Media Matters has done an impressive job, doing that which the corporate media refuses to do: Putting the western wildfires squarely in the context of global warming. More importantly, they've documented the fact that the media is indeed mostly ignoring the subject. Gee, I wonder why?

While numerous factors determine the frequency, severity and cost of wildfires, scientific research indicates that human-induced climate change increases fire risks in parts of the Western U.S. by promoting warmer and drier conditions. Seven of nine fire experts contacted by Media Matters agreed journalists should explain the relationship between climate change and wildfires. But an analysis of recent coverage suggests mainstream media outlets are not up to the task — only 3 percent of news reports on wildfires in the West mentioned climate change.

The major television and print outlets largely ignored climate change in their coverage of wildfires in Colorado, New Mexico and other Western states. All together, only 3 percent of the reports mentioned climate change, including 1.6 percent of television segments and 6 percent of text articles.

METHODOLOGY: We searched Nexis and Factiva databases for articles and segments on (wildfire or wild fire or forest fire) between April 1, 2012, and June 30, 2012. News outlets included in this study are ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, CNN.com, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. MSNBC and Fox News were not included in this analysis because transcripts of their daytime coverage are not available in the Nexis database.

[...] Of nine fire scientists who responded to email inquiries, seven agreed that journalists should explain how manmade climate change could worsen wildfire risk in certain parts of the western U.S. The other two emphasized other major factors that determine the extent of fire damage, or highlighted the regional and subregional variations that make it difficult to draw broad conclusions.

Steven Running: Media Should Communicate That Fires “Are a Glimpse Into A More Common Future If Carbon Emissions Continue To Rise.” From Dr. Steven W. Running, director of the Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group at the University of Montana:

Absolutely, journalists who care to look at the bigger picture should be stating that we already are seeing an acceleration of western wildfire activity in the last 30yr, and some of that acceleration is tied to the trend of earlier snowmelt and hotter drier summers. And climate models project longer, hotter, and drier summers in the future which will continue to accelerate wildfire activity in the West.

If the media do not connect these dots, the public probably assumes these latest events are only natural variability and “bad luck”, when in reality they are a glimpse into a more common future if carbon emissions continue to rise. [Email exchange, 6/28/12]

Mark Cochrane: Failing To Draw Connections Encourages “View That Each Disaster Is An Independent Event Due To Random Chance.” From Dr. Mark A. Cochrane of the Geographic Information Science Center of Excellence at South Dakota State University:

In my opinion, yes this would be a valid topic for discussion. I would not necessarily blame the current ongoing events on anthropogenic climate change but it is clear that the climate conditions for events such as this are likely to increase in frequency as we move through the century due to anthropogenic climate change. In the last 40 years the mountain west has experienced some of the most rapid warming in the United States. In particular, the southwestern states are expected to experience a net decrease in annual precipitation over the coming decades. Hotter, drier conditions, combined with increased expansion of housing into flammable landscapes means incidents like High Park and Colorado Springs are inevitably going to become more common. Conditions will continue to be variable from year to year but more and more years will have high fire risk in this region.

The consequences of failing to connect the dots between naturally flammable ecosystems, expanding construction and changing climatic conditions will be the continued view that each disaster is an independent event due to random chance, meaning nothing needs to be done. [Email exchange, 6/29/12]

You'd think the wingers would figure out that James O'Keefe makes them look like fools every time he posts another one of his "videos." You'd think they might consider not pimping those videos like they're real when they're so easy to debunk. You'd think.

This time, it's North Carolina under fire, but O'Keefe ridiculously claims voter fraud when the only fraud is O'Keefe and his bogus claims. This time around, O'Keefe features a "dead voter" and a voter who he claims is illegally registered to vote because he was not a citizen at the time he was called for jury duty. Unfortunately for O'Keefe, he became a citizen in the 80s, a fact that was easily verifiable before publishing the video.

As for O'Keefe's dead guy, it turns out James forgot that "Jr." at the end of a guy's name means he's the son of the dead guy and also happens to be a very much alive registered voter.

Via Media Matters:

Yes, as multiple obituaries for Bolton note, he was survived by, among others, his son Michael Gordon Bolton, Jr. Public records searches using the Nexis database confirm that Bolton Jr. was registered to vote at the same address given to the poll worker by the O'Keefe operative.

This isn't the only error of this sort O'Keefe made. As ThinkProgress noted, the "non-citizen" voter supposedly exposed by the video is actually a naturalized citizen.

The best screw-up of all is the one where O'Keefe punks the Daily Caller, Breitbart.com and Michelle Malkin. I love it when one of their own hangs them out to dry so thoroughly. In the opener of his ten-minute long video, O'Keefe's minions are walking up a driveway to "prove" that a non-citizen has voted in the North Carolina primary.

Via ThinkProgress Justice:

Now, it turns out that the second “non-citizen,” William Romero, is actually a citizen as well, according to his family.

The video opens with O’Keefe’s cameraman walking up Romero’s driveway and confronting a member of his family about whether he is a citizen. O’Keefe points to court records from 2010 where Romero was excused from jury duty because he was not a citizen at the time. Therefore, as O’Keefe argues, Romero’s voter registration dated December 5, 2011 is fraudulent because Romero “is not a United States citizen.”

Oops! That calendar can be a pesky thing. It turns out Romero became a citizen in early 2011, and registered to vote because that's what good citizens in this country do: they vote.

In fact, Romero’s family told ThinkProgress he became a naturalized citizen in early 2011.

What’s more, Romero’s family told ThinkProgress that they had began receiving harassing telephone calls two weeks before the incident in the video asking if Romero was a citizen. They confirmed to the caller — it’s unclear whether they were speaking with O’Keefe himself or another individual — that Romero is indeed a citizen. Nevertheless, O’Keefe proceeded to ambush the family at their home and publish this video claiming he’s not a citizen.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (237)

PLAYS: (1440)

Embed

Monday night, Karl Rove and Sean Hannity had a lot of fun "worrying" over how rising gas prices might affect President Obama's re-election. Rove is certain that no President can be re-elected if gas prices are rising.

I thought that was interesting, so I went and checked out some facts about historical oil prices, especially since Rove seems to have forgotten that the all-time high for gas prices was in July, 2008, when they hit $4.21 per gallon. Remember John McCain calling for a suspension of the national gas tax? Shortly after hitting that all-time high, prices plummeted. In fact, there has been a trend of extreme volatility in gasoline (and oil) prices for the past ten years, as you can see from this chart:

What's notable about Hannity and Rove's concern trolling here is what they don't mention: Oil speculation. Instead they natter on about how President Obama wants gas prices to be at $5.00 per gallon to serve his "radical agenda." But speculators are playing a very large role in the steep rise in the price of oil, once again, just like they did in 2008.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (479)

PLAY (372)

You'd think that, now that the public is growing increasingly aware that his camera crew stalked a woman blogger from Think Progress on her private vacation to harass her with phony accusations that she had harmed rape victims -- thereby raising serious ethical issues about the behavior of his ambush news crews -- Bill O'Reilly would kind of ease up on that particular story.

But no. He's the biggest inflatable clown in town, by gawd. Nothing he can't blowhard his way around. So he returned to the subject tonight, focusing especially on John Podesta and Think Progress, tying it all in to his favorite new meme about the "liberal smear machine." Much hilarity -- including a segment with Dick "Suck On These" Morris.

Faiz at Think Progress gives the definitive response, and you really should go read it. But I couldn't help noticing a couple of outstanding lines. To wit:

"Alone, they're insects. OK? But they have a relationship within the National Broadcasting Corporation."

Besides the eliminationist quality of referring to other people as insects, O'Reilly produces zero evidence -- beyond Amanda Terkel's appearance on Countdown the night before, which is evidence of nothing other than Amanda's availability to be interviewed -- that there is a "relationship" with NBC. It's pure conjecture on O'Reilly's part. Meanwhile, his claim that Terkel "harmed a rape victim and her family" was flatly false.

Anyway, that was followed shortly by this:

"But I'm not going any further than the facts take me. What I told the audience and what I told you and we just discussed here? 100 percent factual. No conjecture. That's reality."

Faiz adds:

Continue reading »

Sweet Jesus, this guy makes me hate him more and more...

Think Progress:

On Fox News today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) discussed the downturn in Sen. John McCain's presidential prospects, saying McCain "is behind now because of the economy." Lieberman then said that he hopes the House passes bailout legislation tomorrow because "it will be good for our country."

"But frankly, it will be good for John McCain too," added Lieberman, explaining that "it will get people back to comparing the two candidates free of a sense of crisis that may make them want to turn against Republicans."

I don't think he talked to the McCain campaign before doing the interview, because at the same time, here's John McCain on Morning Joe:

Singer pointed out a couple odd McCain moments from the last couple days, and I'd like to add one more from today's Morning Joe (via Joe at AMERICAblog):

"This bill is putting us on the brink of economic disaster."

McCain voted for it...less than 24 hours ago.

Although FOX News is crawling with them, it's pretty hard to find a bigger right-wing hack than Fred Barnes. Thursday on FOX News' "Special Report," Barnes called Gramm's insensitive and bone-headed remarks about struggling Americans "straight-talk," and reiterated Gramm's view that Americans are whiners because they acknowledge how poorly the economy is doing.

Download | play Download | play

Transcript via Think Progress:

BARNES: He wasn’t wrong to say that. You know what this was? This was straight talk that McCain always says he’s giving it, and this is exactly what Phil Gramm did. He gave straight talk…They claim about how bad the economy is–and it’s weak, no question about that. …They’re whining all the way through it.

Gosh, where would we all be without NY Times columnist David Brooks to tell us what is and isn't important? After all, John McCain's statement that he was right about Iraq was predicated on the notion that the surge was successful and that troop levels are back to pre-surge numbers. The fact that he is wrong about that (both the actual troop numbers and the definition of success, come to that) is of little matter to Brooks when considering his fitness as Commander-in-Chief. Why focus on little niggling details like actual troop numbers? You nitpickers.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Think Progress:

Contrary to Brooks’s claim that “no one’s going to care” about McCain’s reading of troop levels in Iraq, the issue is critically important. As Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) noted, “If you don’t know the number of troops it’s very difficult to make a judgment on if they are over-extended.”

Brooks claimed that McCain has a “pretty strong case” that he has been “right” about Iraq. But McCain’s gaffes are the latest in a series of ignorant comments about Iraq that raise questions about a candidate who has staked his campaign on the war.

And yet, McSame is supposed to have more credibility on Iraq than Obama, why? Could it be because the talking heads that have been wrong time and time again--and I'm looking at you, Bobo--keep telling us that a grasp of facts isn't all that important?

Think Progress: Study concludes US media embed program a “communications victory” for the Bush administration. Just don’t tell Brian Williams that.

Huffington Post: BREAKING NEWS: McCain Resigns From His Campaign.

Democracy Now!: The Bush administration is holding 27,000 prisoners, with no legal recourse, in secret overseas jails. Where’s the media?

skippy the bush kangaroo: Cookie Jill with the latest environmental news, which includes “zones of death” spreading in our oceans and how America’s wasteful eating habits not only take food from the mouths of the hungry but increase greenhouse gases. Plus, are global warming “alarmists” losing the rhetorical war?

TPM Muckracker: The Bush administration in yet another episode of Working Tirelessly to Control the Flow of Information. Today’s story: “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI). Or as we call it: CYA.

Guest roundup by Brad Jacobson of MediaBloodhound. See you tomorrow, reality-basers! Until then, email those submissions and tips to mediabloodhound at yahoo dot com.

Think Progress:

John McCain accused me of taking a “cheap shot” on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” yesterday for noting that people with preexisting conditions, such as he and I have, would not be able to get health care under his plan –- and that he perhaps was not as sensitive to this problem as he should be since he has been in government health care his whole life.

Sen. McCain noted that he was not receiving government health care for the six years he was in captivity. That is true. But it has nothing to do with my point — which is that the problem with Sen. McCain’s health care plan is not how it affects us –- but how it affects the tens of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who, unlike Sen. McCain and myself, do not have the resources to pay for quality health care.

That is not a cheap shot, it is a potentially life and death question for tens of million of Americans. And it is a question Sen. McCain must address.

McCain’s health care plan is centered around the idea that we’d be better off if more Americans bought health coverage on their own, rather than receiving it through a job or government program. But maybe since he has never purchased insurance in the individual market, he does not know the challenge it presents for Americans with preexisting conditions. Read on...

Think Progress:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon “one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today.” Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ war-mongering “not helpful.” Privately, he has vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

Unfortunately, this level-headed thinking and willingness to stand up to President Bush may cost him his job. According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Fallon may be prematurely “relieved of his command” as soon as this summer:

[W]ell-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way.

Just another day in BushWorld. There's a sneaky (and admittedly tin-foil hatted) suspicion on my part that there is a calculus going on here to make sure that we're either in or on the threshold of aggression with Iran--something that Fallon has dug his heels in and fought vehemently against--as we near the November election, to help give the edge to John McCain.