[dohboi]

ennui, National Geographic was just bought by Murdoch, so I'm betting that you will not see any more about GW from that direction. And if I'm right, that will be a pretty clear example of censorship.

[Tanada]

ennui, National Geographic was just bought by Murdoch, so I'm betting that you will not see any more about GW from that direction. And if I'm right, that will be a pretty clear example of censorship.

Hah that is just editorial style, the same way the NYT is 99 percent yellow dog Democrat in their reporting of every news item.

Censorship is what was going on in Canada under the prior PM where they told scientists they were not allowed to speak to reporters about global climate change.

You and your investors are free to start a new magazine, you could call it International Geographic or some such variation to avoid trademark issues, and you could print whatever viewpoint you want. That is why I say what you call censorship is mostly about who is willing to spend money. Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and Earth First could all be major investors in your International Geographic magazine. The question would be, could you get enough paying subscribers to actually keep the operation functional without constantly feeding in more investment money?

National Geographic is one of the last print magazines that is still put out monthly on high quality acid free paper that will last for centuries with reasonable library care. Most modern print magazines today are so low quality that they start falling apart from being read through once or twice. I still have some copies of NatGeo that go back to the late 1960's that are whole and very readable after multiple readings. It is flippin expensive to print a quality magazine designed for long term use like that and my bigger fear is Murdoch will decide to 'save money' by cutting the quality down to modern disposable standards.

[jedrider]

Yes, it is corporate censorship. When the major media companies are OWNED by a cartel of the largest corporations, that is what happens.

The justification for this may be that the issue has become too POLITICAL. It essentially becomes POLITICAL when the right-wing starts screaming as if their baby has been killed, and that is when a tacit censorship begins. Their baby, FREE TRADE, FREE RELIGION, THE FREEDOM OF MONEY TO CONTROL THE MASSES, IS being figuratively killed by the KNOWLEDGE of what is happening, so it is, therefore, suppressed.

[Keith_McClary]

New paper shows degree of impact of corporate messaging on public perception of global warming
December 1, 2015 by Bob Yirka

Justin Farrell of Yale University has published another paper as part of his research into the ways that large corporations are using disinformation campaigns to confuse the public regarding global warming and its cause—just last week he published a paper in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, offering evidence of large corporations intentionally causing confusion regarding global warming. This time around he offers a report in the journal Nature Climate Change that outlines techniques he's been using that help to gauge just how successful the disinformation campaigns have been.
... on data obtained from the public domain (texts, social network sites, trade associations, television networks, presidential speeches, etc.) over the years 1993 to 2013 that involved global warming, Farrell claims he was able to show that over the two-decade time frame, many such texts matched those published by very large corporations and some wealthy private citizens, indicating that such entities have been quite successful at getting their messages into the public domain and in stirring the debate over global warming—enough to cause doubt about the evidence coming from the scientific community in many people and that in turn has caused many to doubt that the planet is actually warming, despite overwhelming scientific evidence.