The Guardian and the Common Editorial on Climate Change
The Guardian's view on the common editorial on climate change shared by 56 newspapers is stated here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/06/climate-change-leader-editorial
> A number of major US titles evinced support for
> the project, but stopped short of signing up,
> leaving the admirably independent-minded Miami Herald
Independent-minded obviously means "agreeing with me"!
Let us, of course, excuse the irony of independence being equated with signing up for a common editorial.
> One US paper's response: "This is an outrageous
> attempt to orchestrate media pressure. Go to hell."
Interesting this, that the Guardian chose not to respond to this very valid accusation.
The "go to hell" bit is a little over the top, not just because the US paper said it (in an official statement?) but that a UK paper, ostensibly the guardian of truth, justice and good taste, chose to leave it in. Why? To remind us that the Americans are ill-mannered? Or to suggest that anyone who can use such a phrase probably has an untenable argument. This is the sort of cloaked ad hominem attack that makes one want to switch to The Sun. Half-naked people and too much football, but there is a lack of underhandedness.
Unfortunately, there is no list of papers which were invited to carry it, nor indeed, of those asked, whether they were given enough time, clarification and meta-information to either accept or reject the idea, with enough background.
Why do we need multiple newspapers? Shall we not just settle on one party line? One accepted scientific position - perhaps multiple centres of research are superfluous. Just leads to unnecessary debate, when we all know that we are right.