What Hearing?

By August 3, 2006Global Warming

The Washington Post’s opinion page writers are in high dudgeon today over recent hearings by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on climatology and global warming. The gist of the page’s second editorial is, “How dare they look into the science and the hockey stick?” The opinionators conclude with a mighty blast, declaring, “But it is a particularly ugly kind of denial that leads a congressional committee to spend this kind of energy attacking scientists, instead of confronting the problems their data suggest.”

We’re confused. What hearing? We looked and looked and looked in the pages of the Washington Post and could not find a single news story about any such hearing. (Blogger in Chief Pat Cleary wrote about his frustrated search in this post.) No reporting on the scientists’ testimony, no quoting of inquiring politicians, no coverage at all.

We’re inclined to say something along the lines of, “It is a particularly ugly kind of advocacy journalism that leads a newspaper to spend this kind of editorial energy attacking one side of an argument, instead of confronting the issues with objective reporting.”

But that would be intemperate.

P.S. The climatologists’ blog RealClimate.org wrote about the hearing here. And NPR’s “Morning Edition” covered the story, as well.

UPDATE: Amy Ridenour of The National Center for Public Policy Research detects a lack of seriousness in the Post’s editorial. And diligence. And effort:

I realize the editorialist was at something of an information disadvantage, as the editorial page is editorializing against hearings the Post never covered, but occasionally even opinion writers have to do research.

In this case, too, it would not have been hard: The Energy and Commerce Committee has webcasts available of both the July 27 and July 19 hearings. The editorial writer might have watched a few minutes of them, or, perhaps, read the witness testimonies archived online. It would have taken just a few minutes to see that the hearings were serious business, conducted in a serious way (well, maybe not including the statements of the Congresswoman worrying that her grandchildren wouldn’t ever get to see polar bears because global warming would make polar bears extinct before they get a few free hours to go to the zoo).

Latest posts by John Engler (see all)

Join the discussion One Comment

  • Luciano Miceli says:

    The sky is falling I mean the globe is warming or y2k hysteria is back with a vengeance and before long people will become deaf to the continuous barrage of this new doomsday that they will go looking for some other fad to energise and entertain them and maybe just maybe they’ll wake up to the fact that liberal politician just like actors are incessantly fighting to be the center of attention that just like the person who cried wolf when the real wolf shows up no body will believe them.