© joannenova.com.au
In France, the second largest news network let an economist go on air and declare he thought
global warming was a lie and a scam used to justify State intervention. He even went on to say it is a form of totalitarianism. Shockingly (to the regulators
Arcom), the CNEWS TV hosts did not contest this, and nor did anyone else in the studio.
For this, 11 months later, the TV channel is being fined €20,000.Too close to the truth then?
A popular French rolling news channel has been fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged
By Saskia O'Donoghue, EuroNews
During the programme, prominent economist Philippe Herlin shared personal climate scepticism - but was not contradicted by anybody else in the TV studio, including the hosts.
"Anthropogenic global warming is a lie, a scam... Explaining to us that it is because of Man, no, that is a conspiracy, and why does that have so much weight?", Herlin said. "Because it justifies the intervention of the State in our lives, and it absolves the State from having to reduce its public spending... It is a form of totalitarianism."
Apparently, the real crime here is not that he said the unthinkable, but that the TV crew didn't correct him:
After investigation, Arcom found that CNews' lack of reaction was a "failure" to meet the obligations of the channel ...
Perhaps if they'd laughed at him, called him petty names, and treated him like a leper it would have been OK? (No, seriously, there is a razor point here. There are bound to be past examples where the only response to a skeptic was to call them a
climate denier, and Arcom was apparently happy with that, since they've never used this fine before.) Does Arcom approve of namecalling or social approbation as a "balanced response"? Oh. Yes. They. Do.
The regulators go on to explain that the channel:
"...is required to ensure an honest presentation of controversial issues, in particular by ensuring the expression of different points of view".
Which must be a new requirement since
French TV has relentlessly hammered the establishment line in a one sided way for thirty years without needing any balance at all. And Arcom didn't fine them for shamelessly promoting government propaganda. Perhaps a French skeptic could ask Arcon if controversial government opinions need to be balanced "in an honest presentation" or whether it's only critics of the government who need to be held to account?
Arcom found that the views shared "contradicted or minimised" the scientific consensus on climate change "through a treatment lacking rigour and without contradiction".
Since when was it the job of journalists to promote government approved "science"?
Comment: Wealth seeks higher ground.