The last sentence of this quote from an article about scientists disputing climate change deniers made me laugh:
The scientists say they are not advocates or partisan. They are taking the unusual step — for scientists — of engaging in the discussion because the urgency is growing and misinformation is clouding the increasingly important public debate.
Some say it’s about time.
Some say that shitty he-said/she-said journalism that can’t call out a fact without putting it in someone’s mouth gives a lot of cranks, like climate change deniers, a platform that they shouldn’t have, and that this journalism is a real reason that people who shout the loudest dominate our public discourse. Others say that chocolate milk is the best kind of milk.
cmorenc
Progressives should form an activist media-watch group and call it “Some.org”. Then, whenever the lazy press go into “some say” mode, some.org would have standing to dispute all the bullshit being anonymously said in their purported name.
gene108
Unfortunately most people, who become journalists do so because the science and math requirements for a journalism degree are pretty non-existent and that’s a selling point for would-be journalists.
They know nothing about science and do not care to learn and are glad they got to avoid learning science and math, while in college.
The fact they are allowing scientists a platform to get their voices heard is as much as we can hope for, even if they also give more time than deserved for climate change deniers.
Anyway, I don’t expect the U.S. to embrace Global Warming, which is a 20 year old or so idea, since we have trouble embracing Evolution, which is a 150 year old or so idea. We aren’t a country that embraces science, especially if science goes against the grain of preset beliefs, like a young Earth or immutable laws of nature.
Wag
Some people like cupcakes better,
While I for one care less for them.
Michael
SyFy ran a Bond marathon yesterday. When “Goldfinger” came on, I had an amusing thought about what would happen if Auric Goldfinger was a real person living in our modern era.
The things I figured for sure:
1. He’d be an enthusiastic partner with David Koch in funding the Wingnut Wurlitzer.
2. He’d be a frequent voice on Fox lobbying for tax cuts.
3. The Fonzie of Freedom would defend Goldfinger’s plot to irradiate the gold at Fort Knox for all the Reasonoids, claiming that “government can’t even protect gold reserves right, so they should be in private hands”.
4. Krauthammer and Ben Stein would defend Goldfinger’s murderous excesses, stating that while somewhat severe, his vision leads to greater freedom for all who produce, and he’s entitled to a feeling of loyalty, some tax cuts and regulatory disengagement. Fred Barnes will sneer about the actual worth of dead bimboes in the same panel.
5. David Gregory will have Goldfinger’s press flack on and will lament the fact that Goldfinger’s vision, while extreme, couldn’t get a proper public airing.
gene108
@cmorenc: It won’t help. Media Matters is doing something similar, but has had little impact in changing the level of discourse in the country. The only thing Media Matters has done is give people a way to fight back a little bit, if they are ever so honored with the opportunity to get on cable TV and counter right-wing talking points.
Dennis SGMM
The notion that all ideas, no matter how insane, are equally worthy of consideration is one of the primary drivers of the rising idiocracy. Your example is a perfect case in point. Today’s journos treat right-wing loonies the same way that they treat any other politician with the result that people like Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich (I refuse to mention the P word) appear just as worthy as Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi. When you add an all-loony, all the time, network the balance is shifted against anything resembling sanity.
Monty
Chocolate milk is the best, most wonderful kind of milk…and it will destroy us all.
wvnk
gene108 – that is a bit simplistic. There are plenty of journalists who specialize in reporting on science that do a very good job. I think the core problem is the enforced “balance” where they feel they simply must give contrarians a voice, and then not judge the quality of the information provided. They would call that “being objective.”
sb
Every time one of my students use “some say”, I deduct a full letter grade. I warn them in advance, I tell them the importance of recognizing an unsubstantiated claim (hell, I spend a mini-unit on it) and I tell them, again and again, do not use it in their writing. And to their credit, they don’t use it. I like to think it’s because they know they’ll be held accountable.
In this case, to be fair, there was someone quoted to back up the phrase “some say it’s about time.” Still, it would have been better to use the professor’s name or even “one academic believes that it’s about time.”
Linda Featheringill
Long-time treehugger here, with a moderate amount of scientific education.
I understand that folks who aren’t used to reading scientific literature might become confused by the disclose-all, on-the-other-hand style of many scientific reports.
But the damn ice is melting, people.
Cheez!
[Don’t you just love it when people in Louisiana deny climate change?]
Michael
Another great thought on the Randian Superhero/Bond Villain paradigm:
Are Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Karl Stromberg objectivists?
They are great producers, obviously taxed too much, and in understandable frustration, attempt to reach their vision by co-opting poorly supervised government resources that their huge tax contributions paid for.
Tokyokie
@gene108: As a journalist myself, I pretty much agree with your assessment of journalism majors’ grasp of math and science. Way back when when I was an undergraduate, after I had tested out of and received credit for a math class one level above the highest one listed for the j-school’s math requirement, then took three more math courses beyond that, I was told that I hadn’t yet fulfilled my degree math requirement. Just one of the many reasons I transferred to Missouri.
Anyway, still way back when when I was an undergraduate, a good friend who was an astrophysics major (he now has a Ph.D. and works for NASA) and some of his pals from the department went to a presentation by a creation “scientist.” My friend said EVERY argument this guy made was bullshit: graphs with distorted timelines, that sort of thing. The arguments would sound convincing, until an actual expert started picking them apart. My friend said it got to be a challenge for the astrophysics boys to figure out how each argument was bullshit, and when called on it, the “scientist” would just say OK, then move to the next one, never acknowledging he’d been caught lying. The climate deniers sort of impress me as the contemporary version of that type of charlatan.
Dennis SGMM
@sb:
Bravo! “Some say,” is at best a sign of laziness and at worst a tool for promoting a lie. Lamentably, it’s gone unchallenged in the media for so long that it’s spawned the equally pernicious, and equally unchallenged, GOP staple “Americans want…”
Fat Tony
They assume their readers/listeners are smart enough to cut through the bull and choose the side of the “balanced” argument that is most correct/fact/right/fair.
But they are wrong.
sb
“The notion that all ideas, no matter how insane, are equally worthy of consideration is one of the primary drivers of the rising idiocracy.”
Yep. This right here.
Tim P.
I prefer regular.
David
I criticize Conservatives/Republicans for being nostalgic for an imaginary past but I realize I need to stop being nostalgic for a time I thought (rightly or wrongly) that they were sane. That’s over. The Republican Party speaks only for unreasonable oddballs and they voluntarily live in the FoxNews/World Nut Daily ghetto. Bye.
It’s time to move on.
Jeff
@wvnk:
That is half the problem– They “specialize” in reporting science, and are thereby isolated from the mainstream reporting flock. The same thing happens with religion–
reporters who specialize in reporting about it and have a clue about faith traditions have a hard time getting the time of day from the regular reporters and editors, who want their biases
pre-packaged.
What is needed is a journalism curriculum that actually teaches journalists about science, politics and society and religion, and not HairDos for Anchors 101.
geg6
@Dennis SGMM:
Exactly. And applause to any teacher or prof who makes students accountable for such laziness in writing. My sister, a prof in communications, does the same in her classes.
Dennis SGMM
@geg6:
Applause to every teacher who continues to remain engaged and concerned. In my perfect little liberal world the teachers would be the ones with six figure salaries and the CEOs would be the ones holding bake sales.
liberal
Among its other ills.
Ron
The whole “lets listen to everybody” mentality is what has IMO made CNN virtually unwatchable these days. Any time there’s a controversy what happens is they get someone from both sides. The both sides present their arguments generally without any challenge from the “journalist” and then it ends with something like “well, there’s a lot to think about here”. I know Tim Russert wasn’t always popular with everyone on the left, but at least on MTP he actually challenged people when they spewed BS or completely contradicted things they previously said. I suspect McCain would be far less likely to keep coming on if it were still Russert. (To be fair, one of the few examples I’ve seen of challenging someone on the right on stuff like taxes/deficit was a FoxNews guy whose name escapes me at the moment)
WyldPirate
One of the problems with journalism about scientific topics and global warming is the vagueness of the writing and, as someone pointed out above, the “he-said, she-said” nature” that gives the mouth-breathing morons that want to rape and pillage the entire world to deny what is happening.
There is an article in the NYT today about coastal flooding in Norfolk, VA which perfectly illustrates this. Here’s one example:
This is sort of like the “some say” type of argument. IT’s not that “many” climate scientists link sea level rise to global warming caused by man, it’s the vast majority. On top of that, the data supports the conclusions.
Here’s another example:
This paragraph is full of vagaries of the type that climate change deniers love to take and run with. Yes, part of the problem is that the land is settling in this particular area (and many built-up coastal areas). I think it would be helpful to have given data regarding real sea level rise vs relative and projections as well. I suppose that could have been done in the original and it was cut in editing.
The thing is, the Ken Cuchinellis of Virginia and the rest of the world are going to have to eat the horseshit they have been pumping out. The bad thiing is that the public is going to pay a heavy price for their lies, greed, idiocy and foot-dragging.
MattF
Some years ago, a teevee science reporter moved into my neighborhood. Once I got to know him, I pointed out to him that I’m a physicist, so if he had physics questions he should feel free to ask. The response was a pitying look: for him, the ‘science reporting’ business was merely where chance and ambition led him, he had no particular interest in it, and no particular desire to get it right.
Fat Tony
That’s the FOX News “fair @ balanced™” effect. They forced all other news organizations to put forth opposing view points/ideas, no matter how stupid they might be – while they themselves continue to push only far-right talking points.
You can call them hypocrites all day long, but Murdoch continues laughing all the way to the bank.
Cat Lady
@Ron:
David Gregory
sb
@WyldPirate: Good ones. Those two examples (especially the first one) are reasons why I grind my teeth at night.
Ron
@Cat Lady: Yeah, I know. That one was unbelievable. Gregory is such a joke.
jeffreyw
Some say gravy can be made without pan drippings. I call bullshit!
sb
@Cat Lady: I remember that one. The sound I heard then was Edward R. Murrow exploding in his grave.
Fuck! A Duck
JeffreyW: Yes, but must one include the neck and organs (Korg, Hammond, etc.) in the roasting pan? Some say yes, but others disagree.
Ron
@jeffreyw: Well, I used some pan drippings, but primarily what I used for the liquid in the gravy I made was a stock I made from the neck and giblets while the turkey was cooking. (But yes, some pan drippings did go in because..well, why wouldn’t I use them?)
scarshapedstar
Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate young boys.
Some say he shouldn’t have.
DBrown
There is one aspect that makes both journalists and other media types fall back on the “both sides” issue: all elected repug-a-thugs (NO EXCEPTIONS) are total liars, stupid of any real knowledge and shrilling for falsehoods from their money masters – hence, these reporters can only get facts, truth and accepted knowledge if and only if they only talk to demorats, real experts or scientist. This would always make it appear that they, the reporters, are bias since they could never have a thug on the TV/newspaper if they were not willing to accept the outright lies. As such, the only way to achieve any balance is to allow the lies to be said and ignore this fact.
Fuck! A Duck
scarshapedstar: Yes, but did he make his man-gravy from the pan drippings or did he get it out of a jar?
jeffreyw
@Fuck! A Duck: I agree that organs should be a part of any stock with pretensions to gravy. Except the B4 Model, which is an abomination.
Nutella
@wvnk:
But why don’t the journalists interview the patients in the psych wards to get their opinions on global warming? Surely that’s needed if they really want to be ‘balanced’, isn’t it? Is it fair to leave out anyone’s opinions?
But they don’t, because reporters make judgments every day on what topics to include and which people and parties to quote. When they make bad judgments we need to call them on it.
And this ‘enforced balance’ you speak of: Who enforces it? Who decides which are the two sides of an issue? People in the press, whether the individual reporters, the editors, or the media owners, make those judgments and are responsible for them.
Citizen_X
@WyldPirate: Arrgh!
There are only two phenomena known to cause the sort of global sea level rise we’re having right now: global warming, or an increase in mid-ocean ridge spreading rates (faster spreading = faster heat flow, expanding and raising the mid-ocean ridges, pushing oceans farther onto the continents). There is no sign that the latter is happening right now, and libraries full of data showing that the former is. What’s this reporter’s alternate explanation? Aliens?
But I have no problems with the second passage. It should be clear to anyone with a functioning brain: against a background of global sea level rise, conditions near Norfolk contribute an additional amount, resulting in local flooding.
Unfortunately, “having a functioning brain” is considered suspect by, er, some people.
liberal
@Nutella:
This is exactly why “balanced journalism” is a theoretical impossibility: the meta-decisions on what to cover and who to quote.
Mike in NC
@Michael:
TIME magazine would run a cover photo of Goldfinger, with the caption “Master of the Universe”, and an article fawningly penned by Mark Halperin.
Rick Santelli would feature Goldfinger as a regular guest on his show on CNBC, including a joint appearance with Dick Armey, co-author of their new book “Return to the Gold Standard”.
The Villagers would bemoan the fact that Goldfinger wasn’t born in the USofA, and therefore ineligible to run for president. Chris Matthews would chime in, “Maybe we’re not worthy as a country?”
jcricket
“Those who have made a living studying science say the moon is made of rock, some other people with no related qualifications say green cheese, you decide.”
The thing that’s the most frustrating is that it’s only the issues the GOP chooses to oppose that get this “some say” treatment.
You don’t see a lot of Holocaust deniers or race-baiters in the mainstream media if there’s an article about Jews or interracial marriage. It’s just evolution, climate change, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc.
Republicans have figured out how to work the refs, and Dems have not, nor do I know if we ever will. But if we can’t work the refs and the other side can, we have to up our game so as to overcome that disadvantage. Don’t know exactly how to do that, but I do know it starts with not running away from our own platform.
El Cruzado
@Dennis SGMM: All right wing ideas, no matter how insane, are worthy of consideration.
Commies need not apply.
Ab_Normal
The only proper usage of the phrase “Some say…” is when introducing The Stig.
boatboy_srq
@Ab_Normal: WIN!
Jim West
All you Climate-Change-Liars need to get your facts straight. You have gone from Global-Warming to Climate-Change just in case the climate cools off–A very disgusting device for manipulating the facts in your favor. If the climate cools off, your pathetic stance is shown to be true. It doesn’t matter which way the climate goes you’ll get to be right. What a joke. The climate has been changing FOREVER. You people have taken science to a new low. Anyone that doesn’t agree with your view is branded a “Denier!” What ever happened to scientists proving or disproving someone’s hypothesis? Oh no, we can’t have that, that might disprove our pet theory. Besides, anyone working as a scientist knows there are far more grants available for any study showing a link to climate change. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Gore has a big fincial interest in the Cap-and-Trade-Farce which will do nothing but allow big business to buy their way into spewing out Carbon Dioxide, which Gore has admitted is not the main culprit in your mutated Global-Warming/Cooling Bullshit-Climate-Change-BOONDOGLE!!!! You people DISGUST ME!!!