*Skeptic* blogger wants less accuracy in Mail's climate output

Now read this sentence carefully and see if you can spot a call for for press censorship to protect climate policies from criticism.
"So if Dacre wants to strengthen the case for continued self-regulation of the UK press, perhaps he should consider how it is currently being undermined by his own newspaper's coverage of climate change and its blatant disregard for the PCC's rules."

Spot it? No, neither did I.  Blogger "Climate Resistance" did though. He was so sure about it he tweeted. When pressed "Climate Resistance" was unable to support his assertion and insisted the call for censorship was implied.  But how did "Climate Resistance" conclude that Bob Ward was implying 'to protect climate policies from criticism' ?  "Climate Resistance"s response sheds no light on that mystery.

The twitterstorm was over the indefatigable Bob Ward's examination of the contradictions in the Daily Mail's stance over climate change and Paul Dacre's efforts to resist any kind of external regulation . Bob's article, which is well worth a read, is a criticism of the Daily Mail's editing . And of course it's an editor's job to cut and hence censor bad reporting. So if Bob's conclusion adds up to a call for censorship and "Climate Resistance" is certain of that , it's also implied that Climate Resistance wants to see less accurate climate reporting in the Daily Mail. I wonder if  "Climate Resistance" knows what a corollary is.

1 comment:

  1. I'm not sure how you could get less accuracy in the Daily Fails climate articles.

    I agree about Bob Wards article being worth a look. I mentioned it myself a couple of days ago;