Editorial writers – please glance over here
I have a question.
The aftermath of United Nations climate change summits is becoming depressingly familiar.
With these words last December 14, the New Zealand Herald editorial writer signalled his slant. It’s a bias towards the official line on global warming. The Herald joins the chorus of activists baying for Western compensation for the third world to answer the allegations of “injury by climate”.
According to this view, every other good and time-honoured cause for foreign aid is eclipsed by this one: that the effects of global warming will be — even are already — too onerous for emerging nations to bear, therefore we must stop doing what has created our wealth and, on top of that, pay heavy fines for many years to come, perhaps forever — they haven’t told us when to stop.
There must be a reason for this.
What is it?
Views: 19
The NZHerald is a lost cause on AGW, you only need to look at the little altar of worship they’ve got set up to see that. I’ve caught the moderator(s) altering the links I give in my posts so they won’t work (I always check them before posting), and refusing to put up my perfectly reasonable and polite posts. I’ve complained twice now, on the first occasion just as I was sending my complaint off a senior editor emailed me wanting to publish my post in the newspaper, which showed that there was absolutely no reason not to publish it online. I told him what happened and he forwarded my email to the online editor. All of a sudden they released all my withheld posts as well ( a good 7-8). The last time they just ignored me, so I choose to avoid the NZHerald like the plague, and recommend everyone else does too – the NBR is far better.
I also like to forward recommendations such as this post on to their editors to let them know of the repercussions of behaving like the Guardian.