All of your dealings with sources — and with other editorial staff — must be truthful. As an institution, moreover, BusinessWeek will always be an independent voice, with no ax to grind. We do not support political candidates or political parties. We are not Keynesians, monetarists, or supply-siders. On all matters of politics, economics, and social policy, we try to bring our own judgment to bear, based on thorough reporting and reasonable analysis. We do not do stories that are designed to hew to any ideological agenda. … —BusinessWeek, Ethics Statement
“Rejection of ideological agendas is itself an ideological agenda!” I bet you I can find someone to defend that thesis, like Zell Miller, with dueling pistols at twenty paces, if necessary.
Give a preliminary chew-over for later rumination: Globo’s Fantástico (Brazil) runs excerpts from the The Great Global Warming Swindle, from Britain’s Channel 4
In the process the Silver Venus manages to inform Brazilian viewers only that the source of the material is “an English television network.”
Reusing footage created by someone else — including stealth advertisers — without attribution is pretty common at Globo, it seems to me. Globo journalism is ruled by the spirit of Ron Burgundy: They will say anything that scrolls down the prompter, no matter how absurd.
The segment briefly notes that permission to use the images was “granted by Georges Neu.”
Who is Georges Neu? And who gave him the right to grant rights to Globo?
You mean the president of the Alliance Française?
In the original, the apparent allusion, whether intentional or not, to The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle was notable, I thought.
I was going to quibble with farsa as a translation for “swindle,” but according to the Houaiss dictionary it seems to be a decent choice:
ação ou representação que induz ao logro; mentira ardilosa, embuste
Synonymous with ardil.
The film was produced by Martin Durkin, who also produced the 1997 documentary “Against Nature.”
Against Nature was subsequently investigated by the Independent Television Commission of the UK, following a number of complaints from viewers and from some of the interviewees featured in the program.  The Commission rejected claims based on alleged bias, concluding that it was entirely legitimate to open up debate about environmentalist policies and ideologies. It also pointed that environmentalists had been permitted a fair chance to air their side of the story in the televised debates that followed the broadcast. However the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way . For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV.According to The Independent, Durkin “accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as ‘complete tosh’.”
After reading the footnotes there, I conclude that the Wikipedia does not lie in this case.
Globo tends to do that sort of thing, too.
Misrepresent and distort through selective editing, I mean.
Comparison of the unedited and edited interview transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with these four contributors had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them, when it originally sought their involvement, as to the format, subject matter and purpose of the programmes. No mention had been made of the critical position the programmes intended to adopt, for example in correspondence.
He invited them to a tea party that was actually a gunfight, is that it?
Wider questions of fairness and inaccuracy were the major concerns of the remaining 147 complainants. The ITC considered that the programmes’ line that green ideologies were, at least in some respects, open to criticism on both scientific and humanitarian grounds, was a legitimate approach. Both programmes included the views of those under attack. Certainly the post-series debate allowed environmentalists a fair opportunity to answer the charges laid at their door. The ITC would not wish to discourage Channel 4 from challenging popular and fashionable orthodoxies – always providing that programme makers meet the obligations of fairness and respect for the truth.
A proposal to create a body similar to the ITC and the Press Complaints Commission here in Brazil a few years ago was greated with loud shrieks of “Stalinism.”
“The Authoritarian Temptation: The PT’s attempts to monitor and control the press, television and culture.” Translation: “Dilma could decide those zero-down spectrum concessions we got were the fruit of a skeevy plundering of the commonwealth! Bork her with all you’ve got!
Durkin also produced
a 1998 documentary entitled “Storm in a D-Cup” which argued that the medical dangers of silicone breast implants had been exaggerated for political reasons and highlighting evidence that impants may even carry medical benefits.
Personally, I would be perfectly happy if the end of the world were not really right around the corner. I find it hard to believe, for example, that the recent floods in Tabasco were Mexico’s “first experience with global warming.”
My wife — a former PR director for a multinational eco-NGO, against which she has a deep (and justified, I think) grudge — has this apocalyptic sense fairly deeply engrained in her imagination, though, I find.
I tend to think — for what my thinking is worth, which is not much — that the problem is (1) real, (2) worth taking seriously, (3) the subject of a lot of “moral panic” messages in the service of murky political agendas, and (4) can be solved over time with reasonable, moderate economic planning.
Planning that you tend to think would dovetail with the other inconvenient truth to be dealt with: That unlike the alleged untruths denounced in that other old Sex Pistols classic, “EMI”, fossil fuels are not in “unlimited supply.”