Conspiracy theory as narrative at the Times

Check out this piece over at the NY Times, entitled “Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him”. It's a great example of agenda journalism.

As of this writing it’s at the top of the NYTimes.com home page. Now, after reading the article, can you cite the name of the person who attempted to silence Dr. Hansen, and the objective evidence? No, you probably can’t, because it’s not in the article. Here’s an excerpt:

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.
...
He said he was particularly incensed that the directives affecting his statements had come through informal telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Mmm, seems that the evidence is comprised of no significant trail of documents. Front page stuff indeed! I presume this set of shackles is especially chafing:

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

Now, keep in mind, the above is presumably the most damning piece of evidence that they could find. That, and “handwritten notes” recalling a phone conversation with a “public affairs officer”, a Mr. Deutsch.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" ...

Note than none of Mr. Deutsch’s purported quotes mentions Dr. Hansen in any way. Can evidence be both circumstantial and hearsay at the same time? Yes!

Was Mr. Deutsch asked for a quote by the reporter? I don’t see any mention, I would be curious to know.

Now, I am sure that Dr. Hansen is a scientist who sincerely believes what he says, and that he is credible. I also don’t doubt that he “fell out of favor” with the White House by announcing that he would vote for Kerry. Of course, no evidence is provided for that either, but let’s grant it.

It is entirely possible that there are people who would like him to speak less. It’s just that the article fails to find them.

What we have here is a conspiracy narrative, evidence-free, particularly ironic for an article on science.

My own conspiracy theory? Leslie McCarthy, another “public affairs officer” who has the money quotes in the article, took it upon herself to make this story happen. I can’t prove that, either.

Comments

[Vail Beach]

I wrote about the Hansen-muzzled piece on my blog. I think this post is a bit disingenuous. Sure, the NASA political minders are going to characterize their actions with anodyne language, but basically their quotes confirm that a) policy has changed and b) henceforth, Hansen must limit his comments to stay within policy. His speech in SF in December articulated a policy recommendation contrary to Bush/Cheney's, hence the timing.

The NY Times story might be agenda journalism, but you have to hand it to the folks in the White House. They've turned Dr. Hansen into a martyr. Hansen making speeches about global warming is nothing new, and hardly news. Now his influence is going to be greater than if they'd just let him alone.

If you want to read what I wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/bfvke