Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack
SirJosephPorter, time and time again you declared that you take everything you see on CNN and read in the Globe and Mail as true, because these two news sources are unbiased, truthful and objective.
CNN reported that "more than 2800 cities and towns participated worldwide in 83 countries and 24 time zones" in Earth Hour, which was ridiculed as "trick", "sham" and "flimflammery" by the Globe and Mail.
Yukon Jack, I was skimming through the posts and I saw this little post by you. Now, earth hour is over (until next year anyway) and we should move on. However, I don’t want to leave you with the impression that I have changed my opinion about CNN and Globe and Mail. They are still excellent, highly reputable, respectable and reliable publications.
As I understand, CNN did not come up with the figure of 100 million people, 2400 cities and 83 countries independently, they asked WWF. It is quite possible that the figure WWF gave CNN were preliminary figures, before all the news, all the results were in. When CNN talked to WWF, that was probably the best estimate. It wouldn’t surprise me if WWF had the same figures on their website at that time.
However, as earth hour spread to other time zones, more news came in, they revised their estimate, and it became 1 billion, 4000 cities and 88 countries. So the two figures are not inconsistent, they probably just represent different points in time.
So CNN is not at fault here, they may be at fault to the extent that they should have waited perhaps another day before they talked to WWF. But in my opinion, CNN was not unreliable there, the two figures are not inconsistent.
Now, if CNN had said that its independent estimate suggests that 100 million people participated in earth hour, I would attach some importance to it. But they were simply quoting WWF, and in that case the two figures are not inconsistent.
As to Globe and Mail saying earth hour was "trick", "sham" and "flimflammery", big deal. The fact that I consider Globe and Mail a reputable publication does not mean that I have to agree with each and every opinion expressed there (maybe it means that to you, perhaps that is why you consider FOX to be a reputable publication, you probably agree 100% with their extreme right ideology).
Thus last two elections Globe and Mail endorsed Conservatives, I voted Liberal. Reputable and reliable publication means that if it published a factual story (e.g. that 4 more soldiers died in Afghanistan, or that conservatives are leading Liberals in opinion poll 35 to 30), I will believe it. But as far as I am aware, they are not contesting any of the numbers, they are just expressing an opinion. I don’t have to agree with their opinion to consider them a reliable and reputable publication.
So you may rest easy, in my opinion, CNN and Globe and Mail still remain highly reputable, respectable and reliable publications. It is just that they are irrelevant in this case.
Last edited by SirJosephPorter; Mar 30th, 2009 at 06:26 PM..