So here’s an interesting fact:
In 2004, according to the Canadian Newspaper Association, advertising revenue in Canadian newspapers was $2.6 billion. Of the top 30 advertisers in Canadian papers, 15 were car dealerships or auto manufacturers. Car ads represented fully 54 percent of those top-30 revenues, totalling $549 million.
So, when Rex Murphy or Margaret Wente go off about how we need to have a “reasonable” debate about climate change, or worse, reassure us that they know the entire scientific community is wrong… do you think the editors of the G&M are worried about what their readers might think?
Frankly, they’re probably relieved. If there is still a debate on climate change, then all those ads still may not be that bad. And besides… that’s a lot of advertising revenue to replace.
So now, every time you wonder why the media feels a need to present “both sides of the debate” on this issue… stop wondering.
Big hat tip on this to Mitchell Anderson. I strongly encourage you to check out his column over at DeSmogBlog on how NASA (read US Government) quietly killed the DSCOVR climate change monitoring satellite despite it being fully constructed and ready to lauch. Fascinating read and… shocker… an example of real investigative journalism from a blog.