More Incredible Errors/Purposeful Manipulations of Viewers? From Fair and Balanced Fox

The real question is why people would want to watch a news station that does not report news, but that spins the news a certain way in order to support particular advocacy positions.

One that not only does this, but does it somewhat manipulatively, by trying very hard to "come off" as and convince viewers that it is unbiased and objective

So then what was this? Fox News'Andrew Napolitano:

NASA's Goddard Space Center made a remarkable discovery. The headline from the DailyTech is -- you're not going to believe this -- quote: "NASA acknowledges solar cycle, not man, responsible for global warming."

So, basically -- are you ready for this? -- the sun heats the Earth. The real question is whether Al Gore's NASA guy, Dr. James Hanson, will give up on trying to say "people heat the Earth" and "people cause global warming," or if the man who produced the report will get fired for going against the green -- I mean, against the grain.
What was this?

Stupidity on the part of Napolitano? Just an innocent mistake? How many mistakes like this are made by Fox?

The real question is how many hours go by where Fox does not make a mistake like this. Yet it is extremely rare to find a "mistake" by Fox that does not support a particular ideological side to the issues we face in America today -- and always that same "ideological" side.

Or maybe Fox likes scouring headlines or other out of context snippets to bring to its readers as "news" what helps to support what Fox wants to convey, without actually doing what real news does -- spending a few mintues checking up on the actual news, let alone, of course, doing any actual investigation.

Remember Napolitano not only told Fox viewers that NASA claimed that the sun, not any of man's greenhouse gas activities, were responsible for any global warming that was occurring, but he also mocked NASA and even NASA's James Hansen for asserting the overwhelming conclusion of the world' scientists, as well as every single major, pure science (aka, non partisan) organization the world over.

From the NASA report that Fox "you decide" news told its reporters concluded that the sun, and not human activity, was responsible for any global warming:

"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

... "Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."

The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."
So, aside from doing any actual news work, how was it that Napolitano, "conveniently" got it so wrong, on such a large issue topic, and reported to a country wide network of viewers that NASA had concluded that manking was not causing any global warming?

Simple. Napolitano went to a classic "source" for major network reporting. The online blog "Daily Tech," which frequently misleads, routinely along ideological lines as well. A perfect source for Fox to get its "news" from. All Fox, and Napolitano had to do in order to not wildly mislead its viewers, something which is a simple task for an evening blogger with a full time job and a life full of activities, was take a minute and go to the source that Daily Tech itself misleadingly relied upon.

But for "Fair and Balanced" Fox, that was apparently too much.

What a fraud Australian Rupert Murdoch's network is perpetrating on the American public, who puts up with it.

It's probably Fox that is playing not just a big role in the incredible dumbing down of America, but in the transition of the Republican/ conservative party into a far right wing party of zealous ideologues, who believe they are "objective."