• AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Lol, “one side of the climate debate.” There isn’t debate among scientists - there’s like less than one percent of climate scientists who don’t believe that humans are putting our climate in a terrible place. So just that part the tells you the bias. It’s just like when they talk about the debate between evolution and creationism: the only debate is with people who reject the data to further their own agenda.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Right, that’s the thing.

        I honestly believe part of the problem this country is in today started when the news media felt they had to give equal time to every issue. I remember lots of segments on climate change where they had one person on each side, and I could understand most people coming away believing we just don’t know. And it’s not just climate change, they did that with everything.

        So here we are, polarized like never before, with so many believing that every opinion is legitimate. Sure, you can believe what you want, but if you believe the world was created 6000 years ago, you’re just wrong. You’re entitled to believe something wrong, but that doesn’t make it valid. A legitimate news site should reflect that. A climate denier or a creationist shouldn’t get equal time. Same with do many issues.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          We can thank Reagan for the situation with the news. He got rid of the Fairness Doctrine which mandated broadcasters both present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.