The fast-changing world of climate change journalism
Interesting how two different journos can report the same story so differently, isn’t it?
Here’s how The Australian’s own journo approaches the climate change issue…
And here’s how it ran the AAP version…
The Oz is positively Orwellian. Black is white, day is night.
Its like Australia’s very own Fox News. We report non-facts.. and expect you do decide.
The Australian is more and more like the Daily Mail every day .. without the fun .. or the web traffic
The Age just follows its religion blindly.
It wouldn’t matter what anyone said, The Age would pursue its rampant green agenda to its death (and in fact is doing just that).
Should charges be laid for crimes against humanity?
It’s very clear that the 2nd article is in direct response to the first, I see no problem with this? When you only show the headlines then I guess this is not obvious.
As long as they reference the first article in the 2nd, I don’t think there is an issue with it!?
The Australian’s environment editor Lloyd is drowning in his own facts.
Isn’t the second article (http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....6554134881) an AAP response to the earlier, incorrect (and fairly stupid) article (http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....6553928313)? It’s a little hard to tell when you just link to headline screenshots, rather than the stories themselves, but I think that’s the case.
You can do this with the ABC. CSIRO reported no rising trend in extreme hot spells in Australia, then they reported IPCC chairman claiming clear link between current hot spell and warming.
Looking forward to the arrival of the Guardian