CNN's Miles O'Brien vs. "An Inconvenient Truth"

UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I was too harsh in condemning the whole program because of the items I mentioned. On the whole it did make the argument that the best thing to do is be aware of the issues involved and address them sooner rather than later.

If done correctly, the negative aspects of doing what's necessary can be minimized, and the transition into what are evolved and much healthier industries can work for all those concerned.

It's always difficult to see the necessity for change from within.
People's livelihoods are at stake and that's threatening if not seen in the right context. It's part of the evolution of humanity, and as we learn more, certain industries have to change or put at risk the health of the earth itself, but it cannot be denied without making the problems worse. I'm thinking of industries like logging, fishing, and energy where sustainability over the long term is necessary. The earth is remarkably tolerant and adaptable, but only to a certain extent. We need to work towards eliminating those who would carelessly squander it's resources for temporary profit in favor of those with wisdom who will intelligently use what resources we have in a measured and responsible way.

When I think of the process working correctly, I think of some of the most 'primitive' cultures, and how they only use what's necessary, aren't wasteful, and protect their resources carefully for future generations.

If you think about it, who are the real "savages"?

---------------------------------- Original Post ->

The first thing I noticed was the purposeful error CNN made in their show description of "Keeping them Honest", and no despite the humorous and disingenuous title of the show, I'm talking about the way they quoted the name of Al Gore's film "The Inconvenient Truth" instead of it's actual name "An Inconvenient Truth" and later "Inconvenient Truth". Small difference, maybe, but that was just the beginning. Not quite the same thing as when Fox "News" identifies Republicans as Democrats when they get into trouble, but in the same vein of subtle subconscious attempts to effect the viewer.

Not too different from that was Miles' claim that "many scientists disagree..." with the conclusions drawn by the film about Global Warming. No Miles, the only way that statement would be true is if you said "many scientists on the fringes of the scientific community who work for energy companies and the Bush administration disagree...". (edit 10/26/07)

Wow, as far as we've come lately in coming to terms with the fact that we as humans have altered the earth's climate to the degree that we need to change our behavior and move away from burning fossil fuels, and on comes Miles O'Brien and CNN insinuating that it's not true and Al Gore and the vast majority of independent (and respected) scientists are just alarmists. Quite a public service you're doing there CNN, way to shill for the deniers.

And as for Miles O'Brien, well this doesn't surprise me a bit, but it is disappointing that instead of being on the side of humanity and common sense, you're working to aid those who would have us remain ignorant in favor of corporate profits.

I expect this kind of propaganda from Fox, now "The Most Trusted Name in News" has joined "Fair and Balanced" as examples of the antithesis of 'truth in advertising'. If this is CNN and Miles O'Brien's idea of "Keeping Them Honest", I'll pass.

A sad day indeed, but expect more and more of this as a result of the FCC ruling that allowed so few big media companies to control so many media outlets. If it wasn't for the internet (and the ethical portion of print journalists, PBS' Bill Moyers, and a scant few in the MSM like Keith Olbermann) providing a door through the propaganda machine, their control over the perceived 'reality' would be complete.

Thanks Keith Olbermann, kind of..

It's obvious that you are trying to dissuade those who would confront you personally, which I can completely understand. There certainly enough examples of crazies taking things too far, noting recently that Michelle Malkin went to the home of 12 year old Graeme Frost. And not to be ignored are the malevolent threats posted on the internet sites. There's a big difference though, you aren't an elected official. Congressman Knollenberg is.

But in the case of activist Bruce Fealk you came very close to tossing at least part of him (maybe just his foot?) under the proverbial bus. I got the impression that your personal fear colored part of tonight's piece. Absolutely nothing in the video shown on your show was illegal. You should have investigated that aspect and made it clear. The visit to the politician's home as I understand it was done in 'good humor' (with ice cream offered), and the 'fear' alleged by his wife and their neighbors is completely manufactured.

Politicians might not like dealing with their constituents face to face, but really that's too bad. And when they're out in public as they were in this video they shouldn't expect any form of 'privacy' or just happy contented citizens praising them.

That's not the real world, and that's part of the big problem we're fighting, especially these days. All too many politicians try to live (and legislate) in a separate reality. It's been that way forever to a certain extent, but over the last seven years the Republican Party has brought it to a whole new (and unconstitutional) level, and it has no place in a representational Democracy. Peaceful dissent is a right and a responsibility of a conscientious citizenry isn't it? I believe that you might even find something written about it in a recently 'crumpled' piece of parchment kept in Washington, DC. called the Constitution.
(The actual wording is quite a bit more forceful than mine if I recall correctly.)

You work for a news network (well, partially at least) whose reporters and photographers stake out and intrude on people's lives whether they're politicians or not.

Political activists, doing their patriotic duty as citizens obviously need to act within the bounds of the law, and hopefully in a polite and legal manner (which Bruce Fealk appears to have done), and if they stray beyond that point they should expect the consequences.

If I knock on someone's door and politely ask them directions and they claim 'assault', it's not my fault that they over-reacted. I don't believe there's any law prohibiting citizens from going to their elected representatives homes to ask questions is there? It's not something that I personally would do or advocate except as a last resort, but if otherwise denied, political activists maybe should, and I think the Founders of this great nation would agree!

You can plainly see what kind of staff controls access to Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), and I commend Bruce Fealk for maintaining his civility during this exchange. It can't be easy trying to have a civil discussion in the face of such a apoplectic response from Trent Wisecup (the person controlling access to the congressman).

In a perfect world the politicians would have nothing but happy contented constituents, but in the real world citizens with serious questions have every right, and really the obligation to speak directly with their elected representatives, and when you deny them that [belligerently] and your chief of staff calls those who ask the hard, legitimate questions "un-american" and worse, some of the more 'active' activists might actually go to their home with a video camera trying to ask them the questions they were denied asking earlier. And I realize that Mr. Fealk was at the congressman's home prior to this on-camera incident, but he also had prior run-ins with Trent Wisecup, and as you noted, the staff had a meeting deciding to 'confront' Mr. fealk for being a terrible 'un-american political activist' who dared to ask pointed questions!

But in closing, tonight you chose the safer path, and in so doing strayed from your usual confrontational 'Truth to Power' discourse which so many of us admire.