It's all a lie: Copenhagen, Gore, Obama

Renew America ^ | December 17, 2009 | Alan Caruba

[Tzimisce]

Good article.

[Tarpon]

About the daffy-ficit.

Our dear reader bambam has already told enough whoppers about jobs and the economy, but aying we are going bankrupt if we don’t pass health-care is another thing entirely.

And the lies about CO2, is getting off the charts funny. Presidents, even man-child wanna bee presidents, don’t bald faced lie to the world. That’s stuff best left to two bit tin pots.

There will be a fine crop of good stuff.

[PGalt]

Very good article. The lie is the weapon used most often by the criminal.

Get them on the stand, under oath. What “no controlling legal authority”?

Who will protect us from our protectors?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Billions were wasted on "climate research" over the past twenty years and now they are being wasted on "clean energy" research which we're told is needed to replace "dirty" fuels like coal, oil and [even!] natural gas. It too is all a lie.

. . . By itself, the Big Lie cannot exist solely in a political framework like the United Nations or any one of the nations, including our own, that wasted billions based on it. It has to have the support of the media, both our own and those around the world.

Journalists are not scientists and they are subject to what scientists tell them unless they do some fairly easy investigation of their own. They didn't!

. . . The true science, not the stuff conjured up on computer models, always refuted the global warming theory. That's because it was widely known to honest climatologists, meteorologists, and others. It was always known that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a miniscule part of the Earth's atmosphere, barely 0.038 percent. Of that amount, man-made CO2 emissions constitute less than 0.00022 percent! Some will argue these figures, but they always remain within these very tiny parameters.

. . . At the heart of the Big Lie is, of course, MONEY! There are millions to be made selling bogus "carbon credits" for the use of energy. That's what Obama's "Cap-and-Trade" scam is all about.

. . . Instead [of doing a rudimentary investigation of their own], journalists at influential newspapers like The New York Times repeated and amplified every global warming lie and they continue to this day.

The point, surely, is that no big lie can possibly exist without the complicity of journalism - and the fact is that, in historical terms, big lies are actually a commonplace. We have all seen big lies, fairly recently. A fairly minor one, in terms of total impact on society, is the March 13, 2006 "rape" of Crystal Mangum. The publicly available information fairly screamed that "the media" were conducting a kangaroo court - but even after the April 11, 2007, declaration by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper that the three players not only couldn't be proven guilty but actually were innocent, the media admitted to no shame at having promoted a fraud for almost a year.

The fact that it is a commonplace for journalism to promote fraud indicates a systemic failure of accountability within "the press." It will be asked, "Don't you believe in freedom of the press?" And I reply, "Yes - I think we should try it again." Prior to the 1848 founding of the Associated Press, newspapers were mostly weeklies which, lacking a font of news from distant sites to which only printers were privy, were as much about the opinions of the individual printers as they were about news. The opinions of the printers were naturally diverse, so the various printers held each other accountable.

The serpent in this garden of Eden was the association of those printers via the mechanism of the AP. Members of the AP paid handsomely for the cornucopia of news gushing from "the wire," and they had to have value from it. To obtain the benefit of "the wire," they had to promote the wire - they needed their customers to believe the stories they got from it. Suddenly, then, all journalists - not just the employees of the newspaper you were reading, but all journalists - were presented as being "objective." But the price of any serious attempt at objectivity is to have the humility to scrutinize one's own motives. In that respect, "objective journalism" doesn't even seriously try to be objective. Why should it do so, when it is a unified entity which has no effective competition? Why shouldn't it perpetrate "big lies" whenever that suits its convenience?

According to 4 Advances that Set News Back, SCOTUS in 1945 held that the AP was a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1945 it was difficult to see how the country would do without the AP newswire. In the twenty first century Internet era, the idea that the data transmission bandwidth economies of the AP make it "too big to fail" is ludicrous. However, merely breaking the AP up in some way would not change the actual problem. The actual problem is the public's belief in the objectivity of journalism. That belief, the result of a century and a half of propaganda, is by now a cultural phenomenon.

That belief could easily outlive the AP. After all, AP journalism no longer enjoys the monopoly on propaganda media which it once enjoyed. Not only are web sites like FR accessible to the entire literate population, there are radio programs like Rush Limbaugh's which are entertaining and don't even require the ability to read to enjoy them. And yet the cultural memory of the "objective journalism" propaganda looms over the public discourse. The conceit of journalistic objectivity must be reduced to an object of ridicule, a byword for fraud. How that is to be done, other than by the methods we are already trying, is a puzzlement.