest global-warming tales are told by people who stand to make a buck by scaring you.
According to Garvin, GE is one of the evil corporate interests seeking to scare us because:
GE has invested massive amounts of money in solar panels, wind power and other so-called clean-energy technologies for which there will be virtually no consumer demand unless Congress passes laws requiring them.
Don’t you think that if Garvin were interested in being even-handed, he might note that while there are a few dead-enders out there in the scientific community (and even a couple of respectable thinkers) that question some of the assumptions connected with climate-change predictions, there are hundreds who confirm the direness of our environmental situation? (For a summary of the research and references to articles and documentation look here.)
It may be true that GE has invested in energy alternatives–not surprising since any fool can see what is coming. However, if Garvin were being even-handed, wouldn’t he note that oil companies, like ExxonMobil have invested far more heavily in keeping just this type of doubt about climate-change alive? And by propagating just the type of specious argument that Penn and Teller and Garvin offer?
I only ask about even-handedness since Mr. Garvin seems to be very concerned about it. He notes that GE owned NBC has embraced green culture in its programming, including its news operations, and is surprised that Brian Williams does not consider the green emphasis to be news manipulation:
…”I’ve got no problems with it. It’s not any different than The New York Times editorial board sitting down and saying the newspaper is going to do a series of stories on some particular subject.”
Garvin’s response:
Maybe, if The New York Times were owned by, say, Halliburton, and the board of directors ordered up a series on, say, the need to invade Iraq.
.
The author of this piece, Glenn Garvin, is a libertarian, a frequent contributor to Reason, who, before becoming the TV-Critic at the Miami Herald, headed up their Managua Desk. Evidently, he is still pushing his political viewpoints while writing about entertainment.
Let me be clear, if this were an overt opinion piece openly concerned with climate-change, all of this would be acceptable–not intellectually defensible, but journalisticaly so. In a TV review, even a TV review about comedians addressing climate-change, it is not acceptable, and the Post-Dispatch dropped the ball by including it–even if just to fill up space in an area they clearly think no-one reads.
both to Garvin and to the Post-Dispatch. I hit them hard last weekend about a story that relied on a trucking industry spokesman, while ignoring lots of data that a safety expert wanted to give them. They should be aware that somebody is aware when they’re screwing up.
P.S. Love the title.
While I greatly respect Penn & Teller for their insane cabaret routines involving powertools, and even their PSA’s, it is important to note the Showtime series “Bullshit” (aka “Pell & Teller’s Bull”) is entertainment, pure and simple.
It is not expose. It is not documentary. It not news reportage. Rather, it has passing elements of all these things mixed together to be as entertaining as possible, whether or not the show’s premise (e.g. climate change is bunk) is factually accurate or not. Indeed, the show has a history of manhandling various advocacy causes (e.g. PETA and animal cruelty, war on drugs, recycling), where the primary intent is to attract attention and viewership.
Consistent with this trend, it looks the latest show has attracted folks with ingrained biases against the climate change, who are now promptly airing their biases.
Do people really expect Showtime comedy programming to lift the veil of all the world’s greatest scams? Sheesh.
since we don’t subscribe to any cable stations. I have some vague memories of seeing them in some vague, far distant past and thinking that they were funny.
You are right, though, that this review was far more concerned with the author’s beliefs about climate-change than with Penn & Teller (although to be fair, in the fuller form in the Miami-Herald there were a couple more lead-in paragraphs extolling Penn & Teller commedy routines in general).