Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[Slartibartfast]

Could I respectfully suggest something?  For those on the left, instead of just pronouncing that a news source is fake or Russian controlled, could we examine some individually with references to good sources.  The tone of condescension and impatience isn't helpful for any of us.  I'd like to see a break down on Zero Hedge and Project Veritas if possible as I am not familiar with them.  On the flip side, Vida Winter, what is it about these sites that make you trust them. Does it go beyond them saying only what you want to hear. I am assuming it does.

 

Maybe we should all be talking about what a good news source looks like.  I've done this with my kids for years and what I taught them was based on what I learned as a journalism undergraduate and then on staff at an alternative newsweekly.  We are shredding the mainstream media and lambasting individual journalists, but I still respect those who are competent at their jobs. What I remember from J school and the paper are people who were passionate about the truth. You can roll your eyes all you want, but at that point in time, it wasn't easy to make a living let alone make it big by being a journalist. People did so because of strongly held sense of justice and a belief in the public's right to know what was happening in their communities.

You are right, I have been arguing about some of these for months and so I habitually lash out and forget not everyone here has read 50,000 links about it.

 

My bad.

 

I did provide some links but could provide more.

 

Here is a link regarding the alt-right and Breitbart. One of the authors of this article was one of the people that twitter banned for hatespeech.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

Here is another link about it from the National Review (which is Conservative) this article tears into the above article

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433650/alt-rights-racism-moral-rot

 

Breitbart is not Conservative. Conservatives say it is not.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[swimmermom3]

I linked several artickes about Zero Hedge and Project Veritas a page or two back.

 

Thanks. I somehow missed it. Now I can search through your user name. :D

 

[Murphy101]

Government must be restrained from interfering in our lives. But government also needs to restrain Corporations, something they do a shitty job of currently.

 

What we need is a Constitutional amendment to clarify that the Bill of Rights are human rights reserved for the people, and limiting how corporations can exercise those rights to the detriment of individual freedoms.

I could not agree more. It boggles my mind how often if I did something there's hellfire jail time, but a corporation? Oh well. That's different. Same goes for schools getting away with stuff that parents for sure wouldn't.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

That was never about "who".  It was only about "for what purpose".

 

Same reasoning that would allow one to decline baked goods with inappropriate images or slogans. 

 

It is about who IMO. Also, who is to say that a bakery owner or other business owner says that their religion does not allow then to do business with black people  and therefore they should not be required to do so. I believe in our history, religion was used as an excuse for slavery and for segregation so this is not far fetched. And for heaven's sake it is cake. It is not like they have to stay and give their blessing to the couple or that there cake has an advertisement on it.

 

This "it is against my religious beliefs" argument for denying business service is bogus and a  danger to our civil liberties.

 

Then there was the Hobby Lobby saying their religion did not allow then to offer insurance for birth control which was also ridiculous IMO since if we allow that then JW believers could say they do not want blood transfusions or organ transplantation covered or Christian Scientists could say they only want prayer covered and so and so forth.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You are right, I have been arguing about some of these for months and so I habitually lash out and forget not everyone here has read 50,000 links about it.

 

My bad.

 

I did provide some links but could provide more.

 

Here is a link regarding the alt-right and Breitbart. One of the authors of this article was one of the people that twitter banned for hatespeech.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

Here is another link about it from the National Review (which is Conservative) this article tears into the above article

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433650/alt-rights-racism-moral-rot

Megyn Kelly on NPR today expressed shock at how bad Breitbart has become under Bannon.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504622630/megyn-kelly-on-trump-and-the-media-were-in-a-dangerous-phase-right-now

[Slartibartfast]

 

Here's an article regarding that topic from the National Review (which is, like Megyn Kelly, Conservative)

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442189/steve-bannon-trump-administration-alt-right-breitbart-chief-strategist

 

People are not angry and picking on Conservatives. This isn't a Liberal v. Conservative thing, that might be the narrative that people see but that isn't it. The alt-right are not Conservative, they are not on your side.

 

The actual Conservative media is attacking them as well, that is my point.

 

Zero Hedge, Breitbart and Project Veritas are not Conservative. I wasn't attacking Conservatives, I was defending Conservatives.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[swimmermom3]

I tend to be over fond of the Christian Science Monitor but that is mostly because they don't tend towards hysterics.

 

During the 2012 election a good friend and I switched out our favorite media for a week to try and see the other's perspective. It was an abysmal failure.  I felt the exact same way I did on hormone therapy before surgery, like I was slamming back and forth between outrage and despair. I couldn't handle the constant emotional charge. To be fair, my friend loathed NPR and wanted no taxpayer dollars to go towards supporting it. Then of course we had to discuss that premise. We made a pact to only discuss kids and grandkids this election cycle.

 

[Slartibartfast]

During the 2012 election a good friend and I switched out our favorite media for a week to try and see the other's perspective. It was an abysmal failure.  I felt the exact same way I did on hormone therapy before surgery, like I was slamming back and forth between outrage and despair. I couldn't handle the constant emotional charge. To be fair, my friend loathed NPR and wanted no taxpayer dollars to go towards supporting it. Then of course we had to discuss that premise. We made a pact to only discuss kids and grandkids this election cycle.

:lol:

 

That would send me into a downspiral spiral of despair as well. I can't handle too much hysteria, I really don't like it, I *rarely* watch any news on television at all.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[bibiche]

Perhaps we could drop these kinds of slams. They aren't really helpful to the dialogue and frankly, there are a few of us that should still be smarting from that damn Rolling Stone article. :tongue_smilie:

 

I dunno. I am with Sadie on this one. Sometimes you have to call a cat a cat.

[Slartibartfast]

I dunno. I am with Sadie on this one. Sometimes you have to call a cat a cat.

But then SWB gets salty. :(

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Here is another shameful instance of someone believing fake news:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-woman-made-death-threats-to-sandy-hook-parents/2016/12/07/85fa3702-bc9c-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0d3371cbd739

 

In fact an old friend of ours even believes this :sad:

[hornblower]

What's most talked about is the way they didn't allow scientists working for government to talk about their work, and destroyed quite a lot of scientific information.  (And this isn't at all controversial, there have been a number of public servants that have left and gone public, and the union actually spoke out against the policy which is really unprecedented as they are always very carefully neutral about policy issues.  Also, my dh is a government scientist.)

 

But it was wider than that - access to information requests were being poorly served, and even members of parliment who were part of the government party were not allowed to make statements without putting them through the prime ministers office first.  A lot of information was buried. 

 

Also, our PM stopped doing press conferences, essentially stopped taking questions from media. Turned out the media scrum was something we've all been used to but there was no way to force it to happen.  It's these old "gentlemen's agreements" which underpin much of our democracies which we have to insist on for them to be preserved. They're not codified, they're not enacted. They rely on the essential decency & goodness & ethics of people - & that is a giant vulnerability. 

 

I've already read that your daily White House press briefings are not mandated anywhere.  A president can just stop doing them. And I doubt you'll see many press conference with open questions from reporters. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Here is another shameful instance of someone believing fake news:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-woman-made-death-threats-to-sandy-hook-parents/2016/12/07/85fa3702-bc9c-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0d3371cbd739

 

In fact an old friend of ours even believes this :sad:

 

So this article is not correct? 

[Slartibartfast]

So this article is not correct?

The article is correct, she was referring to fake news having conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook being fake.

[swimmermom3]

I dunno. I am with Sadie on this one. Sometimes you have to call a cat a cat.

 

Yeah, but there were several of us, myself included that were a bit ratcheted up over that RS article and it was BS, so I don't feel quite as quick to comment on other homeschoolers' "stupidity." There were some naysayers and some of us were fairly condescending. You all may not feel it, but like I said, I still smart from it. So yeah, a cat is a cat - on both sides of the fence. We can probably still be polite about it and not give SWB an opportunity to get "salty." :D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So this article is not correct? 

Yes the article is correct but it tells the story of a woman who threatened a Sandy Hook parent because she believed fake news.

[Barb_]

Thank you for this.

 

As for whom do I trust, nobody really.  I cross-check everything.  I read a wide variety of sources and basically look for patterns.  My 50 years and pretty good memory help. 

 

Things change over time - people who start out seeming objective gradually start using their positions to influence more than to inform.  I don't take anything for granted.

 

When I say "I have read / heard," it means exactly that.  I've read it or heard it.  It's out there.  It means I haven't verified it but I haven't debunked it either.  Over time, many of these things turn out to be true, and many false.

 

So...

 

Every single story you read, you cross check.  You don't trust anyone.  Do you accept scientific studies?  Or do you replicate the experiements?  Do you read non-fiction?  Do you accept general versions of history? Economics?  How do you function if you don't ever allow trust to develop over time?

 

Either you aren't telling the whole truth here or you are exceptionally paranoid. 

[TranquilMind]

It is about who IMO. Also, who is to say that a bakery owner or other business owner says that their religion does not allow then to do business with black people  and therefore they should not be required to do so. I believe in our history, religion was used as an excuse for slavery and for segregation so this is not far fetched. And for heaven's sake it is cake. It is not like they have to stay and give their blessing to the couple or that there cake has an advertisement on it.

 

This "it is against my religious beliefs" argument for denying business service is bogus and a  danger to our civil liberties.

 

Then there was the Hobby Lobby saying their religion did not allow then to offer insurance for birth control which was also ridiculous IMO since if we allow that then JW believers could say they do not want blood transfusions or organ transplantation covered or Christian Scientists could say they only want prayer covered and so and so forth.

 

No, had a baker refused to sell to someone based on color, it IS about who, not about for what purpose. 

 

It is completely valid, the same as "I don't sell to people who want a pornographic cake" is, for example.

Some people do not wish to discuss this on this thread, as has been mentioned a few times when the first person brought it up(which was not me).  I will be happy to discuss it in Current Events.  It will get political, no doubt. 

 

You are incorrect about Hobby Lobby.  There was no blanket refusal to pay for birth control for employees.  Hobby Lobby's owners  objected to paying for IUDs and morning-after pills as required under the ACA mandate.  It did NOT object to paying for all contraceptives, but merely those which can interfere with the creation of life once an egg is fertilized.  All methods were still available to all employees and all other methods were covered, courtesy of the ACA.   The Court found in favor of Hobby Lobby, rightly so. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Barb_]

No, had a baker refused to sell to someone based on color, it IS about who, not about for what purpose.

 

It is completely valid, the same as "I don't sell to people who want a pornographic cake" is, for example.

Some people do not wish to discuss this on this thread, as has been mentioned a few times when the first person brought it up(which was not me). I will be happy to discuss it in Current Events. It will get political, no doubt.

 

You are incorrect about Hobby Lobby. There was no blanket refusal to pay for birth control for employees. Hobby Lobby's owners objected to paying for IUDs and morning-after pills as required under the ACA mandate. It did NOT object to paying for all contraceptives, but merely those which can interfere with the creation of life once an egg is fertilized. All methods were still available to all employees and all other methods were covered, courtesy of the ACA. The Court found in favor of Hobby Lobby, rightly so.

Please can we give the wedding baker and the hobby lobby a nice little double funeral and bury the discussion right here? Please?

[Slartibartfast]

*snap* *snap* *snap*

 

 

Boy, boy, crazy boy,

Get cool, boy!

[Frances]

:lol:

 

That would send me into a downspiral spiral of despair as well. I can't handle too much hysteria, I really don't like it, I *rarely* watch any news on television at all.

I never watch TV news, I absolutely despise the sound bite nature of most of it. We don't own a TV, but I can't even bear to watch it in waiting rooms or at airports.

[Barb_]

Here is an interview with Edgar Welch, the Ping Pong Pizza shooter. He isn't crazy. Tragically misled, yes. But IMO as lucid as anyone else on this thread. His poor children.

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/edgar-welch-comet-pizza-fake-news.html

[swimmermom3]

You are right, I have been arguing about some of these for months and so I habitually lash out and forget not everyone here has read 50,000 links about it.

 

My bad.

 

I did provide some links but could provide more.

 

Here is a link regarding the alt-right and Breitbart. One of the authors of this article was one of the people that twitter banned for hatespeech.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

Here is another link about it from the National Review (which is Conservative) this article tears into the above article

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433650/alt-rights-racism-moral-rot

 

Breitbart is not Conservative. Conservatives say it is not.

 

Slarti, I am going to have to reread both of those tomorrow with fresh eyes, because forgive me for saying so, but there are some things in the Breitbart article that kind of make sense to me.  Ds and I had a long and heavy discussion about trying to eliminate "dead, white guys" from the Western Literary Canon out of PC. Can't be done. Shouldn't be done. 

 

 

[SKL]

So...

 

Every single story you read, you cross check.  You don't trust anyone.  Do you accept scientific studies?  Or do you replicate the experiements?  Do you read non-fiction?  Do you accept general versions of history? Economics?  How do you function if you don't ever allow trust to develop over time?

 

Either you aren't telling the whole truth here or you are exceptionally paranoid. 

 

I thought we were talking about news stories here.

 

I mean sure, there are many that don't raise skepticism in any sane person.  Like, "Castro is dead."  "Princess Kate gives birth."  "It snowed in Hawaii."  Unlikely to be fake.  No point faking it, plus they would be too easy to prove wrong.

 

But in this thread, we're talking about stories that require some amount of faith / trust to believe them.  Obviously that is what my comment was about.  There is no news outlet I really trust when it comes to those kinds of stories.

[swimmermom3]

Trying to balance a reading list so that it includes people of color, women, the working class etc isn't remotely the same as trying to 'get rid of white male authors'.

 

Sadie, I understand this, but pretending that the Canon has always included people of color, women, etc. isn't the truth.  Please trust me when I say I am not advocating for only white male authors, but sometimes you can't change history or literature to reflect something that did not exist at the time to suit a political agenda.  There can be a fine line between expanding and rewriting.

[zyxwvut]

I thought we were talking about news stories here.

 

I mean sure, there are many that don't raise skepticism in any sane person.  Like, "Castro is dead."  "Princess Kate gives birth."  "It snowed in Hawaii."  Unlikely to be fake.  No point faking it, plus they would be too easy to prove wrong.

 

But in this thread, we're talking about stories that require some amount of faith / trust to believe them.  Obviously that is what my comment was about.  There is no news outlet I really trust when it comes to those kinds of stories.

 

I don't really believe anything either, except the obvious stuff, like you said.

 

Mostly, I just think, "Well, that's interesting."  And then I wait and see.  

[Guest]

Megyn Kelly on NPR today expressed shock at how bad Breitbart has become under Bannon.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504622630/megyn-kelly-on-trump-and-the-media-were-in-a-dangerous-phase-right-now

It didn't used to be like that, it got more clickbaity. The tricky part is that they are not always wrong or always working a false angle, neither is Zero Hedge, or even Vox or Huffpo. And the NYT absolutely has editorialized in news coverage, from headlines on down. It's not a clear cut and dry issue as it is often painted, with some sources being consistently reliable and others being consistently wrong or untrustworthy. That's where examining ourselves for bias and the quality of a given story without de facto agreeing or disagreeing based on *who* is presenting the story is critical.

 

My main contention with the media is their seemingly complete unawareness of their own blind spots, preferences, and outright bias in reporting. There is a ton of echo chamber groupthink going on and ridiculous volumes of smugness to go with it. And yet is there self examination in the wake of this being demonstrated, or more finger pointing and bias? From the vast majority of columnists and reporters I read the latter. Blameshifting and increasingly, embarrassingly wild eyed cognitive dissonance.

 

It would be funny if it wasn't quite so pathetic and the consequences of a largely homogenous, self deceived press weren't so grave.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[swimmermom3]

It's not remotely a slam. It is disturbing. 

 

Media literacy is an important skill to teach our children, and this thread is full of examples of media illiteracy. I expect more from my fellow homeschoolers, I truly do.

 

I'm not going to pretend that teaching your kids that the media lies to you and can't be trusted, at the same time as you model credulous belief in conspiracy theories, is somehow OK for homeschooling as a whole, or for individual children. They deserve better than that.

 

It's got nothing to do with anyone's political leanings. There are smart, media literate conservatives out there in the world. Being conservative doesn't equal being media illiterate. Whatever our leanings, we all can and should do better.

 

But that is not what everyone who has been summarily dismissed on this thread by those of us who are left leaning has put forth. People have been mocked for questioning that our government would manipulate the press.  One of the writers that I cited for SKL, David Barstow, won a Pulitzer for writing about just such an instance.

 

"Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand"

 

In 2005, in response to criticism over Guantanomo Bay, a plane load of military analysts were sent over to investigate. These were men (military) that the majority of Americans trusted.

 

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

 

Would this not be an example of government manipulation?

 

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

 

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

 

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

 

I am not sure that it is fair to say that those who don't trust the mainstream media are wrong or ignorant.  Maybe I am playing devil's advocate and I'd be the first one to acknowledge that I really stink at it.

 

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.

 

I'm sorry, but I do see this as mainstream media failure  --------as reported by mainstream media.   Media can be manipulated and hopefully there is a good journalist out there willing to take that issue on. 

[Tanaqui]

Sadie, I understand this, but pretending that the Canon has always included people of color, women, etc. isn't the truth. Please trust me when I say I am not advocating for only white male authors, but sometimes you can't change history or literature to reflect something that did not exist at the time to suit a political agenda.  There can be a fine line between expanding and rewriting.

 

1. We cannot read all books in "the canon" over the course of a lifetime.

2. Other cultures have their own "canons", and an educated person will read at least some of those books in their lifetime, whether they are from those cultures or not. (However, nobody can read ALL those books either.)

3. New books are constantly being written, some of which will be added to "the canon". Likewise, some books will be dropped from "the canon", because it's a consensus dealio.

4. There are already books by women and PoC which are widely considered to be part of "the canon", many of which have been for longer than my lifetime and yours.

 

Also.

[SKL]

I agree that reading widely is the answer, as has been stated many times.

[Tanaqui]

Wait, SKL, are you talking about the original topic of news or the newer subtopic (which really ought to go on its own thread, now that I think about it) about the literary canon?

 

Either way, reading widely is a good idea... but just because your sources are varied that does not mean they are all of equal weight. Using the literary canon as an example, a wide and diverse reading list could include 50 Shades of Grey, but I would hesitate to call that an essential book for the educated adult.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti, I am going to have to reread both of those tomorrow with fresh eyes, because forgive me for saying so, but there are some things in the Breitbart article that kind of make sense to me.  Ds and I had a long and heavy discussion about trying to eliminate "dead, white guys" from the Western Literary Canon out of PC. Can't be done. Shouldn't be done.

It was written to be persuasive.

 

It's all honey isn't it? I found it particularly chilling, a sticky sweet article about white supremacists who are, "lovable scamps being young, rebellious, and carefree."

 

Pretending a blatantly racist movement, began by a white supremacist, is anything but white supremacist is basically a joke. It is such a joke that other alt-right websites are actually attacking one of the authors for trying to sweeten it up and pretend it isn't White Nationalist when they very much are White Nationalist.

 

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/10/neo-nazi-site-declares-holy-crusade-gay-homocon-milo-yiannopoulos/

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/call-the-alt-right-movement-what-it-is-racist-as-hell-w436363

 

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/04/how-breitbart-is-milking-the-milo-yiannopoulos-campus-outrage-outrage-cycle.html

[swimmermom3]

But this is why the remedy is to read widely, think critically, and choose your sources well. And that includes reading international media and reputable independent media. It includes reading media that takes a different political position than your own and considering that point of view. 

 

One can build up a pretty good picture that way; not perfect, but not bad. 

 

The remedy isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater and substitute conspiracy theories for news. The remedy is to inform yourself. 

 

It takes more work to do that than it does to cry 'liberal conspiracy!', sure. But hey, we all need to suck it up and be active participants in our information gathering.

 

The media is not some monolithic conspiracy. It's incredibly diverse. It's full of  journalists trying to do a great job in an incredibly challenging media environment. 

 

A lot of this vague criticism of journalists just reads to me like a variation on despising the elites, which seems to be in fashion atm. 

 

Sadie, I am totally with you on what you have written here. What I am not with is some of the mocking and the superior tone that has been tossed out on this thread.  My point in including the Barstow article is that it is not as crazy ass as some have portrayed here to be distrustful that the government can use mainstream media to its advantage.

 

I am going to throw out another biscuit for your consideration because it has to do with how we pick which media to trust and why.

 

The Guardian is a decently respected media source in the UK that seldom runs into legal trouble for inaccurately portraying the facts.  Sometimes I thought The Guardian had better and faster US election coverage than many US sources.  On Dec. 1, The Guardian released the following article:

 

"Obama's dirty secret: the fossil fuel projects the US littered around the world"

 

Now, I respect President Obama. I want his legacy to be positive. It would be easy for me to dump this article into my mind's trash bin because it doesn't gel with my world view. 

While Obama can claim the US is the world’s leader on climate change – at least until Donald Trump enters the White House – it is also clear that it has become a major funder of fossil fuels that are having a serious impact upon people’s lives. This is the unexpected story of how Obama’s legacy is playing out overseas.

 

I'd love for someone more knowledgeable than me to explain why this article is crap and the fact that it is crap is why there has been no American media response.  The Guardian has been exploring this line of thinking for a while. 

 

Maybe I could drop it, but darn it, they wrote it in conjunction with our very own Columbia Journalism School which has a somewhat respected journalism graduate program.

[Slartibartfast]

It's a fair point. Things haven't gotten better.

 

Every time Obama opens his mouth on clean energy and climate Big Oil freaks out and starts filing lawsuits. They fought tooth and nail against even injection drilling be limited in any way even though it is KNOWN it is causing earth quakes.

 

As long as "money is speech," and "corporations are people," nothing will ever change.

 

Trump tapped one of the worst people imaginable for the EPA. It isn't going to get better, it will get worse.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Guest]

The EPA pick made my heart super happy.

 

/oil industry wife

[Tanaqui]

Trump tapped one of the worst people imaginable for the EPA. It isn't going to get better, it will get worse.

 

I've got all my lawmakers on speed dial - local, state, national. My plan is to be on top of them like white brown on rice.

 

The EPA pick made my heart super happy.

 

I live on a coastline. I kinda like my city. I don't want it to flood again.

[RegGuheert]

What? Or course media should attempt, and has always attempted,t o present the truth. That's their freaking job! 

 

You say in one sentence that they should present unbiased information...do you really mean that fact and fiction should both be presented equally???? Is it unbiased to present made up information as fact? Is that what you are trying to say????

 

Cause buddy, no, sorry. I'm not yearning for a day when stories that I make up about UFO's stealing my kidneys for experiments get treated the same in the media as documented science information. That's not unbiased, that's ridiculous. 

 

I'm not yearning for the day when the "Truth" that is presented is decided by someone in either government or any corporation.  No one in this world is able to decide what is truth.  That is up to every individual to decide.  But I can only do that if I have a way to access ALL of the available information available. 

 

Those who are attempting to elevate themselves into position to decide what is "truth" need to be reigned in.

Edited December 8, 2016 by RegGuheert

[Tanaqui]

There's a difference between information and noise. Why should people who knowingly publish lies be protected? Why should Google or Facebook be prevented from blocking known lies?

 

Most things are not "for the individual to decide". It's very easy to see if, for example, Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president or not. It's easy to see if cats are vertebrates. It's easy to see if cholera is spread by germs. Facts are pretty unambiguous - and no, you're not entitled to your own facts. Opinions that are not based in fact do not deserve to be spread around.

[RegGuheert]

There's a difference between information and noise. Why should people who knowingly publish lies be protected? Why should Google or Facebook be prevented from blocking known lies?

 

Because it nigh impossible to discriminate a lie from the truth in most cases.  This is particularly true in science.

 

Most things are not "for the individual to decide". It's very easy to see if, for example, Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president or not. It's easy to see if cats are vertebrates. It's easy to see if cholera is spread by germs. Facts are pretty unambiguous - and no, you're not entitled to your own facts. Opinions that are not based in fact do not deserve to be spread around.

 

Sorry, but I have seen many truths labeled as lies recently.  Here are a couple of true statements:

 

1) There has been no trend, up or down, in the measured global greenhouse effect in the past 25 years.

2) During this same period, over 1/3 of all man-made carbon-dioxide emissions have been released.

 

Given that CO2 has no way to warm this planet EXCEPT by increasing the global greenhouse effect, it is quite reasonable to conclude that man-made CO2 is not an important factor in determining the temperature of this planet.  Yet this statement is deemed a lie by many actors.

 

So if you allow those same actors to suppress the above statement as a lie, and they are wrong, you have likely done irreparable harm.

 

ETA:  Here is what Google Founder and Chairman Eric Schmidt has to say about "climate change":

 

Schmidt laid into the network in an interview on NPR, when he said: “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people – they’re just, they’re just literally lying.â€

 

Do we really want Eric Schmidt suppressing those he thinks are "lying" simply because he is ignorant of the actual facts?

Edited December 8, 2016 by RegGuheert

[RegGuheert]

...are all part of this great Global Conspiracy to suppress the truth, are they ?

In a sense, yes.  Science has been corrupted by the fact that most scientific funding now comes from government.  This trend was entirely predictable.  In fact, it was predicted by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regardedâ€

In science, the facts are the facts, regardless of who knows them or if nobody knows them.  Period.  If releasing CO2 into the atmosphere does NOT increase the global greenhouse effect, or if it increases it only a little bit, then there is no reason to fear the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

[RegGuheert]

For those interested in the corrupting influences in science today, I highly recommend Dr. Judith Curry's blog: Climate, Etc..  She takes on this topic on a very frequent basis.  Here is a recent post on the subject:

 

'Truthiness' and 'factiness' in politicized scientific debates

[RegGuheert]

 lol, now I'm just laughing. Science is corrupted. OK.  

 

Just look at the list you published above.  Then look at the facts that I provided above that.

 

Unless those two facts are wrong, then ALL of those "august" bodies are wrong.

 

If you cannot produce MEASURED data to show that the global greenhouse effect is increasing, then there is little to fear with CO2.  If you do produce such data it needs to be reconciled with the measurement I linked which currently says it is not happening.

 

Can you provide any measured data to show that the global greenhouse effect has increased in the last 25 years?

 

[RegGuheert]

Judith Curry supports scientific opinion on climate change.

 

Judith Curry believes that the impact of CO2 on temperature is significantly lower than the popular estimate and that very little warming is to be expected.  She has published papers to this effect.  She believes that there is little to fear from the release of CO2.

 

Here is a link to responses she made to congressmen in 2015.  Her responses there are pretty clear:

 

 

7. In October 2014, you co-authored a paper that discussed climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is a simple metric for estimating how much warming should occur from a doubling of CO2. The IPCC has bounced around in the last 3 reports, being unwilling to provide a “best estimate†in the latest report.

A. How important is it to understand how sensitive the climate is to changes in greenhouse gases like CO2 (climate sensitivity) to determine actual impacts from the “national commitments†made by the Obama Administration and other governments?

Climate sensitivity is a direct input into the EPA MAGICC model, and into impact assessment models used to calculate the social cost of carbon. Therefore, climate sensitivity is a key input into policy making.

B. How well do we understand or “know†what the climate sensitivity is? What does the IPCC think the best estimate of climate sensitivity is?

Since the IPCC AR4 in 2007, both the upper bound (at the very likely level) and lower bound (at the likely level) to climate sensitivity have been lowered. There is a dichotomy between climate model estimates (higher) and observation based estimates (lower).

C. What do actual observations (vs. models) suggest about climate sensitivity?

The most recent estimates from observations suggest a transient climate response of 1.05 to 1.45 ^oC and equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.2 to 1.8 ^oC [17-83% range]   https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/19/implications-of-lower-aerosol-forcing-for-climate-sensitivity/

Those who want to know what Dr. Judith Curry believes should read her blog and her published works.

[RegGuheert]

I want to come back to this to talk more about how, when we agree to the proposition that experts can never be trusted, be they journalists or scientists, we end up in situations like this, with two non-climate scientists arguing about things we don't really have expertise in, and why that's a bad thing. 

 

We could play Google scholar poker all night, but it's late in AU, so it will have to wait. 

 

Another straw man argument.

 

Let's see, I provided scientific facts.

 

So far, Sadie has only responded with logical fallacies:

- Argumentum ad populum

- Straw man

 

You will not get closer to truth using logical fallacies.  Address the facts.

 

ETA:

 

...with two non-climate scientists arguing about things we don't really have expertise in...

 

I'll take this as an admission that you "verify" your facts in this area through another logical fallacy: blind loyalty.

 

But please do not project your limitations on me.  I have expertise in areas relevant to this subject.  Specifically I am an expert in the application of simulation technology.  This is an area of particular weakness in climate science.

Edited December 8, 2016 by RegGuheert

[Bluegoat]

Trudeau has continued a lot of Harpers policies in regards to what scientists can publish. Sorry but I can't remember where I read it. It was a while ago.

 

He hasn't revolutionized things the way some would hope, for sure, but it's better than it was.  I've seen some articles saying that the policy is the same and in fact he's been firing scientists, but all of them also seem to be a little on the disingenuous side. 

 

There isn't that same feeling in the civil service that you could get fired for mentioning something in passing to a media source.

[Minerva]

Sadie, I am totally with you on what you have written here. What I am not with is some of the mocking and the superior tone that has been tossed out on this thread.  My point in including the Barstow article is that it is not as crazy ass as some have portrayed here to be distrustful that the government can use mainstream media to its advantage.

 

I am going to throw out another biscuit for your consideration because it has to do with how we pick which media to trust and why.

 

The Guardian is a decently respected media source in the UK that seldom runs into legal trouble for inaccurately portraying the facts.  Sometimes I thought The Guardian had better and faster US election coverage than many US sources.  On Dec. 1, The Guardian released the following article:

 

"Obama's dirty secret: the fossil fuel projects the US littered around the world"

 

Now, I respect President Obama. I want his legacy to be positive. It would be easy for me to dump this article into my mind's trash bin because it doesn't gel with my world view. 

While Obama can claim the US is the world’s leader on climate change – at least until Donald Trump enters the White House – it is also clear that it has become a major funder of fossil fuels that are having a serious impact upon people’s lives. This is the unexpected story of how Obama’s legacy is playing out overseas.

 

I'd love for someone more knowledgeable than me to explain why this article is crap and the fact that it is crap is why there has been no American media response.  The Guardian has been exploring this line of thinking for a while. 

 

Maybe I could drop it, but darn it, they wrote it in conjunction with our very own Columbia Journalism School which has a somewhat respected journalism graduate program.

 

I have generally been very impressed with the Guardian lately. 

 

This article is a worthwhile read, except I am disappointed that they did not reach out to the Obama administration for comment. 

[Bluegoat]

I have generally been very impressed with the Guardian lately. 

 

This article is a worthwhile read, except I am disappointed that they did not reach out to the Obama administration for comment. 

 

They've published a few articles that were a little more thoughtful about the recent American election and Brexit, that don't follow the "look at the stupid people" trope.

 

But - I find them pretty consistantly dodgy with the way they treat comments from readers.

[ktgrok]

I

My main contention with the media is their seemingly complete unawareness of their own blind spots, preferences, and outright bias in reporting.

 

Again, biased reporting that leans right or left is NOT the same thing as fake news. It's a totally separate issue. 

[ktgrok]

Sadie, I am totally with you on what you have written here. What I am not with is some of the mocking and the superior tone that has been tossed out on this thread.  My point in including the Barstow article is that it is not as crazy ass as some have portrayed here to be distrustful that the government can use mainstream media to its advantage.

 

 

 

Selectively feeding the news media the information you want it to have, as a political figure, is what has always gone on. It is not the same as censorship. 

[ktgrok]

I've got all my lawmakers on speed dial - local, state, national. My plan is to be on top of them like white brown on rice.

 

 

I live on a coastline. I kinda like my city. I don't want it to flood again.

 

Yeah.....some of us are kind of fond of our coastal towns. And not dying in hurricanes.