(Ever wonder what he’s gonna do when/if this character-based gig of his ever ends?)
Does the Montreal Gazette’s opinion page editor want you to believe that global warming isn’t happening? (And why?)
Two weeks ago, I wrote about a dodgy opinion piece that the Gazette printed called “Is Recycling Really Worth It?”. The Gazette didn’t publish my letter, but my thoughts did elicit a response from the article’s author Barry Cooper (more on that in a future post).
Today’s Gazette features an opinion piece with the unwieldy title “Documentaries are trendy, but only the sexiest - or most alarmist - survive” by Meghan Daum. The Gazette-chosen subhead reads “Al Gore’s film wasn’t much more than a PowerPoint presentation with good lighting.”
Meghan Daum’s article is full of contradictions and errors, however, as with the recycling article, what bothers me most about the 800 word screed is why the Gazette’s Opinion-Page Editor Wayne Lowrie would choose to publish re-publish it in the first place.
Daum’s article was first printed in the L.A. times over two weeks ago under the headline, “Documentaries or Propaganda?” The piece argues that while documentaries are shedding their “elitist reputation”, today’s most popular documentary directors “don’t know the difference between hammering us with their opinions and laying out the evidence so that we can decide.”
Who are the offending film makers in Daum’s opinion? Michael Moore, Morgan Spurlock and Al Gore.
I’m only going to deal with what Daum says about Al Gore, specifically this part:
Recently, there have been rumblings from the scientific community about Gore’s grasp of the details [of Global Warming].
This is simply not true.
No respected member of the scientific community is arguing that Al Gore doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Even William J. Broad’s hatchet job on Al Gore (well debunked here) includes this graf:
“[Al Gore] has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen … director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”
I think Daum’s opinion piece is actually about her discomfort with documentaries that tackle “big issues” like obesity, global warming and the Iraq War. Each of the docs that Daum lists as favourites (Capturing the Friedmans, Grizzly Man, The Staircase) deal with much smaller topics. Topics that don’t demand that their viewers do much about what they’ve just seen. That’s fine. Change can be scary. And changing your mind can be terrifying.
And while I don’t think I’ll be heading over to Daum’s place for movie night anytime soon, what bothers me most is why the Gazette would publish this article at all. Don’t we have enough homegrown opinion in Montreal? Is the Gazette is forced to buy stale L.A. Times castoffs? Articles that weren’t even that good when they were fresh? Articles that cast doubt on the science behind global warming?
You might think I’m being nit picky, but this is how denialism works. It’s sneaky. It slips under the radar with its slimy truthiness.
If you think that some well-accepted bit of science is wrong there’s one surefire way to fight it: better science. If, on the other hand, you know that the science is sound but you don’t like what is says, the way you fight it is to introduce doubt. The tobacco industry taught us that.
All of this has me wondering what the Gazette’s Opinion-Page Editor Wayne Lowrie thinks about global warming… I’m going to drop him a line and find out.
On Thursday, the Montreal Gazette printed an op-ed piece by Barry Cooper, called “Is Recycling Really Worth It?” (I put screenshots of the article above, ’cause I think you have to be a subscriber to view the Gazette online).
Although I definitely have a beef with guys like Barry Cooper, my bigger concern is with the Gazette perpetuating the spin cycle.
Barry Cooper has written before on why he thinks recycling is bullshit using, for the most part, economic models that don’t put a dollar value on animal habitat, air quality, or greenhouse gas emissions. That’s fine. You want to stick your head in the (oil) sand, go right ahead. But if you think everybody else should be facedown with you, you’d better present some damn good science to demonstrate how your ideas are good for humanity and the planet in the long run.
Unfortunately, Barry Cooper’s policy ideas don’t pass the smell test. And that’s probably because they’re downwind of the refineries…
Here’s the letter that I sent to the Gazette:
I’m not surprised that Barry Cooper thinks recycling is a waste of time (”Is Recycling Really Worth It?” Montreal Gazette, March 15, 2007). After all, as stated on Dr. Cooper’s University of Calgary homepage, he’s affiliated with the “Friends of Science”.
“Friends of Science” is made up a group of people who, according to their website, “believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable.” The group should more properly be called the “Friends of Spin” because their activities are heavy on PR and light on actual peer-reviewed science. Little wonder that the group’s coming-out-party in Ottawa was sponsored by Imperial Oil, as detailed in Fifth Estate’s recent program “The Denial Machine” (viewable online).
So, like I said, I’m not surprised when Barry Cooper’s thoroughly unscientific opinion piece says things like “future generations can never exhaust natural resources” or that Cooper refers to “so-called greenhouse-gas emissions” after 2000 scientists in over 100 countries recently linked global warming to human activity. When you run up against the Barry Coopers of the world you sometimes have to throw up your hands in despair — you can’t reason someone out of a position that they weren’t reasoned into.
What surprises me is that the Gazette would choose to publish such laughable garbage.
And while we’re on the topic of the Gazette, why are they so behind the times in enabling their readers to leave comments on their articles online? They cynical part of me thinks that they prefer the old media system of picking and editing one sentence reader responses. That way it looks like you’re giving your readers a voice without all the messy complications of, you know, long well-reasoned arguments and, uh, facts.
(I did find this good short letter though at the Calgary Herald…)
I’m not sure if it’s because their budget has been slashed by 1/3 since 1990, but our national broadcaster is leading the charge into the 1800s.
On November 28th, I sent the e-mail below to the CBC radio show The House. They just got back to me today… Over three weeks later. Wow. That’s sub Pony Express type speed…
11/28/06 10:50 AM
To: thehouse@cbc.ca
From: me
Subject: Justice Minister Vic Toews’ interview.Justice Minister Vic Toews’ push for harsher impaired driving legislation smacks of “truthiness”.
Toews failed to mention how many accidents on Canadian roads are the result of recreational drug use. Do these numbers justify the time, cost, energy and encroachment of Charter rights that would be required to enforce the new legislation?
Sure, it feels like a good idea to crack down on drug-impaired driving, but “from the gut” legislation results in laws that are more based on partisan optics than on genuine problem solving.
Jason Whiting (rhymes with “lighting”)
Montreal
22 days later I received this in my inbox.
12/20/06 04:52 PM
To: me
From: thehouse@cbc.ca
Subject: Re: Justice Minister Vic Toews’ interview.Dear Jason Whiting:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your interest in our programme.
Your feedback helps to shape our thinking for each and every show. Our listeners define the program and we appreciate the time you have taken to respond to what you have heard.
Thanks for listening!
Best regards,
Althia Raj
Associate Producer
The House
Maybe the CBC is too busy chasing down “news” stories like why serial killers target prostitutes. Brutal.
For those of you not living in Montreal/not reading Montreal’s alt-weeklies, the Montreal Mirror’s cover story last week does a good job of summing up how I feel about Justice Minister Rick Toews’ proposed new anti-impaired driving legislation.
Marc-Boris St-Maurice, the founder of Bloc Pot, current Liberal Party member and executive director of NORML Canada is quoted as saying:
Looks to me like a sneaky way to modify the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It’s a roundabout way to increase penalties without opening up the debate on drugs…. [The legislation] is a little premature and half-cocked.
Read the article here.
Truthiness seems to be a hallmark of conservative governments and that’s certainly also true up here in snowy Canada.
Canadian Conservative Justice Minister Rick Toews (pronounced “Taves” or similar) was on CBC Radio’s The House on Sunday, pushing his latest bill that calls for harsher penalties for impaired driving legislation, with a special focus on busting drug-impaired driving.
Sounds like a good idea right? Yeah, sorta. But, conveniently, Toews failed to mention how many accidents on Canadian roads are the result of recreational drug use. And do these suspiciously absent numbers justify the time, cost, energy and encroachment of Charter rights that would be required to enforce the new legislation? (Based on hunches and subjective tests, cops would be able to “demand […] bodily fluid”.)
Sure, it feels like a good idea to crack down on drug-impaired driving, but “from the gut” legislation results in laws that are more based on partisan optics than on genuine problem solving…
You've stumbled upon the virtual home of the writer, blogger and sometimes performer J. Whiting.
I use this site to write about what's going on in my professional, and sometimes private, life. This space also allows me to sound off about things that I'm passionate about like sensible political policy, the Internet and the environment.
Thanks for stopping by.
J.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Truthiness category.