Sunday, its largest circulation day of the week, the New York Times ran a lengthy, triple-bylined story intended to stir up fear and anger over the Trump White House’s climate policy. [emphasis, links added]
It was no example of civically minded journalism, just another propaganda piece to fuel the global warming tale.
Right from the top, the reporters tell readers that President Donald Trump “has severely damaged the government’s ability to fight climate change, upending American environmental policy with moves that could have lasting implications for the country, and the planet.”
“Could?” That’s what the entire global warming scare is built on: coulds, maybes, and possibilities.
Yet the reporters screech that “Mr. Trump has gutted federal climate efforts, rolled back regulations aimed at limiting pollution, and given a major boost to the fossil fuel industry.”
Let’s not confuse carbon dioxide with pollution, which the alarmists continually do. Just because the federal government has classified CO2 as a “threat to human health and welfare” doesn’t mean it is.
As every school kid knows, it’s essential to life.
Naturally, we can’t have any boosting of the fossil fuel industry since it merely provides the cornerstone of modernity and there’s nothing in line, no, not even renewables, to replace it.
At this point, just two paragraphs in, it’s clear this story is no piece of journalism. It’s agitprop for green nonsense and the Democratic Party’s agenda to run the economy from Washington and blue-state capitals.
By the way, we’re not alone in noticing the story’s hard slant. According to Grok, the artificial intelligence assistant xAI :
The article exhibits bias through its emotionally charged language, one-sided sourcing, selective framing, and omission of counterarguments, all of which tilt heavily against Trump’s environmental policy shifts.
It assumes the primacy of climate action as a moral and scientific imperative, casting dissent as reckless or corrupt rather than a legitimate policy choice.
While it reports factual events (e.g., policy changes, legal challenges), the presentation favors an audience that already opposes Trump, potentially undermining its objectivity for readers seeking a balanced view.
We trudge onward:
“He (Trump) is abandoning efforts to reduce global warming, even as the world has reached record levels of heat that scientists say is driven largely by the burning of fossil fuels,” says the Times.
“Every corner of the world is now experiencing the effects of these rising temperatures in the form of deadlier hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and droughts, as well as species extinction.”
There are no links to evidence to back the claims in that paragraph, nor any proof provided deeper into the story. Times readers will of course accept the assertion as fact.
But we don’t, because we know the man-is-overheating-his-planet narrative is engorged with speculation, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, guesses, bad faith, secrecy, and, yes, outright lies, such as the contention that 97% of climate scientists say that human activity is raising temperatures to dangerous levels – which takes us back to the “scientists say” phrasing in the Times story.
Much of the rest of the world is catching on, too.
People have grown weary of being bullied and lectured, told they have to fall in line and sacrifice, dragged in late for work because sanctimonious activists blocked traffic, having their tires slashed, and watching smug virtue-signalers live their hypocritical lives.
We focused on one story at a single media outlet for this editorial. But the New York Times is considered, or was at one time, to be the pinnacle of higher journalism.
So it stands out, though it is not alone. Global warming madness is virtually media-wide.
Read rest at Issues & Insights
The Real Person Badge!
The big problem with the M.S. Media they have gone from News to Leftists Propaganda