Angry in the Great White North

Internews is an organization devoted to helping out people in areas not served by an independent media:

Internews is an international media development organization whose mission is to empower local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect, and the means to make their voices heard.

This sounds like a laudable goal, but like many roads paved with good intentions...well, you know where that goes.  In particular, this group has a curious idea of what "balanced" reporting means when it comes to global warming alarmism:

Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale. Equally enormous are the adjustments that will have to be made to our energy and transportation systems, economies and societies, if we are to mitigate climate change.

All journalists should understand the science of climate change - its causes, its controversies and its current and projected impacts. Start by doing your own research from established sources, such as reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or from local scientific experts you trust.

Read and report on the latest research from peer-reviewed scientific journals, or at the very least from reputable popular science publications.

OK, so it seems to be a given to these people that global warming is a proven fact.  I suppose that doesn't make them all that different from much of the rest of the media, but then there is this bit of advice for aspiring journalists:

Avoid false balance. Some journalists, trying to be fair and balanced, report the views of climate change sceptics as a counterweight to climate change stories. But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science. For example, an overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that average global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels and that human activity is a significant factor in this.

Of course it's good to air all sorts of views if they are placed into context. So if you report climate change sceptics' views, also describe their credentials and whether theirs is a minority opinion.

Oh, so balance is not balance when it is "false" balance, that being when skeptics are given anything approaching equal time without caveats and qualifications designed to make their statements suspect. 

I suppose if those skeptics come forward with, oh, I don't know, let's say emails that show that the alarmists have been torquing the data and silencing critics, that too counts as "false balance" to report on it.

So Internews is probably like most media outlets, except that it is blatant about its non-journalistic agenda, even when it seems to run counter to their own ethical guidelines:

Impartiality. Whether they are working as journalists, trainers, moderators or producers, Internews staff attempt to provide a fair and representative array of relevant viewpoints. It is inappropriate to seek the protections and access that the neutral observer's role demands, and then actively advocate one side of the debate. By leaving the partisan advocacy role to others and making the distinction clear, journalists protect the credibility of their impartial news reports.

Their guidelines on impartiality makes an exception for "education":

While they eschew being "advocates" on partisan issues or political campaigns, some Internews staff will appropriately conduct "issue education campaigns" for journalists and the public, on topics that are chosen in consultation with Internews management. Appropriate topics include: advice on how to cover conflict without inflaming the protagonists; information about public safety concerns such as HIV/AIDS; and illegal trafficking in women and children. Inappropriate advocacy includes: covering an issue or political campaign with a deliberate bias for or against, while claiming to be a professional, impartial journalist; or shaping news content according to the bias or requests of an Internews funder.

So it is bad to shape the news according to the bias of a funder, even for the purposes of education.

Would it surprise you to learn that one of the donors to Internews is the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which established and runs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

Now why would the UNEP be interested in a media organization?  It would be interested if the organization supported the UNEP mandate of acting "as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment".  But then it would be the case that Internews was shaping the news content according to the bias of a funder.

Still, teaching that "good journalism" means giving global warming skeptics as little media time as possible is exactly what the UNEP would want.

OK, so we have an non-governmental organization using some sort of cover to obscure a left-wing agenda.  And the sky is blue.  Big deal.

What is a big deal is that Internews gets money from the US government:

• USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)
• USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI)
• US Department of State (DOS)
• US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL)
• US Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)
• US Department of State, Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
• US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

Now obviously the Middle East Partnership Initiative is not in the business of funding either side of the global warming debate.  The MEPI funding for Internews is supposed to support promoting open and free media in Middle Eastern theocracies.  But by giving money to Internews, the global warming alarmists benefit.

But it even goes further than that.  Internews is registered with the Combined Federal Campaign, the agency within the US Office of Personnel Management that enables US government employees to donate directly to charitable organizations through payroll deductions:

Administered by OPM, the CFC is the nation's largest employer-sponsored charity drive. Since its inception [in 1961], the program has received donations in excess of $5.5 billion from the federal community.

As part of the CFC, Internews must characterize itself using a list of predefined categories.  Here is how Internews categorized itself:

• International, Foreign Affairs, National Security
• Public Safety, Disaster Preparedness & Relief
• Educational Institutions & Related Activities

What about category C, "Environmental Quality, Protection & Beautification"?  Well, that might raise some eyebrows.

An NGO, funded in part by the United Nations Environment Program, deliberately and blatantly teaches journalists in developing countries that global warming is a fact, and that reporting with balance has to be done with care to ensure that there is not much balance at all.  Furthermore, this NGO is a charity (I have no doubt it meets the IRS standard for a charity) that is able to draw on the contributions of the thousands upon thousands of US government employees to fund its efforts to promote global warming hysteria around the globe.

And all the money that flows in is tax exempt.

It's no wonder that sometimes it seems impossible for skeptics to gain any traction.  The global warming myth is so tied into vast sums of money that few people could afford to tell the truth, or at least challenge the alarmists.

Still, taking the alarmists like Internews out of the list of charities would even the playing field, since I would be surprised if an organization openly skeptical of the global warming theory would earn a charity designation.