This something I found Dated 22/2/10 on Eureka Alert.org so its current
It clearly summaries what I've been saying for yonks
>"Mass media have been a key vehicle by which climate change contrarianism has traveled, according to Maxwell Boykoff, a University of Colorado at Boulder professor and fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,

Boykoff, an assistant professor of environmental studies, presented his research today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.

"One problem occurs when outlier viewpoints are not individually evaluated in context,"
"A variety of influences and perspectives typically have been collapsed by mass media into one general category of skepticism. This has been detrimental both in terms of dismissing legitimate critiques of climate science or policy, as well as amplifying extreme and tenuous claims."

Such claims are amplified when traditional news media position noncredible contrarian sources against those with scientific data, in a failed effort to represent opposing sides,"

Another issue in mass media is the tendency to flatly report on both the claims of contrarians, as well as the accusations made about their claims and motives. The ensuing finger-pointing plays into the conflict, drama and personalized stories that drive news. It also distracts attention from critical institutional and societal challenges regarding carbon consumption that calls citizen behaviors, actions and decisions to account.

"Reducing climate science and policy considerations to a tit-for-tat between dueling personalities comes at the expense of appraising fundamental challenges regarding the necessary de-carbonization of industry and society,"

Among various and ongoing research strategies, Boykoff -- in partnership with Maria Mansfield from Exeter University and the University of Oxford -- has tracked climate change coverage in 50 newspapers in 20 countries and six continents since 2004. Boykoff also has looked at how climate science and policy find meaning and traction in people's everyday lives through work in the United States, United Kingdom and India.

For more information on Boykoff's research visit http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/"<
NB the topic is about the medias role NOT AGW.

This is a joke Examinator, Right?

Our media has not really reported all the cons, lies & shifty processes the leading warmists have been using. They have in the UK, & to a lesser extent the US, hence the rapid wake up of their public. The acceptance of the con, after the Phil Jones interview is down to 23%.

When do you think our media will report that the head warmist, Phil Jones, has agreed, on a TV interview, that there has been no statistically relevant warming in the in the last 15 years. And you reckon they aren't pro warming rubbish. Hell, I'm even listening to some warmist propaganda on the ABC right now.

I should have learnt by now, that the ABC old grey mare aint what she used to be. Once upon a time you could believe anything you heard on the ABC, now you can expect it to be well & truely spun, hard left, before it gets to air.

Lets just look at some of Mr Flannery's past and present predictions and you will see why so many people now realize that the man made gw theories have been largely based on mythology. Whether it be melted glaziers, sea levels or temperatures we have been fed a pack of lies. The head of the IPCC has lost all credibility and CopenHagen was nothing short of a very expensive joke.

What is heartening is that so many average citizens have picked up on this scam despite the lack of integrity of our national broadcasters to report anything other than their dogmas. They now have egg all over their faces. Media watch is so so desperate to find flaws in those who have exposed this rubbish.

No it's not a joke you should really read a bit wider The herald sun, The Aus, even the courier mail is prone to contrarianism it sells papers. Alan Jones and his ilk , Monckton, Plimer, All the gates none of which have real scientific substance or sense but they make good copy.
Look at Glaciergate The flaw was the 35 year prediction *not* that the eastern and Himalayan glaciers that feed the major Chinese/ Indian aren't actually retreating. Tat bit doesn't make interesting copy.

Even the Pauline Hanson was raised beyond her competence and real substance because she was 'bankable copy' i.e.What does it matter if Hansen is off to England? any bets how soon before she's back?

Corby only makes the pages because she is attractive and therefore 'bankable copy'. Name the Aussies males who were executed or those that are in jail now for the same crimes?

A perfect example is that the media will largely ignore many of the latest 'proofs' of mounting problems because they are boring.

Watch this story
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222120137.htm
(full map http://www.glaciers.er.usgs.gov) any bets on if it gets 10 or 20 seconds?
Bet they don't cite the number of satellites involved or link it to GRACE that shows the ice nearest to the ground is melting, causing the thinning from the bottom up.

runner,
What part of >"NB the topic is about the medias role, NOT AGW"<
Don't you understand?

I think the answer is obvious in who owns the mass media and whether they personally are deniers. If Rupert says AGW is crap then his wage slaves better agree and back him up or they will be on the street quick smart.