The opinion page of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is one of the most disinformation-rich environments still considered to be mainstream media. They've run over a thousand pieces of climate disinformation over the past two and a half decades, and there's no sign they're slowing down, what with their the Infowars Investing fight against ESG, and the SEC, and wokewashing fossil fuel development. And if you thought their defenses of fossil fuel companies profiteering off of Putin's war on Ukraine was as bad as it could get, then buckle up!*
Because now Putin's war, and the fossil fuel price spike triggered by it and Covid, has a new culprit scapegoat: Barack Obama. Yes, columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. found a way to blame the (Black) President who hasn't been in office since 2016 for Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. How? Well because apparently "the sainted Barack Obama was actually the pivotal figure," in that somehow (Jenkins doesn't even attempt to explain causation) Obama convinced Germany to make itself dependent on Russia's gas, by "abandoning on behalf of the Western world the idea of fighting climate change with taxes in favor of pretending to fight it with handouts to alternative energy interests. "
Yes, it's Obama who's to blame for the non-existence of a carbon tax in the US (something Jenkins, like Exxon, pretends to endorse as an excuse to constantly argue against viable climate action) and that, in turn, is also the reason why Germany's shift away from fossil fuels has left it dependent on Russian fossil fuels. Jenkins leaves it up to the reader to jump to the conclusion to justify the headline that "Obama led Germany into Putin's energy trap," only mentioning him once in the column otherwise blaming everyone but Putin for Putin's energy trap (and all those deaths in Ukraine, which aren't even given a passing mention.)
Seemingly unaware of the victim-blaming Putin apologia on his own pages, a few days later Editor at Large Gerard Baker published his own column, about "the unsettling disconnect between the seriousness of the challenges we face and the public discourse that is supposed to be addressing them." Apparently "both sides" are to blame for being "too eager to point out the mania in the other's rhetorical obsessions but deny the delusion in their own." As examples, he cites a former president's claim to have thought about declassifying documents to be sufficient to excuse his theft and mishandling of highly sensitive classified information relevant to national security, compared to Stacey Abram's scientifically accurate statement about fetal heartbeats being "manufactured sound."
Bodily autonomy and psychic declassification powers are, to Baker, equally ridiculous. Fortunately, he knows who to blame: "modern technology has created a platform that elevates extreme voices at the expense of saner counsels."
Ah! Of course! So who might Baker's "saner counsels" be? Well let's take a look at who else the WSJ opinion page is publishing!
Hours after Baker's column came an op-ed by Steve Milloy, the man still running his "Junk Science" program, originated as part of his work as a Big Tobacco lawyer, and operating now to defend fossil fuels with the same exact playbook Milloy used to defend tobacco in the 90s.
So what is the "saner counsel" on offer from disinformation distributor Steve Milloy? That GOP candidates shouldn't use the "I am not a scientist" line when asked if they accept the reality that climate change is caused by fossil fuels (something the WSJ editorial board has refused to admit). Instead, "the better response is to befuddle the attacker or change the subject" and "prepare tension-breaking quips" like that Biden is "trying to control the weather by sending vast sums of taxpayer money to communist China."
You know, totally sane stuff. But that's actually Milloy's restrained side. "For the bolder politician," he advises, in all his tobacco-and-coal-funded-wisdom, "there's also always the ballistic, Trumpian response." You see, because the New York Times wants to embarrass deniers by catching them saying "climate change is a hoax", doing it with certainty and bombast" robs them of that scoop.
Baker complains about a lack of saner counsel, while the WSJ runs a smoking shill's advice that Republicans dodge questions of substance about acknowledging the science of climate and fossil fuels, and instead behave like Trump, embracing full-on "climate change is a hoax" denial.
And even THAT isn't the most ridiculous thing on the WSJ's opinion page on Wednesday! Because it also handed its platform to two Italians affiliated with a tobacco-linked, industry-defending front group. Their "saner counsel"? Italy's incoming Prime Minister Giogia Meloni "is no fascist," because she opposed Italy's Covid-19 policies, which they describe as "the most authoritarian policy Italians experienced in generations since World War II."
Yes, the politician with a party with deep roots to Italy's fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, whose predecessor said "we are all heirs of Il Duce," presents "no risk of authoritarianism" because she opposed measures to protect public health in the face of a global pandemic.
So glad the WSJ's opinion page doesn't debase itself by elevating "extremist voices at the expense of saner counsels."
*Fun fact: the WSJ editorial board was opposed to mandatory seat belt laws, calling them an "unwarranted exercise of government power" in a 1972 editorial, "Not Big Brother, Big Daddy."
