Since media coverage no longer gives any indication whatsoever of the impact of or interest in a story, Richard North has devised what he calls the Tiger Woods Index (TWI), which measures actual interest in a story as compared to media coverage. (Via James Delingpole’s hilarious article in the Telegraph today. Definitely read the whole thing.)
He explains the formula thusly:
Tiger Woods delivered 22,500,000 web and 46,025 news pages, giving ratio of 489. That is the “Tiger Woods Index” (TWI) against which I chose to measure a raft of other issues.
Here are the results:
1. Climategate: 28,400,000 – 2,930 = 9693
2. Afghanistan: 143,000,000 – 154,145 = 928
3. Obama: 202,000,000 – 252,583 = 800
4. Tiger Woods: 22,500,000 – 46,025 = 489
5. Gordon Brown: 12,300,000 – 37,021 = 332
6. Climate change: 22,200,000 – 68,419 = 324
7. Sally Bercow: 25,000 – 86 = 290
8. David Cameron: 545,000 – 4837 = 113
9. Meredith Kercher: 261,000 – 3,471 = 75
10. Chilcot Inquiry: 125,000 – 4,350 = 29
Climategate has received less coverage in the fringe media than Meredith Kercher or the Chilcot Inquiry, of whom/which I’ve never even heard, but I’m sure they’re just fascinating. More surprisingly, Climategate is a bigger story from a consumer standpoint – 20 times over – than Tiger Woods.
One would think that the Politico would have gotten the message, or at least checked Memeorandum at some point, but no. They didn’t ask Al Gore one single question about Climategate in their interview with him today, despite calls for him to rescind his Oscar over his ManBearPig fraud and his decision to cancel a speaking engagement in Copenhagen at which he had planned to charge attendees $1200 to shake his hand.
One could not even calculate a Tiger Woods Index for television coverage, since the networks have yet to even broach the subject two weeks after it broke, which, as the Media Research center states, is a scandal in and of itself.
The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.
In fact, doing so is downright hypocritical and irresponsible, according to Palin.
Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”
The UN seems to concur, at least insomuch as they are willing to investigate Climategate, however genuine their claims may or may not be. CRU director Phil Jones has agreed to sit out until the investigation is completed.
You would think the media would have gotten the memo by now. Don’t they have weather desks? It’s snowing in Houston, where not only does it almost never snow, but it has never snowed this early in the season.
Update: Newsbusters issued a correction to their post about Al Gore and the Politico, to which I linked above. The interview apparently took place before the Climategate scandal broke. Still, I have to wonder whether John Harris or Mike Allen tried to follow up with him, or why they sat on the interview for two weeks before running it.