Owned. Fox News, like every news outlet is owned and if we’re going to keep our “fair and balanced” gyroscope upright we have to continually ask the question: by whom? With that, here’s some timely irony. In last weeks’ op-ed in The Australian, Wikileaks founder Juilan Assange wrote: “In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: ‘In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.'”

So here’s some truth for the media magnate Assange cites in his defense of getting real. During last week’s frenzy of leak speak, this from Fox News: A year ago, during the Copenhagen climate change summit, one of the network’s reporters said on air that the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was “on track to be the warmest [decade] on record.” Within 15 minutes, a senior network official issued a memo questioning the accuracy of climate change data and ordering Fox “journalists” to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without immediately pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.” The memo concludes: “It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

The memo, leaked by watchdog group Media Matters, was written by Fox News’ Vice President of News and Washington Managing Editor Bill Sammon. This is the same guy who instructed his network’s journalists during the health care reform debate to cease using the term “public option” and instead use “government option.”

The same night the climate change memo/directive was sent, on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier (“the number one cable news program in its timeslot”) correspondent James Rosen brought up the Climategate scandal and claimed that climate scientists “destroyed more than 150 years’ worth of raw climate data.” This at a time when it was already well-known that, taken in any light, the University of East Anglia “leaks” (there’s that word again) had nothing to do with the veracity of facts related to climate change.

Here’s the thing: In a world where nomenclature shapes perceived reality (and we all know what perception is), we have to ask what it means when we call a spade a, well, say a diamond. There’s the continued to use of the term “theory” around evolution and the “pro-life” litmus test language shrouding what might more accurately be called “anti-choice” sentiment. And how about the “death tax” nom de guerre assigned to taxing inheritance windfalls? The idea of climate change being assigned “notion” status by those interested in altering that perception/reality is not surprising. It must be tough when facts don’t do what you want them to.

Rupert and Bill, lest there be any confusion, here are a few facts, according to the National Cimatic Data Center (NCDC): the global surface temperature (including in the United States) is rising, sea level is rising, global upper ocean heat content is rising, northern hemisphere snow cover is retreating and U.S. climate extremes are increasing.

And there’s this: While no one can say if the reporter was fair and balanced, he sure was accurate. According to that tree-hugging and far-left-extremist organization NASA, the decade ending in 2009 was indeed the warmest in history. 2009 was also “the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began.”

So let’s close the loop here on the concept of “owned” and what’s so ironic about this coming down the Fox pipes. Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, is under the gun right now to achieve its pledge to be carbon neutral by 2010. This promise was much ballyhooed at the time it was made (a result of Murdoch himself claiming to have undergone an eco-transformation in 2007) and, while it’s not clear if the organization is going to achieve its goal, the Murdoch PR machines have been busy working it hard over the last few years. So while his Fox News organization plays it fast and loose with the facts, it seems that Mr. Murdoch has two options: Fire Sammon and Rosen and anyone else involved in purposefully distorting facts related to climate change data – or live with this title: Hypocrite.

Image: dutchlad

The post Happy Holidays, Fox ‘News’! Here’s a Leak for You! appeared first on EcoSalon.

When I was in high school a few buddies and I finagled our way from Detroit to D.C. to represent Somalia at the Model United Nations. I won’t go into all the sordid details; it’s enough say that the trip is affectionately known in our historical canon as “Fear and Loathing in Washington.”

It was the Year of the Refugee, so we had scored big with our randomly assigned country as Somalia was the unfortunate host of millions of displaced persons. During the first day’s plenary session, we thought it would be a good idea to break the ice by sending a note via floor page to our nemesis, Ethiopia, a country we were at war with and in real life had severed all ties: “Party in our hotel room tonight! Go OAS!” Yes, that refers to the Organization of African States, and no, the hostile delegation did not think this funny.

Within moments of reading our missive, one of our adversaries rose to his feet shrieking to the Chairman: “Point of order! Calling for the immediate censure [or whatever] of Somalia for attempting to initiate contact!” Evidently, we were not allowed to even pass a note to our (c’mon, not really) enemy and we were embarrassingly taken to task in front of the session. We immediately struck back by pointing out to the same Chair the “Ethiopians” failure to wear neckties. This breach of decorum was, it turned out, as grave an error on their part as was our failure to not communicate. Needless to say, we Somalis learned our lesson and avoided our fellows from the Horn of Africa – and co-creators of the world’s largest refugee problem – for the rest of our time in Washington.

No meaningful resolutions were passed.

I recall this story in the light of WikiLeaks’ recent release (to five major news outlets) of a large number of United States diplomatic cables between the State Department and its operations around the world. The “leaks” are the beginning of the third in a series, following the exposure of Afghan War and Iraq War documents earlier this year. The incident has become a global sensation, bringing to light the way in which diplomatic activity is conducted – and calling into question the security of intra- and international communications surrounding that activity. (Adding to the drama was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s recent surrender to British authorities as a result of a sexual assault investigation in Sweden.)

High school memories aside, I do recognize the gravity of the situation here, and I, for one, am as dazzled as anyone by the savage behind-the-scenes elicit interactions, horse trading, strong-arming and bribery that seems to be the norm when it comes to what our American delegations – from the United Nations in New York to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun – like to call “delicate negotiations” or “meetings of the minds.”

Of course, we at EcoSalon are concerned about the diplomacy around climate change negotiations – and as the data comes in regarding what went down in Copenhagen, for example, we’re seeing quite a troubling picture. By way of background, the accord, which allows each nation to choose a target for greenhouse gas cuts, was designed in part to make it easy to get countries likes China and rapidly developing nations on board, though many feel it falls way short of needed measures. Moreover, opponents said it would get in the way of extending the binding provisions of the Kyoto Protocol – placed on richer nations – and it was thus opposed by many poorer countries.

Here’s what we know from the Guardian (guardian.co.uk), one of the five news organizations that has access to the leaks: The United States began “a diplomatic offensive” to get the accord signed and cables show that the U.S. sought “dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming.” This included going after “human intelligence” from UN diplomats. One cable “names specific countries of interest, including China, France, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the European Union, and seeks biographical details of individuals such as credit card and frequent-flyer numbers. It also seeks compromising intelligence on the officials running the climate negotiations, such as ‘efforts by treaty secretariats to influence treaty negotiations or compliance.’”

Meanwhile, the “Basic” nations (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) mounted their opposition. Says another cable: “It is remarkable how closely coordinated the Basic group has become in international fora, taking turns to impede US/EU initiatives and playing the US and EU off against each other. Basic countries have widely differing interests, but have subordinated these to their common short-term goals.”

And then there was another huge player, Saudi Arabia. A cable from Ambassador James Smith says, interestingly, that officials from the oil-producing giant “have suggested that they need to find a way to climb down gracefully from the country’s tough negotiating position. … Saudi officials are very eager to obtain investment credits for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and other technology transfer projects.”

The bottom line is that everyone was maneuvering hard. Some nations were even willing to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

Ugly, huh?

But here’s the rub, and the question on the street in Cancun, where this year’s conference is currently underway. With the fear that back-room dealings might be exposed to the public – including the benign, the ugly muscling and the sometimes uglier beddings among those who don’t want anyone to know that they’re engaged in any contact – could progress be slowed to crawl, or even doomed?

What role could secret talks play in allowing an obstructionist country to “climb down gracefully,” or the U.S. and the E.U. to work together to prevent a China from killing a (more comprehensive than Copenhagen) deal? Or who’s to say that less-developed nations (perhaps even outwardly adversarial ones) ought not to be able to secretly gather in their own smoke-filled rooms to circumvent the agendas of richer nations? After all, from the Middle East to Middle America, anyone familiar with diplomatic negotiations knows that a lot of trees are often quietly felled in very private forests before breakthroughs occur.

This is not to say that exposure of dirty deals and powerful countries abusing less-powerful ones isn’t a good thing. In fact, the WikiLeaks witch-hunt and censorship effort is somewhere between abhorrent and Orwellian.  But some players would tell you this: If next year’s dealings in Durban – where real, binding breakthroughs are not out of the question – were to be conducted with the presumption of complete transparency, progress might be no more than an elusive dream.

So here is the essential quandary of the Wikileaks phenomenon. Says Julian Assange in yesterday’s The Australian: “The truth will always win.” Nice sentiment. Will it? So much of what has been revealed is opening the world’s eyes to the gruesome underbelly of how nations deal with each other to manipulate people and populations to the benefit of the greedy and the powerful. Yet the question remains, without the ability for nations to conduct business in private, would certain essential bridges never be built, subterranean ties never be made, diplomatic infrastructure never exist that could open doors to change and allow for conflict resolution?

There’s a lot of support for WikiLeaks out there. And there are a lot of critics. But there are a lot of mixed feelings, as well. “What ifs” are easy, but I have to ask these questions: If every Soviet constituency knew of Mikhail Gorbachev’s interactions with Washington, would he have made it to the finish line? If certain Republicans knew of Richard Nixon’s interactions with Mao Tse-Tung, would relations with China have opened? How much sooner might Anwar Sadat have been murdered had his back-room dealings with Menachem Begin been revealed? There are no easy answers, but there’s a lot to consider, as well as a lot of trust going on that publications like the The New York Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian will be making some wise decisions.

In the meantime, in the world’s diplomatic circles the question continues to be asked, often in secret: “Can we talk?” The answer:  “Maybe. Depends who’s listening.”

Image: p373

The post About WikiLeaks: Can We Talk? appeared first on EcoSalon.