Search this Site!
    Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
    Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

    Seldom Heard Quotes – Media, Pro & Con, Part 3.1

     “As science editor of Time, I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

    Charles Alexander, September 1989
    Science Editor, Time Magazine


    This was said during the “Global Environment: Are We Overreacting” conference held at the Smithsonian, during which a stream of doomsayers spewed forth one catastrophe after another.  Mr. Alexander was applauded by journalists for making the above statement. Andrea Mitchell, an NBC News journalist agreed and said, “Clearly the networks have made a decision now, where you’d have to call it advocacy.” (I wonder if those two still have their jobs.)

    The fact that none of this has been reported to the American public further shows how one-sided the media really is. CNN, the major networks, and the print media have become lopsided reporters and mindless supporters of one of the most misleading eco-terrorism campaigns ever launched on the American people.

    I find it incredible that in communist countries, like the former Soviet Union, a government-controlled press openly lied to its people, while here in the United States, where freedom of the press is protected by the Constitution in order to share the truth with the American people, the media chooses, instead, to lie.

    If this version of “freedom of the press” is what Americans have died for in wars, beginning with the revolutionary war, I don’t want any part of it.  If freedom of the press means the media has license to lie to us, I want no part of it.

    Everything we know about any current event is gleaned from the media: a media with a “tyrants’ agenda” advocating global environmental crisis; a media with a penchant for slanting issues; a media that lies by not reporting both sides of an issue; a media that reports with advocacy instead of objectivity.


            “To hell with news! I’m no longer interested in news. I’m interested in causes. We don’t print the truth. We don’t pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us.  It’s up to the public to decide what’s true.”


    Ben Bradlee, Editor, Washington Post, 1989
    reported by David Brooks in The Wall Street Journal                                                      October 5, 1989, and much earlier by John J. Mc Ketta of
    the National Council for Environmental Balance

    It is obvious from my attempts to talk to the local media, the local NBC affiliate, and local eco-reporter for one of our newspapers, that this attitude is pervasive. They do say it is impossible for them to determine the truth. I’ll give them that. It would be impossible to check out every story that crosses their desks.

    But they make a limited effort to allow any opposing views to air or be printed. So while they air and print what may not be true, they don’t air or print what has been shown to be true.

    As a result of this kind of media attitude, people are led to believe the most unfounded pending disaster stories in the history of man. In a time when the deficit is about to bankrupt our nation, Congress, reacting to perceived popular opinion, has allowed the wasting of money on environmental issues more than on any other project in Washington. Therefore, the truly important projects are delayed because of environmental untruths.

    Environmental groups have learned the best way to get more money for favorite projects is to conclude any request with impending disaster–just in case the government decides not to approve their requests.


    “I’m not sure it is useful to include every single point of view.”

    PBS Producer Linda Harrar, 9/29/91, on her
    decision not to air “The Greenhouse Conspiracy.”

    When an opposing view is offered, the media either gives it limited coverage or ignores it completely. One such case was the PBS decision not to show “The Greenhouse Conspiracy,” an excellent documentary by Hilary Lawson that blows the very foundation out from under the “global warming crisis.” The above quote was in response to not presenting it to the American people. And this from “Public Broadcasting”

    supported by your tax dollars!

    It’s bad enough that Ted and Jane Goebbels (Ted Turner & Jane Fonda), probably the two most influential people on earth, have decided to use the power of CNN and TBS to further media science and those who engage in theoretical crisis science predictions.

    It is time to call for a stop to all this madness and return to some sanity and honest science without biased media involvement. It’s time to return to a science that relies on certainty and precision, and more than anything, PEER REVIEW.

    Without infringing on anyone’s Constitutional rights, I believe the Constitution should not give the media the right to lie to us. That is a charge that may be difficult to prove, but not impossible. If there is one ounce of truth in a pound of story, and it is presented in a manner intended to persuade the audience into believing the entire story, it is a lie.

    Producer Linda Harrar’s above statement exposes her tyrannical position.


    “Newspaper editors and broadcasters, who help set the national agenda by what they choose to report, have hyped the dioxin danger, made it more dramatic by their choice of human interest stories, ignored much of the scientific evidence and used quotes from some scientists whose conclusions weren’t justified by their research.”

    Joan Beck, Columnist
    The Chicago Tribune
    June 30, 1983

    There are some journalists out there trying to tell the truth.

    Sadly, they are as outnumbered as they are unemployed.


    “Why do so many reporters and editors suspend their normal skepticism when that magical word environment” is invoked?”

    George Melloan, in Global View:
    How About Some Concern Over Ecojournalism?”
    Wall Street Journal, June 22 1992.

    The serious answer is obvious: “Because they are advocates!”


    There is, and can be, only one purpose for such (environmental) regulatory overkill:

    “Deliberately to shut down the U.S. economy and force a halt to economic and human development.”

    Warren Brookes, syndicated columnist
    1990 article

    Warren Brookes passed away on December 28, 1991, and in a way, this collection of quotes is in his honor. One journalist who told the truth–not as he saw it, just the truth.



    The Morning News Tribune
    Tacoma WA, February 23, 1988

    The EPA found TCDD, a potent form of dioxin, in fish caught within 100 yards of the Simpson Mill. During a follow-up investigation, they found 1.5 parts per trillion (PPT) of dioxin in the fish. 1.5 PPT is equivalent to one drop in 25 million gallons. The 1.5 PPT was discovered as the result of questionable testing procedures.

    They ground up all nine fish, including the skin, internal organs, etc. and released the figures. It should have been one ninth of 1.5 PPT, but that doesn’t make headlines. As a result, the EPA ordered all paper pulp mills in America investigated for dioxin.

    More wasted money as a result of questionable science.