Nearly Half Of Climate Cult Journalists Whine About Getting “Threats”

Well, hey, perhaps if they were doing the job of being a reporter rather than trotting out doomsday cult propaganda it wouldn’t be an issue. If they weren’t constantly writing uncritically about doom and gloom, it wouldn’t be a problem. If they weren’t blowing off actual science in favor of junk science it wouldn’t be a problem

Nearly half of journalists covering climate crisis globally received threats for their work

Almost four out of every 10 journalists covering the climate crisis and environment issues have been threatened as a result of their work, with 11% subjected to physical violence, according to groundbreaking new research.

A global survey of more than 740 reporters and editors from 102 countries found that 39% of those threatened “sometimes” or “frequently” were targeted by people engaged in illegal activities such as logging and mining. Some 30%, meanwhile, were threatened with legal action – reflecting a growing trend towards corporations and governments deploying the judicial system to muzzle free speech.

The global survey by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network (EJN) and Deakin University is the first-of-its-kind scrutiny of the challenges faced by journalists covering arguably the most pressing – if not existential – issues of our time.

The Covering the Planet report includes in-depth interviews with 74 journalists from 31 countries about what help they need to do a better job reporting extreme weather, plastics pollution, water scarcity, and mining as global heating and unchecked corporate greed pushes the planet to its limits.

In fairness, reporters who call out actual wrongdoing will get threats for legal action and such, and there are certainly companies and individuals who are bad for the environment and could be breaking law. Of course, that’s completely separate from ‘climate change’, and people do not take kindly to “reporters” pushing a cult that is attempting to get government to institute higher taxes/fees, control our lives, and reduce our freedom.

The survey also found an overwhelming need for more resources for newsrooms covering the environment and the climate crisis: 76% of those surveyed said insufficient resources limit their coverage, and identified more funding for in-depth journalism, in-person training and workshops, and more access to relevant data and subject experts as among their top priorities.

Well, then convince your companies to fund you. Obviously, this doesn’t generate revenue. I wonder how many of the 740 drive EVs themselves?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Nearly Half Of Climate Cult Journalists Whine About Getting “Threats””

  1. Dana says:

    Perhaps when your work is designed to stick your hand in other people’s pockets, yeah, they might not like you very much.

    The global warming climate catastrophe journalists aren’t out there in the middle of wars or crisis situations, but poking into ordinary people’s daily lives, looking for things that really aren’t there, in order to upset ordinary people’s apple carts. They’re like the officious little government pricks who declare every drainage ditch to be some kind of protected wetlands interfering with people’s lives, people minding their own business and not harming anyone. They’re like Our Betters who have decided to impose, via executive fiat, a requirement that all new cars sold starting in 2035 must be zero emissions, when only a small percentage of the population are interested in buying the fool things.

    The ‘journalists’? In a time in which trust of the credentialed media is at a near low, the ‘journalists’ are right there, in front of the people most directly affected, asking nosy questions.

    • Dana says:

      Dag nab it! Forgot to close an html tag!

      Perhaps when your work is designed to stick your hand in other people’s pockets, yeah, they might not like you very much.

      The global warming climate catastrophe journalists aren’t out there in the middle of wars or crisis situations, but poking into ordinary people’s daily lives, looking for things that really aren’t there, in order to upset ordinary people’s apple carts. They’re like the officious little government pricks who declare every drainage ditch to be some kind of protected wetlands interfering with people’s lives, people minding their own business and not harming anyone. They’re like Our Betters who have decided to impose, via executive fiat, a requirement that all new cars sold starting in 2035 must be zero emissions, when only a small percentage of the population are interested in buying the fool things.

      The ‘journalists’? In a time in which trust of the credentialed media is at a near low, the ‘journalists’ are right there, in front of the people most directly affected, asking nosy questions.

  2. H says:

    Teach seems to have forgotten the mantra:
    reduce, reuse, recycle replace.
    Perhaps more of those journalists might consider the purchase of a new EV after reading a first person test drive review of that new Honda Prologue.
    Why the delay

    • Dana says:

      Journalists have a big picture of themselves as having to go out and investigate stories, something which might cause many to wonder if the range limitations and lack of public charging stations might hamper their work.

  3. H says:

    One major reason that people are not immediately buying new EVs is because unlike fossil fueled cars, EVs keep getting better AND cheaper. Range goes up, prices keep dropping

    • Dana says:

      But if they’re putting off buying them, then the infrastructure to support them also gets put off.

      • Professor Hale says:

        This is great news. So if I put off buying them, eventually they will fly, be powered by old banana peels and cost less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    • Jl says:

      Johnny “logic”. They’re not buying EVs because they’re getting better and cheaper. And if they were getting worse and more expensive-people wouldn’t buy them. An unfalsfiable explanation.

      • Zachriel says:

        Jl: They’re not buying EVs because they’re getting better and cheaper. And if they were getting worse and more expensive-people wouldn’t buy them. An unfalsfiable explanation.

        When prices rise, people will not buy a product if there is a cheaper alternative. In this case, ICE (internal combustion engine vehicle) represents a cheaper alternative. When prices fall, people will often wait until prices stabilize. This is strongly supported with evidence concerning how markets work.

        For additional support, U.S. sales of evs are soft, but global sales continue to grow. The American ev market tends to niche luxury vehicles, while the global market is primarily in low-cost evs. This is already changing as market pressures, primarily from Chinese manufacturers, is causing price cutting in the industry.

        Or you could just ask them. People around the globe are concerned about the lack of infrastructure and range, but pricing remains the most important factor. About 2/3 are open to purchasing an ev. Plug-in hybrids are also very popular, as it addresses the problems of infrastructure and range anxiety.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    I have noticed a recent trend that all leftists complain about getting death threats. I can no longer take it seriously. If someone is getting a real threat to their life and safety, that is an actionable thing for law enforcement. Otherwise, it’s just internet noise. Among the professional attention-seeking crowd, the Death threat is the new symbol of virtue.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      The ‘Professor’ gets this one right. Anonymously posting a reporters home address online is hardly a ‘threat’. Even posting their work address online is hardly a ‘threat’. An anonymous call from an untraceable telephone telling a reporter they need to be more careful is hardly a ‘threat’. Typing that the typist has all your credit card information is hardly a ‘threat’. Even saying you know about their children is hardly a ‘threat’. These are just people relaying facts. And SWATTing someone is just good fun, probably supported by the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Lighten up.

      And having someone a little fearful for their own or their family’s well-being might just make them a little more responsible in what they say or write, right!?!

      As Dr Teach the Scientist explains: If they weren’t blowing off actual science in favor of junk science it wouldn’t be a problem

      IOW, if you ‘reporters’ report what we want you won’t get no threats!!

      And journalist Mr Teach types: Obviously, this doesn’t generate revenue

      IOW, report what people want to get paid!!

  5. wildman says:

    you will notice there are no examples of the threats. none. so, lets just say they are looking for relevancy.

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Mr Teach approves of threatening journalists to get them to STFU about topics he doesn’t like.

    • CarolAnn says:

      Elwood, you approve of threatening trump and trump supporters for supporting topics you don’t like. You and people like you have even gone as far as serving them in prison and putting them on phony trials.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        We don’t have phony trials in the US. I don’t believe I’ve threatened any far-fight “journalists”. The insurrectionists in jail now either pleaded guilty or were convicted.

        Criticizing is not the same as threatening. You falsely accusing me of being a communist is NOT a threat. You suggesting I should be SWATTED IS a threat. See the difference?

        Should we gut the DOJ and all federal, state and local courts?

Pirate's Cove