But we’re not all for the blatant pattern of subjective misrepresentation that goes on, virtually unchecked, all over the Internet — including by sites that are routinely, well, cited.

In this Post, a Biggovernment.com writer starts blatantly spinning in the second sentence (emphasis added):

…basis of calls for extreme climate change regulation.

But it is in the title, and the very first sentence, where the piece starts of misleading, right off the bat.

The title: “Penn State’s ‘ClimateGate’ Inquiry Determines Further Investigation Is Needed.”

How is this misleading? Well, for one, it gives no indication of the more relevant fact that Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing in three of the four charges, and the only three that really matter, namely:

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Which charge was Mann not yet cleared on?

4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously
deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

Notice the difference between “conceal, destroy, misuse, falsify (No.’s 1-3) and “seriously deviating from accepted ‘practices’ within the academic community” (No.4) — along with how subjective that latter standard might be. It’s not unethical; it is prima facie evidence, if in fact it is found to have been the case, of having made an academic mistake. Sometimes going outside of such practices may even be a good thing. (We are not suggesting that this is necessarily the case here, just pointing out the subjective, and somewhat insignificant nature of this charge.)

Mann has been accused of all kinds of things, including some very serious allegations made round the Internet in striking and very public and repeated fashion (including at Biggovernment.com.) To come out with a headline that reads “Inquiry Determines Further Investigation Is Needed” in light of these facts, and the actual findings, is being purposefully misleading.

The very first sentence to the piece is also misleading:

In looking at four “possible allegations” of research misconduct against meteorology professor Michael Mann, a Penn State University panel has determined that further investigation is warranted for one of them

People have short attention spans, the most relevant points are put first (except here at Donkasaurus Post, were we expect you to be bored before you have even gotten past the title.) Only at the end of a long sentence is it noted that further investigation is warranted for “one” of them, meaning, by exclusion, not the other three. But there is no mention that Mann was exonerated on all three of the first three allegations. Or what they were, in comparison to the “fourth charge.”

No mention in the second paragraph either. Or the third. Or the fourth. But what is mentioned in the fourth paragraph, instead?

I suspect panel members are secretly hoping someone else will shoulder responsibility for determining Mann’s guilt or innocence.

Note: “Mann’s guilt or innocence.” And his guilt or innocence over what, exactly? This article has never told the reader, who is only informed by finding allusion to it, buried deep in the recital of the official press release that is included as part of the piece, finally.: That is, his “guilt” or “innocence” as to having “engaged in practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices.” (Note also that the sentence strongly implies that the panel came to no decisions whatsoever, although it is true that the first sentence does somewhat implicitly contradict this.)

For a site that is presumably concerned with “Big Government,” that sounds more than a bit “Big Brotherish.” But it’s probably not intended as such; but instead, only as much spin as can be gotten away with, to make it seem like the gap between the intense hype and heavy accusations against Mann that reverberated around the Internet and even into the mainstream media, and what Mann actually did, is not nearly as large, as in fact, it is.

As long as we are using the terms “guilt or innocence” completely inappropriately; on charges of blatantly misleading its readers, Biggovernment.com is found guilty by this panel, of the charges leveled against it…

..Namely, we’ll bury deep down in the repeated press release, of “seriously misleading its readers.” Unfortunately, “seriously misleading its readers,” is not a very big deviation from “accepted practices.”

And that is the problem, in America, today.