Not sure where you went to journalism school but at my J-school there was never any idea about sacrificing brevity for accuracy. In fact, if you got any fact wrong -- even misspelling someone's name or getting their title wrong -- it was an automatic failing grade. And if I ever made a factual error at the newspapers and radio stations I worked at there would be hell to pay from my editor.
You also don't seem to understand the nature and limitations of broadcast media where brevity is the name of the game. When you only have 30 or 45 seconds to tell the story of course you're going to have to leave out some details. That's why we have newspapers.
From the blog of David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman):
From today's news story on the IPCC report:
"The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis."
...
" The report also predicts a rise in global warming of around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade."
Two points are worth noting. The first is that "Nobel prize-winning" makes it sound as though it is evidence of the scientific expertise of the panel. But although the IPCC surely includes a lot of highly qualified scientists, the fact that the commission got the Nobel peace prize tells us very little about its scientific qualifications. Al Gore got the prize too, and he is a politician not a scientist. [Also, the prize was for Peace, not any science]
The second is that the fuzzy and emotive part of the story--"crisis" "species extinction" "devastating impact"--comes first and gets the attention. The actual prediction--an increase of less than two degrees by the end of the century, which isn't what most people imagine when they talk about global climate change--is buried down in "also predicts."
It would be an interesting experiment to ask people who have read that, or similar, stories, how much they think global temperature is predicted to rise by 2100.
The first sentence, the lead, is supposed to hook people into reading the rest of the story. That's why you get those fuzzy, emotive phrases, as you call them. It's also true of the leading paragraph. Such unexciting things as the 0.2 temperature rise is suppressed to lower in the story.
Journalists are also taught to sacrifice accuracy for brevity-- because people might not have time to read the whole story. That's not the way the teachers put it, but they say you have to get who, what where, when and how as fast as possible. Hence quickly identifying that the IPCC is somebody respected-- a Nobel Prize winner, without going into pesky details. "Nobel-Prize winning panel" is not meant to suggest falsely of scientific expertise, it's just the "short form." It is meant to tell people as quickly as possible who these guys are and why the rest of the story is important.
Journalists are also taught to keep it as dumb as possible. The corrections, details, nuances, and sometimes, the facts tend to come later in the story-- but are omitted or edited out too many times, either due to deadline, fitting the story for space, or alas, just plain laziness.
A journalist assigned to cover something is also motivated to puff the story, too. It's better for the effort if he and his editors get something about it. Of course in this case they are not going to admit the details kill the rest of the story.
So, usually, the "liberal bias" is nothing of the sort and caused either by hack writing, or ironically, such Republican things as time and business considerations.
I don't think it was Friedman's point (and it was his, not mine, though I agree with him) that journalists were liberally biased, merely that (for all the excellent reasons you explicated) their coverage leads to a distorted view of the situation.
Where did you get the "liberal bias" slant? Friedman would likely agree with you it's a "emotional, non-accurate, dumbing-down" slant. Why do you think people would interpret that as a liberal slant?
Maybe because he knows that
(emotional, non-accurate, dumbing-down = stereotypical liberal slant).
LOL
It's not a liberal slant; it's what conservatives perceive to be a liberal slant. As RWU so well demonstrated below.
In this example a liberal will look at "Nobel prize winning" and probably think, yes, it's for Peace, but who cares? What's the story? Already likely knowing that the IPCC aren't scientists, they are people who interpret the science coming in from different fields.
With terms like "crisis" "species extinction" "devastating impact" conservatives already have the straw man liberal in mind when they read those terms. It may be true that liberals are concerned about species extinction, for example, but the fact that conservatives see it as a "liberal problem" means that a mention of this constitutes a liberal slant. As for "crisis" and "devastating impact," depending on the story that's either 1) old news; 2) bad writing. How devastating is a devastating impact? Is it a crisis that a few inhabited islands in Indonesia fall below sea level in the next thirty years? Or is it devastating that most of the coral in the world dies as bacteria and algi flourish in warmer water?
In other examples, I think it was RWU himself who found a story about polar bears "clinging delicately" to icebergs, making some kind of metaphor about the bears and their extinction. I pointed out, that wasn't liberal slant as RWU said, that was just bad writing. I don't care how unhealthy a polar bear is, it doesn't do anything delicately.
We don't see global global warming as a liberal problem. What we see as a problem is liberals using it selfishly in emotional, non-accurate, dumbing-down ways.
Sterotypes aren't always incorrect, just incomplete.
You just demonstrated one of your own conservative sterotypes by thinking that conservatives don't care about species extinction. We care very much about it. We just don't want you putting your hand in our pockets in the name of saving the planet based on emotional, non-accurate, dumb'ed-down evidence.
BTW, I bet you most anything that the author of the polar bear story WAS a big time lib and his intention WAS to evoke an emotional response.
The link below points you to it. Many conservatives see it exactly as a liberal problem. You yourself imply that it is because liberals "use" it. Where as conservatives in a manner of speaking, have no use for it. I know you disown conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, (a real dumber-down that guy) but he precisely thinks that global warming is no problem and the liberals "using" it are the problem.
I don't think you speak for, or acknowledge, your fellow conservatives on this issue.
I cannot believe you could entertain the idea that global warming isn't going to cost you. I find it about selfishly stupid and dumbed-down that conservatives will do nothing because tax money might be handled by liberal hands. They consider taxes of any extent a far bigger problem than global warming might be.
I said before that projects don't have to be government led. I might have given you the wrong idea: the really MAJOR projects must be government lead. If private enterprise does it, it's only due to a corporation becoming the new government.
About the polar-bear article: as I remember, he was trying to use the pictures he had of polar bears and associate it to data released that week. That's a clumsy operation at best-- the pictures can't tell the statistics. The bears on the ice didn't show any very suffering. His pictures didn't support the statistics and the statistics didn't support the pictures.
Whether he was liberal or not, lacking all else, of course he was appealing to emotional response. But bears holding on delicately is still some stupid writing.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 12:52:59 AM
What gave you that impression? You can't be attempting sarcasm. He's often out of his realm on most things scientific, but that's not a reason to disown him. It's typically your side that ignores something totally if the source has even one negative characteristic, so I can understand how you might think other people subscribe to that methodology.
Liberals ignore somebody totally due to one negative characteristic? Usually more than one. Rush has a few-- several really. And actually, Zogby's survey* indicates that liberals read and watch opposite views far more than conservatives do.
I recall conservatives here (not necessarily yourself) distancing their conservatism from George Bush. Despite their overwhelming votes last election, many say he's not welcome in the club. In other words, Bush is flawed but the ideology isn't.
I thought for sure Rush would be the same way for you. Can he then say anything that would make you put down your drink and leave the club?
I far more often hear liberals rather than conservatives making the claim "you can't listen to or read 'them', as they are distrustful and dishonest. . . therefore NOTHING they say should even be heard.
George Bush is more Republican than conservative. He's still far superior to most any lib. Conservatives walked away from the present Republicans more to teach them a lesson than in search of something better.
Rush is more conservative than Republican. What do you believe he has done that would make me want to walk away?
"Can he then say anything that would make you put down your drink and leave the club?"
That's a bit of an insulting comment on me, now isn't it?
Even Zogby has Rush wrong in their anecdotal examples. Rush says many things tongue in cheek. Nearly all of his boasting and braggadocios behavior in done is jest. But when he claims that his "talent is on loan from God", I believe he is dead serious. If you happened to believe in God, then from where do you think that your talent would flow? That line ruffles many feathers but it is one thing that is spot on.
If each side didn't find a credibility problem with the other, we'd actually be bipartisan. I don't generally hear liberals say a person shouldn't be heard, only that they can't believe anything such-and-such a pundit says. The poll did find that more liberals will listen to people on the other side than conservatives. The question about whether they believed any of it is something else.
No, I wasn't trying to insult you with "put down your drink and leave the club." I often think of religions and political parties are really being more like "clubs." When I say "put down your drink" I mean as in socializing, or listening to a popular speaker. I wasn't meaning to make it sound like anything uniquely Republican, a country club or anything. I also wasn't meaning anything literal, I don't know if you drink.
Yes, and I do believe that Rush is utterly serious in saying "talent on loan from God." (That is, BTW, a good turn of phrase). However, I could also see that believing it might motivate him to feeling that questioning his skills might make him feel that the skeptic is questioning God. I have to point out ironically that Rush is extremely unpolished and unprofessional, so I hope he's not paying a lot of interest.
I've never been offended by his tongue in cheek boastings. (Though his encouraging of the term "ditto-head" brings the tongue in cheek part into question). No, other things about him disturb me. I'm offended by things such as his singing a very slow and sneering version of "Ain't Got No Home" when a homeless advocate committed suicide. Also his reference to "assuming room temperature" for a deceased person he finds unfavorable. For mocking Michael J. Fox. For being on the air at the exact moment that Vince Foster's body was found, and playing up within a half-hour that Foster was probably (if not likely) murdered. No facts had been presented yet.
I don't like his errors in fact, which he seldom acknowledges. Or how willing he is to distort facts opportunistically.
If Rush is a conservative, the movement is a political blight. And if conservatives have walked away from current Republicans (I doubt that its any punishment, more like undermotivation due to disgust) it guarantees a democratic victory. I guess they'll teach Republicans a lesson.
Again, where do you get that?
My concern is that it IS going to cost me, big time. And 99.99999% of my money will be wasted, a redistribution of my wealth.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 6:19:35 PM
. . . do you think the problem should cost you? I mean, we have tax money now going to some pretty stupid bipartisan flim-flams: such as ethanol. Conservatives (and don't you yourself) believe that its a ploy by liberals to simply transfer wealth. You do not believe that then? Is it that you don't believe the problem?
I do not think that "it" should cost me. But then you and I do not agree on what "it" is.
Let me ask this. If there is all this conclusive and incontrovertible proof of man made global warming, then where is the proof that the plan (for that matter where is the plan?) if implemented would save us.
We’d be just as well off spending money trying to prevent the Sun from one day ballooning in the red giant that it will inevitably become.
We're not that desperate yet. There is some question as to when we will be, but we should perhaps make some plans for when that time comes.
I agree that there is as of yet, no good plans to slow global warming. The science should be kept separate from the politics, however.
Not sure where you went to journalism school but at my J-school there was never any idea about sacrificing brevity for accuracy. In fact, if you got any fact wrong -- even misspelling someone's name or getting their title wrong -- it was an automatic failing grade. And if I ever made a factual error at the newspapers and radio stations I worked at there would be hell to pay from my editor.
You also don't seem to understand the nature and limitations of broadcast media where brevity is the name of the game. When you only have 30 or 45 seconds to tell the story of course you're going to have to leave out some details. That's why we have newspapers.
Tusayan,
Not that I want to correct you in a post where you're pointing out the importance of accuracy for a journalist, but did you really mean to write "Not sure where you went to journalism school but at my J-school there was never any idea about sacrificing brevity for accuracy" as opposed to "Not sure where you went to journalism school but at my J-school there was never any idea about sacrificing ACCURACY for BREVITY."?
I'm glad someone's paying attention because I totally dropped the ball on this one. That's the value of having an editor to catch stupid mistakes like that. Glad you got the point in spite of my carelessness.
No. Is it inaccurate to use words like "devastating?" If something in the story is devastating for someone, then it's accurate, though there are better words to use.
No, you give the reader a fast intriguing opening. Details are blurry of course. It goes without saying that you clarify with the rest of the story. One of the leads most worshiped in journalism is "They buried a generation here today." How do you check facts on that? Was it really accurate?
Even if "Nobel-Prize winning" is totally accurate*, conservatives will complain it is misleading because the story doesn't mention it was a Nobel Peace Prize. See, they say! Liberals journalist are trying to say the IPCC is made up of prestigious scientists. Though it passes the fact-check. Is it misleading that you don't add "Nobel-peace-prize winning" later in the article? Then they'll complained the story doesn't mention it till way down in paragraph 2. By then they say, the damage has already been done, and it has a "devastating impact" on public opinion. 
*I don't say "accuracy" as in downright lying about facts. I say accuracy with the antonym vague. No doubt if you want to get more accurate you could say "2007-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Co-Winning IPCC who shared the prize with Al Gore, whom the staff in no way promotes by mentioning . . . [ad naseaum] "
Though there is a lot of hack-work journalism, poor fact-checking, and atrocious writing. Under deadline to make a story fit, I do know editors remove some very important details that give the story an "accurate" but misleading slant.
-- Modified on 11/18/2007 10:27:26 PM
I'll post the argument again that the No bell prize is a political entity. kinda like being president of the class in Jr. Hi.
Of course it is political, and any prize is. You don't have to reiterate a point, especially one that in the first place was like a treatise explaining which way was up.
Why do you bring it up, give a link, when the subject was how accurate a journalist should be? Does hearing "Nobel" just cause mental hiccups?
Which is hogwash - especially when it comes to the peace prize.... too many legit scientists knock the assertion of global warming - or for that matter manmade global warming even if we are experiencing global warming... the alarmist tone of much of these loons... makes it imperative that we examine ALL the facts- such as solar output, natural cycles. etc.
And yea Z, It does bear repeating - just as you think your position needs repeating... so keep on a repeating.... and I will too.
As far as references go.... once on this esteemed board I provided over 50 references... From a verified climatologist. get over yourself... you read summaries - that are predigested.... one of the problems with the UN's IPCC is that the "conclusion" was written by politicians - and not the scientists themselves.... kinda like me writing a paper on internet technology - and then al frikin gore writing the conclusion of a technical paper... it kinda reduces good work to a pile of crap.
but then again... you live in your own world.
It's like you read with sand in your eyes.
If you have that link to the 50 references, that would be appropriate here instead of the list of Nobel prizes. Again, I can't expect that you'd figure that out or be that accommodating or kind if you could. I either missed it totally, or I thought that the title had nothing to do with the subject.
Why would I expect that? You don't merely go off on tangents. You jump tracks completely. You either have a dizzying intellect or your just dizzy. Guess which one I suspect.
library and request the papers....
Most reputable scientific journals (in order to make money) do not put their info on line. Rather they will sell you a subscription, or the local university will subscibe and you can go there and get a copy of the paper.
Failing that, get to the library of Congress and get a copy.. or if biomed to the NLM....
But do NOT say that I failed to post the references... the above post links to my previous post where I provide references.
Selected papers from the total list are provided below.
(1997) Can increasing atmospheric CO2 affect global climate? Proc. Natl..Acad. Sci. USA, 94, 8335-8342
R.S. Lindzen, M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001) Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82, 417-432.
Encyclopedia of Global Change, Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume 1, Andrew S. Goudie, editor in chief, pp 562-566, Oxford University Press, New York,710 pp.
R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002b) Comments on "The Iris hypothesis: A negative or positive cloud feedback?" J. Climate, 15, 2713-2715.
Bell, T. L., M.-D. Chou, R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Response to Comment on "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 598-600
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 9:07:22 PM
rather than be critical of liberal information - you accept it with zeal... but then turn around and say that anything that might disagree with predigested pablum... well - it just cannot be right....
IPCC? again - folks have requested their names be removed from the report - (I provided you previously with one). Second, accurate reporting of fact is what I expect from reporters and responsible journalists. What we get these days is an editorial comment in the news column. not good for honest and informed debate of issues. AS far as facts coming later in the story? they often don't! As I have stated on numerous occasions - ANY fricking reporter can cherry pick information.... but a true reporter should and WILL ask difficult questions beyond what is spoon fed to them... example? WHY is mars undergoing a warming trend as well? WHY is pluto undergoing a warming trend? What percentage of GHG does man's activities emit.... and does that percentage account for whatever change in temperature that is measured? And what is the tonage of GHG emitted per economic unit created? turns out the US is actually one of the "cleaner" nations when tabulated in that fashion - that is - we are energy efficient (insulation, efficient engines etc....).
Several times you post, clearly to suck up to the liberal members of the board... rather than think issues through...
AS far as energy and politics.... the Dems seem to be as beholden to energy as is the Reps... don't you get it Z... they are both selling us out... in more ways than I can count.
And your clown's handle was the tip off. You declare the very obvious with zeal that implies it is a great discovery, you don't read or don't interpret another's writing, and you drop things in that are not even tangent to the subject. The newsmax report on Clinton belongs in its own subject. Why am I explaining that to a professor? Composition 101. Remember that?
Am supposed to be impressed that you expect accurate reporting of the facts. Shouldn't anyone expect that? Like I don't? Or that facts frequently aren't clarified or are left out at the end of the story. Didn't I say that two posts ago; didn't I reiterate it in my very last posts. Am I writing this to an idiot?
So, you've discovered the exciting disproof of global warming: that Mars and Pluto are also heating up. What a story. How significant. Hypothetically I would say it has to be one of two things: 1) a coincidence with no connection to earth; 2) the sun is getting hotter. We have the instruments to measure the latter and it would be obvious news, I presume. We would have the data if it were. So it's the former.
Isn't obvious to you that we have a sample of just three planets. Do the odds that all three could be heating simultaneously, and for unconnected reasons be really that remote to you? We're talking a very minute sample size here. This alone doesn't challenge global warming. You say I lack critical thinking; but why do I have to explain that to a professor?
Flash, another huge discovery: that US is one of the most energy efficient nations. I don't have a Ph. D. and I knew that already.
To the argument that I'm not critical of "liberal information." You haven't made your argument that either Science Daily is a liberal website, or that all the articles of cited (and dozens of others I could cite) are from scientists who are slaves to liberals. As soon as you convince me that they are covertly liberal sources, then I'll reconsider liberal organizations.
Next flash: both parties are beholden to energy interests. Again you've made a momentous discovery that should earn you the Nobel prize. Too bad the Nobel committee is so biased.
What to do if they are? Do you suggest turn on, tune in, and drop out? Maybe you believe we should storm Congress with pitchforks. That would seem to be the only way.
Consider this: are the two parties equally beholden to energy? The second question is, which party has rank and file that are less tolerant of it? A party isn't just the leadership, you know. There are many Democrats who wish for something much better than Clinton. The problem is, they see a total tolerance of greed in the Republican opposition, and worst sexual behavior complete with lying ("I am not gay!").
But that is seldom discussed. For a resonably balanced discussion of this phonomena - see the link.
This post has turned into a discussion of journalistic inaccuracy vs bias. That was not my intent. The Friedman quote I provided just has a two line quote from a news article. Let me review the thrust of the point of my starting this:
The article correctly notes the IPCC predicts a 0.2C temperature rise PER DECADE.
Let's say that's perfectly accurate. 0.2 degrees Centigrade is 0.36 degrees Ferenheit. A third of 1 degree. Per decade. I don't recall this dramatic scientific fact being played up in Gore's movie. How many reading this are truly scared about a one-third of one degree per decade rise in temperature? If you are, please try to rationally explain why? How many of you who are AT ALL concerned by this statistic would accept a $1000 per year decrease in living standards to stop it? $2000? Please offer a figure has to how much it is worth it to you personally to stop this.
Talk about journalistic quality standards is fun, too, but my reason for posting was to see what people thought about the above issue.
Nobody has even come close to demostrating that it CAN be stopped. Man's contribution is so small that it would probably take the DEATHS of 100's of millions to make a dent.
Maybe all this money you're trying to collect would be better spent on damage mitigation and survival, eh?
Dear Rightwing,
Please read carefully. I'm not trying to collect ANY money. I'm pointing out that the very IPCC claims people are waxing dire over are really not particularly scary (at least to me) and asking people who ARE scared--obviously, not you--how much they would personally be willing to sacrifice financially in order to stop it. The point is not that it can necessarily be stopped. The point is that seeing how much people are willing to pay, as opposed to how much they are willing to talk or complain, is a standard method for gauging how truly concerned they are. Already have you down as: Not Concerned...
I AM concerned. I just don't think there is anything man can do to stop it. So therefore I am not willing to spend a dime in attempting to do so.
My earlier point was not about personal monetery sacrifice. In order to have any impact on climate change the cost needs to be measured in lives not dollars.
Money is better spent adjusting to climate change. People will accomplish that much more successfully than some give them credit.