"In the past couple of days, there have been two articles written
about how the media are covering global warming. In one, the author contended
that the press are acting to inhibit free speech by exclusively reporting one
side of the climate change issue as they castigate skeptics as deniers and
operatives of the oil industry. By contrast, another article suggested that the
press in their attempts to appear objective are not doing a good enough job
stressing the dire nature of global warming, and should be taking a much
stronger position as advocate for the supposed consensus."
Should a topic like global warming where there are two sides of opinions, but not two equal sides be given equal coverage and weight in the media? I lean towards allowing networks to choose for themselves, and the viewers will find a source that they connect with based on their beliefs. Sad reality is that the media is starting to remind me of Machiavelli. In his book, "The Prince", he said that you should never take a neutral stand, because you won't be respected by either side. You will be mistrusted by both sides, and that seems to be the atmosphere in America right now.