The Nick ([info]nick2310) wrote,
@ 2006-06-27 02:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Times like these
You know it's at times like this, when it's closing in on 2am and I, for reasons known only to the Flying Spagetti Monster, will not fall asleep, that I really wish that I'd developed a barbituates habit. But as has happened before, this is only to your benefit.

I was yacking with Faceplant today regarding the usual, politics and related issues, when I remembered something that's really been annoying me as of late. That thing is fact, or the lack thereof. There are myriad debates at the moment regarding this, that, or the other thing, all of which, to my mind, could easily resolved with the insertion of fact. For instance, as I wrote earlier, there's been some debate over the accuracy of the "facts" that Al Gore presents in his presentation now movie An Inconvenient Truth. In particular he spends some time showing pictures and talking about the melting glaciers or Greenland and Antarctica. He says that should these massive repositories of ice melt that they would raise the sea level worldwide by 20 to 40 feet. Impressive, yes, but is it fact? I cruised the web to try and find corroberating evidence and came up worse than empty. In fact I ran into such a jumbled confusion of articles quoting a gradient of experts that claimed the ice could fall into the ocean at any moment to ones that said that the ice in both regions was actually thicker today than it was a couple decades ago. Some said that if it did melt it would only raise ocean levels a few feet, others matched what Gore had to say. Nowhere did I find a nice table, graph, or simple paragraph stating that the given pieces of ice contain X cubic meters of frozen water and that it takes Y cubic meters of water to make the ocean levels raise Z meters. Those things should not be in debate, those should be quantifiable, measurable, fact like things. Things that an adequate peer reviewed study can say, within a known degree of accuracy, if fact.

This, I think, is the greatest failing of the media today. It no longer supplies us with facts, it supplies us with viewpoints. Any facts that a particular story happens to disclose are there soley to support it's viewpoint. Facts that could contradict the viewpoint are conveneintly forgotten of explained away in a manner both specious and off-handed. The journalist's job is no longer simply to uncover the facts and provide them wholesale to a mature public able to draw its own conclusions, the job now is to entertain with his/her latest greatest "story". So called reporters ceased reporting ages ago in favor of opinion pieces. Is it any wonder that we can no longer tell what is news and what is government or corporate propaganda supplied pre-packaged to the media? In the end how are we the public supposed to make informed decisions when all information is given to us in the form of refined opinions from pundits?
OK, finally feeling like I can sleep now. Can't wait for work tomorrow...wheeeee!



(Post a new comment)


[info]dyinath
2006-06-27 04:23 pm UTC (link)
This is new news?

This isn't a problem that materialized in the past decade, you know. Journalism has *never* been concerned with facts. It has always only reflected the current opinion of the populace, or the people providing the journalist's paycheck. It has also always been used to shape people's opinions towards what the big cheeses (government, corporations, etc.) want it to be.

Take, for example, World War II. The newspapers and newsreels did not transmit the "facts" about how horrible the conditions were on the front line, or how many soldiers were sent and how many came back (or any other, less charged facts). They showed sanitized views of the Western Front, to make sure that people supported the war and felt that Hitler needed to be put down.

Journalism isn't concerned with facts. Science is. And I also posit that you really need to consider the Internet as a form of journalism. What appears on the Internet is only what people want you to see; if, for example, I wanted to create a website that supported the view that global warming isn't happening, I'm not going to include any data that supports that global warming is happening.

If you want facts, you need to do research in the scientific journals that hold the information you want. And even then, you should be analyzing the information you get there; you know that different methods can yield different results, and that many experiments are flawed.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2006-06-27 05:59 pm UTC (link)
Gore's movie is actually coming to Bend this Friday. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Harold

(Reply to this)

Media
(Anonymous)
2006-06-27 11:01 pm UTC (link)
Check out http://www.blogmaverick.com for Mark Cuban's thoughts on what is determined to be "story worthy" and coverage of sporting events. Good stuff.
Pirkenator

(Reply to this)

Here you go
(Anonymous)
2006-06-27 11:34 pm UTC (link)
Maybe this will help answer some of your questions:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Here you go
[info]nick2310
2006-06-28 12:48 am UTC (link)
And yet there's this List of 19,000+ scientists in favor of Global Warming, a debunking of Global warming thinking, with graphs, bitching from the Canadians, and the obligatory reference to Hitler.
And this is my point, all of those articles claim to be telling the truth, they have "facts" to back up their truth but there is seemingly no way for me, without directly checking their sources (which I certainly have no time to do), to tell whose "facts", and therefore whose truth, is, well, true! It's so mind bogglingly frustrating to find an honest news source that will simply summarize the basic scientific data, explain the basic principles involved, adn then shut the hell up so that I can make up my own damned mind, that the vast majority of the population is simply willing to pick a side and stick with the supporting truthiness or just wander in apathy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here you go
[info]dyinath
2006-06-28 09:34 pm UTC (link)
But there is no honest news source. That doesn't exist. You don't have to even go into the whole "the media is only broadcasting what they want you to hear" argument. If you don't have the time to go checking their sources, neither do they.

Think about it. Let's say you were a journalist (note: that means not trained in the sciences) and your editor told you to go out and "tell the truth" about something as simple as, say, how long our fossil fuel reserves will last, what do you do? Are you really going to go out and read the scientific journals, critically review the science behind every single estimate, and then determine which one is correct? You neither have the time nor the training to do so. Instead, you contact the experts, and they will tell you which one they think is the most correct -- and that's different depending on which expert you've talked to.

This is not a new phenomenon -- people have always had to simply accept information from their media without question, and had to muddle through it themselves. Is it a bad thing that the vast majority of the population do so? Probably, yes, but they have no choice -- just like both you and me, they do not have the bandwidth or the intellectual capacity to delve into the facts and understand everything about everything, to make "informed" choices.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here you go
[info]nick2310
2006-06-28 09:56 pm UTC (link)
Not that I disagree with your assessment, it sounds spot on (of course I didn't research any to check that ;). First I'd say that we've got a pretty lazy journalistic standard if journalists aren't willing to delve into the science of things to discover the truth of the matter. Not to say that they have to become a certified petroleum geologist to write a story on the remaining oil reserves, but they should at least be able to understand both what the numbers mean and generally the methods by which they were measured. Hell, that's what I'd do if someone was paying me a daily wage to write a story, but then I tend to overdo things like that.
Secondly I'd say that your assessment of the situation indicates a pretty broken system. Especially when you consider a popularly controlled government (such as we obstensibly have). How can such a population decide wisely on policy, or even on which citizens get to decide policy, when they are unable to make "informed" choices? Clearly, IMHO, they can't. Thus if a trustworthy and accurate press is an impossibility, how can democracy (or a republic) be anything more than a sham that gives the false impression of governance by the people? Anyone?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…