From: Sammon, Bill
To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 036 -FOX.WHU; 054 -FNSunday; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers; 069 -Politics; 005 -Washington
Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean
Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009
Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data...

...we should 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. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

Funny how the first sentence is reported and emphasized numerous times in the article but the second sentence is never mentioned?

Is your source possible biased?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

The story can be found elsewhere in the press. Do you deny that the Fox News big wig gave this order?

Some people will deny even past the point of direct scorch/burn marks.

Order? "should refrain" is an order? Isn't it just typical Fox Hater Hyperbole from the usual Fox Hater Suspects?

Quote the entire statement; not just the part you like.

Any text without its context is pretext.
Your "argument" is simple sophistry w/o substance or merit.

or, "....full of rage and fury, signifying nothing."

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Here it is:So, which part do you find to be defensible?

Not that you need my advice, but shouldn't you pick a different fight? This one looks like a dead end for you.

What part is indefensible?

Thanks, I'll give it the same consideration all your advice is deserving of!

Yep the earth is still flat to some people.

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

Maybe this has something to do with the wonky weather:

"Scientists say the activity is a sign that the sun is "waking up" and heading for another "solar maximum" cycle in 2013, according to Space.com.

"The August 1st event really opened our eyes," NASA scientist Karel Schrijver said. "We see that solar storms can be global events, playing out on scales we scarcely imagined before.""


http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101215/ts_yblog_thelookout/watch-the-suns-great-eruption

Considered in isolation, the memo might be OK, but with Fox, it's all one way. Their news people, not just their commentators, are uniformly instructed to take the GOP side. While his memo seems to call upon the reporters to take a neutral stand, it is not neutral at all.

"as this debate intensifies"? Where does he get that?

When you put forth some compelling evidence of "Their news people, not just their commentators, are uniformly instructed to take the GOP side." your claim will be viewed as something more than conjecture I'd suspect. Media Matters has additionally offered only the "government plan not public plan conspiracy" as their prima facie evidence as far as I know, but I'll admit I don't regularly give them much notice. There is no shame in being a Fox Hater, but there ought to be at least little shame in pretending otherwise though!


To answer your question, it's just my guess, but maybe from the intensifying debate?

Who is pretending otherwise?Among whom?