The Media Research Center has hated climate scientist Michael Mann to the point that he has been graced with his own tag on the NewsBusters website. Interestingly, though the MRC has had little to say about Mann’s long-running lawsuit against climate deniers Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. A 2014 article, for example, had only an end-of-article reference to the lawsuit, misleadingly claiming that Steyn and Simberg were being sued by Mann “because of their criticism” of the famous hockey-stick graphic that Mann played a lead role in devising (in fact, the lawsuit was based in large part on Steyn and Simberg smearing Mann by likening him to a child molester). The lawsuit got only passing mentions in articles in 2014, 2017 and 2022.
The lawsuit finally went to trial earlier this year, in which both Steyn and Simberg pushed debunked conspiracy theories that fit their climate-denial narrative. In the end, a court ruled in Mann’s favor, ordering Steyn to pay him $1 million and Simberg to pay $1,000 — meaning that Mann’s research was effectively upheld. The MRC didn’t bother to cover the trial itself, but the verdict finally got it to mention the lawsuit for the first time in two years in a Feb. 15 post by Alex Christy, who seemed annoyed that Mann went on TV to tout his win:
Climate scientist Michael Mann recently won his $1 million defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn where the two men fiercely criticized his work. On Wednesday, he joined PBS’s Christiane Amanpour to take a victory lap for his efforts to squash free speech.
Amanpour began by noting, “A new report shows a sharp rise in personal attacks on climate scientists. Well, one widely respected scientist is fighting back. He is Michael Mann, distinguished professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. After a pair of conservative climate deniers accused him of faking his data back in 2012. Mann sued for defamation and he won. Last week, a jury awarded him a million dollars in compensatory damages. And Dr. Mann calls the decision a victory for science. And he’s joining me now from Philadelphia.”
Christy then repeated claims by Steyn attacking the hockey-stick graph as “fraudulent” (in fact, there is plenty of evidence to support it). He then touted Simberg’s sick smear of Mann as ” the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” Christy defended such smears:
Politics is full of nasty comparisons. It is not a glorious part of our political discourse that public figures are routinely compared to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and others, but such comparisons should be protected by the First Amendment. If they aren’t, the rest of the media is in big trouble.
Christy linked to an MRC post criticizing the use of Nazi analogies, which omitted the fact that the MRC itself regularly smears organizations who seek to moderate false and hateful speech online as “digital brownshirts.” Christy continued to rant about Mann purportedly squelching “free speech”:
Mann continued, “it did take 12 years to play out, but we’re very pleased that the jury saw, you know, through the smoke and mirrors that they tried to put up during the trial, saw to the heart of the matter, that they had engaged in false and defamatory allegations. They had done so with malice, hence the award of a million dollars in punitive damages.”
Amanpour then quoted Mann for what she hopes the case means, “So, to be clear again, you have, you know, fought this because of the science and you said, ‘I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.’”
PBS and CNN—Amanpour and Company originally airs on CNN International— do not appear to value free speech. What about the rest of the media?
Why does Christy think it’s “free speech” to spread malicious and hateful lies about people? libel and defamation are valid legal actions, and Christy offered absolutely no reason why Mann should not have taken legal action against those who so disgustingly smeared him.