Reckless Endangerment in the Drudge Report

A posting yesterday in Black Sun Journal correctly categorizes the authors of Matt Drudge, the author of the Drudge Report, as evil for, at worst, knowingly and, at best, recklessly misleading his readers and directing them to perform actions that threaten to cause significant harm to substantial numbers of people.

(See: Black Sun, Lying With Headlines About Climate Change)

The deception comes in the form of presenting headlines without explaining their context, where Matt Drudge either negligently or knowingly deceives his readers into drawing false conclusions from those headlines.

In the case, the Drudge Report contains the headline, "'No rise' of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years . . . "

It is quite reasonable to believe that a great many of the people who will read The Drudge Report will take that headline to indicate that all of these claims about humans causing an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are false. There hasn't been any change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations - caused by humans or anybody.

A responsible person warns others against likely false interpretations, particularly when those false interpretations could result in others doing something dreadfully harmful - something that could lead to the destruction of whole cities.

What a responsible person who considers this information important would do is say, "Here is some important information. I wish to share it with my readers. However, it is important to me that my readers understand the truth of the matter. If they do misinterpret this data, they risk performing actions that could destroy whole cities. I do not want my readers to perform actions that could destroy whole cities - particularly on the basis of information I provided. So, I will do the responsible thing and make sure they understand the fact of the matter."

The fact of the matter, as Black Sun Journal reports, is that half of human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere where they contribute to global warming. The other half is being absorbed into the oceans where they contribute to the acidification of the oceans. (When water absorbs CO2 it creates carbonic acid - the same acid you get in soda pop.)

As the oceans become increasingly saturated with CO2, they may be able to absorb less and less - like a wet sponge can absorb less water than a dry sponge. This means that more CO2 gets left behind in the atmosphere - meaning a stronger contribution to global warming.

Matt Drudge either knowingly or recklessly seeks to use this headline to convince his readers that there is nothing to worry about with regard to putting CO2 in the atmosphere. Many readers looking at this headline will jump to the conclusion that there are no legitimate concerns over human CO2 emissions. As such, they are likely to continue performing actions that, in the end, could result in the destruction of whole cities.

One could argue that Matt Drudge is not responsible for the mistakes made by his readers.

That is not true.

If you had an electronic device that had the potential to set of a nuclear bomb in another city, and you handed it to somebody in a context that you knew - or should have known - would lead them to believe it was safe to push the button, you would be morally responsible for the people who were killed. Even if the device contains a tag that says ACME NUCLEAR DETONATION DEVICE, you would have an obligation to make sure that the person you handed it to knew what it was and did not perform any action that threatened to do significant harm to whole cities.

This is a moral responsibility in that no decent, moral, responsible human being would turn over such a device to somebody else without making sure that they understood what it is they were holding.

Matt Drudge has every reason to believe that his readers will misinterpret this headline and think of it as a reason to perform actions that could destroy whole cities. The fact that he does not care to warn his readers about this misinterpretation shows that he is as morally irresponsible - as morally evil - as the person who carelessly handles a nuclear detonation device to somebody in a context where they are very likely to press the button.

Here is a question to answer. What is the most reasonable explanation as to why Matt Drudge selected this headline when compared to all of the other news items related to climate change, and all of the other headline news in particular? What is more likely? It was a coincidence that Matt Drudge selected a headline likely to mislead people? Or that he selected the headline knowing - and even intending - to mislead his readers?

Let us not forget the fact that he is misleading his readers - negligently or knowingly - into doing things potentially destructive to whole cities, without showing a twinge of conscience over the fact that his actions are deceptive, or over the fact that they could potentially lead to the destruction of whole cities.

Whether his actions are negligent or knowingly deceptive, he displays a lack of concern over the potential destruction of whole cities. He demonstrates that the thought that huge numbers of people may be made to suffer has insufficient pull on his moral conscience to motivate him to take care to prevent such an event. That tells us a lot about what type of person he is.