![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Frankly, I'm getting fed up with most of the media. I no longer have cable TV, but when I visit my mother, the TV stays on one of the three main news channels (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) when it's not on Food Network or Tru. (Food and Tru are our 'neutral ground' channels. :) So I hear bad journalism until I just can't take it anymore. And if I make the mistake of reading news online, I usually encounter the same lack of journalistic integrity and it makes me cringe. So I thought that since it's obvious no one is teaching this stuff to journalism majors, I should take it upon myself to do it.
1. Sometimes, there aren't two sides to an issue.
This is why my mother watches all three channels; she likes to get three different reports about the same story, average them, and hope that somehow, something similar to what actually happened might lie at the intersection. It's telling that the shows that get on my nerves quickest (on any of them) are the ones that consist of talking heads yelling and screaming at each other. It's great for ratings, I'm sure. But ratings is about entertainment, not journalism.
We just have to hope that the print journalists will find some way to bridge the gap left by the "infotainmentization" of TV news.
Lest you think I'm being a big ol' hypocrite, I freely admit that writing the supposedly less biased sentence up there took me a half an hour because I kept wanting to point out the unruliness of my fictional picketers. :) And of the shows that my mother watches, I just can't stand Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace, or any show with Ann Coulter in any capacity, but I love Rachel Maddow, Kieth Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. Yes, the latter two are on Comedy Central, but it's so satisfying to watch them lampoon everyone, I'm filled with delightful schadenfreude every time I watch.
I'd also like to point out that if there is genuine one-sided behavior, then it should be reported that way. For instance, in my fictional situation above, if the burly bodyguards punch or shove the protesters aside and they're not doing anything wrong, then report that. Or if the protesters block the path and shout nasty things at the patients, that needs to be reported, as well. I'm talking about cases where the only real meat in the story is manufactured by the word choices of the journalist in question.
This is also why I get amused reading LJ during any sort of political fray, because I see the same incident as told through the viewpoints of my right-wing friends, my left-wing friends, and my centrist friends, and I often wonder if they were all watching the same event. :)
Hm. I think I've edited this enough times. I'm probably forgetting some really amazing point I wanted to make, but I'm too tired to see it.
1. Sometimes, there aren't two sides to an issue.
"What?" you may be asking yourself right now. But seriously, it's true. There are occasions when there is only one side, and there are occasions when there are many sides.2. Asking questions without answering them (or asking questions that have no answers) is not journalism; it's manipulation, plain and simple.
When writing (or filming) a story that is based on scientific findings, for instance, you do not have to look up every kook in your little black book of sources to find the one nutjob who has what you'll undoubtedly try to convince the audience is "an opposing viewpoint." Unfortunately, this all too often has the effect of equating valid, sound scientific theory with something completely insane that some idiot pulled out of thin air.
Let's say NASA released a report that showed there was water ice at the poles of Mars and that there is evidence that it has been liquid in the very recent past.
What you should do: interview the NASA people making the claim, talk to some exogeologists who understand the conditions on Mars, read and familiarize yourself with the actual findings, and try to find a way to explain it to your lay audience so that it's not long-winded and boring.
What you should do if the scientific community is genuinely divided:1 interview proponents of all the major camps, familiarize yourself with the actual findings, and then present the story in such a way as to make it clear which theory (or theories) has the most support and so on. There's probably no such thing as an even division in science unless the discovery is new. A decent "recent" example might be the discovery of the "hobbit" skeletons on the island of Flores (Homo floresiensis). Scientists at the time were casting about for possible hypotheses to explain their small stature and whether they were recent or ancient. No consensus had yet been reached, so any well-written report would have had to show that and note that theory X was favored by the majority, but theories Y and Z also had significant proponents.2
What you should not do: interview the NASA people making the claim, then find some way-out-on-the-fringe wacko who is convinced that Hitler clones have been bred on Mars by Nazi scientists and are merely waiting for the signal to invade Earth. Then present them both as though they are equally valid "theories."
What you really shouldn't do: interview every idiot with a conspiracy theory or delusional belief that there are aliens on Mars, then talk to the NASA scientists, then edit the story so that 95% of the article/show is the idiotic/delusional nonsense, then toss in a sound-byte at the very end from the NASA scientists, generally refuting alternate "theories." (This is usually accompanied by a knowing, superior smirk on the face of said scientists, because they can't believe anyone is actually stupid enough to take the nub-job seriously.)
Here's the end of a recent article about Joe Scarborough that appeared on a blog called Talking Points Memo:3. Propaganda isn't "journalism."But it makes us wonder: Did Scarborough, planning a run for Congress from a deeply socially conservative Florida panhandle district, sought [sic] to get involved in the Griffin case as a way to associate himself with, and build support among, the anti-abortion movement? In other words, was Scarborough's political career launched in part by exploiting the dangerous strain of right-wing extremism that views the defense of an accused killer of an abortion provider as a cause celebre?Um, no. No, it isn't worth asking. What you've done here—and let me be absolutely blunt—is to ask leading questions in a deliberate attempt to manipulate your readers / viewers into being left with the impression that there's more there. In reality, your research—assuming you did more than look it up on Wikipedia—didn't turn up any evidence to support your claims, so you just decided to ask the question to slant your audience's opinion in the direction you wanted them to go. If a lawyer tried to pull this crap in court, there would be a loud and indignant objection from opposing counsel, and rightfully so.
At the very least, it's worth asking...
You have no idea how long I've been waiting for a specific, clear-cut example of this to turn up somewhere I could link to.
Let's say you're writing a story or filming a news segment about the economy. You have your own opinion, which is that we're all going to Hell on a crowded express elevator. So you contact a number of economists and pose the same question to them: "Where is the economy headed?"4. Word choice means everything.
Let's say 33.3% of them say "It will make the Great Depression look like a Presbyterian bake sale." Another 33.3% of them say "Every indication is that we're starting to pull out of the nose-dive." And 33.3% of them say "It's holding steady, with no definite trends in either direction, so it's hard to say." The remaining .1% either had no opinion or didn't answer their phones. :)
What you should do: write the story / edit the film segment in such a way as to represent what the economists actually said. Sure, it wasn't what you thought, but as a journalist, your job is to report, not to preach.
What you should not do: write the story / edit the film segment to highlight only those opinions that support your own opinion (this is a logical fallacy called "cherry picking"), giving little or no attention to those that did not agree, or attempting to discredit them. However you rationalize it, you're no longer reporting; you're propagandizing.
What you really shouldn't do: ignore the economists who didn't agree with your pre-formed conclusion and write the story / edit the film segment to say something like "I asked several prominent economists where they thought the economy was headed, and this is what they said," and then use only the clips that support your foregone conclusion. This is called "stacking the deck"; selecting only the bits of research that support your claim while ignoring all the ones that do not.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's extremely difficult to keep bias out of your writing. For instance, if you've read my footnotes, you'll have noticed that I (deliberately) used the term "ID-iots" to refer to proponents of Intelligent Design. I also tacked "Creationism" on after the term. By doing so, I clearly state where my sympathies lie. (Not that there was any doubt, of course.)All that being said, it's clear that none of the anchors on the news stations fit the bill. TV news is much more about entertainment than actually relating what's going on in the world.
But I could do it in so much more subtle a way, if I wanted to. Want an example? How about the way the media reports any story having to do with the issue of abortion? Here are two sentences that say the same thing, but are biased differently.On one side of the entrance to the abortion clinic were peaceful protesters bearing signs and chanting 'Abortion Is Murder!' while on the other, burly escorts furtively rushed patients past the protesters.Those are fairly crude and certainly a bit heavy-handed with florid adverbs, but I wanted it to be to demonstrate how the choice of a few words could change the entire tone of essentially the same story so that the author's bias is represented, but never openly stated.
On one side of the entrance to the OBGyn clinic were a mob waving signs and shouting 'Abortion Is Murder!' while on the other, volunteer escorts protectively accompanied patients past the protesters.
"Peaceful protesters" vs. "a mob of picketers." The first implies that there was no violence while the second one connotes a sense of menace. By the same token, "peaceful" could still mean that they were shouting things; just in a non-threatening way.
"Abortion clinic" vs. "OBGyn clinic." While both are factually true, one highlights what's going on there and the other downplays it.
"Bearing signs" vs. "waving signs." Bearing is passive; waving is active. It (not-so-)subtly connotes the opinion of the writer about the group.
"Chanting" vs. "shouting." Chanting conjures images of monks praying in Latin while "shouting" connotes a much more unruly, emotional act.
"Burly escorts" vs. "volunteer escorts." One highlights the fact that the escorts are clearly meant as bodyguards and the other underplays that by pointing out that they are donating their time without compensation. They may, indeed, be burly, but the second sentence doesn't mention that.
"Furtively rushed patients past" vs. "protectively accompanied patients past." This is where I got really heavy-handed. :) The words "furtively" and "rushed" together connote that what the escorts are doing is shady and underhanded. But "protectively" and "accompanied" imply that the picketers are dangerous and that the patients needed protection to get past them.
What a journalist should do is attempt to keep opinion to him/herself as much as possible.On one side of the entrance to the OBGyn clinic where Dr. Smith also performs abortions were a group of protesters—many of them holding or waving signs—loudly proclaiming 'Abortion Is Murder!' in unison. On the other side, volunteer escorts from Townsville University's football team accompanied the patients to the door.That's probably still not quite right, but I'm not a journalist. :) I'm a ranter who diatribes with the express purpose of underscoring the negative aspects of the thing I'm ranting against while simultaneously underplaying anything negative about my own 'side.'
This is why my mother watches all three channels; she likes to get three different reports about the same story, average them, and hope that somehow, something similar to what actually happened might lie at the intersection. It's telling that the shows that get on my nerves quickest (on any of them) are the ones that consist of talking heads yelling and screaming at each other. It's great for ratings, I'm sure. But ratings is about entertainment, not journalism.
We just have to hope that the print journalists will find some way to bridge the gap left by the "infotainmentization" of TV news.
Lest you think I'm being a big ol' hypocrite, I freely admit that writing the supposedly less biased sentence up there took me a half an hour because I kept wanting to point out the unruliness of my fictional picketers. :) And of the shows that my mother watches, I just can't stand Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace, or any show with Ann Coulter in any capacity, but I love Rachel Maddow, Kieth Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. Yes, the latter two are on Comedy Central, but it's so satisfying to watch them lampoon everyone, I'm filled with delightful schadenfreude every time I watch.
I'd also like to point out that if there is genuine one-sided behavior, then it should be reported that way. For instance, in my fictional situation above, if the burly bodyguards punch or shove the protesters aside and they're not doing anything wrong, then report that. Or if the protesters block the path and shout nasty things at the patients, that needs to be reported, as well. I'm talking about cases where the only real meat in the story is manufactured by the word choices of the journalist in question.
This is also why I get amused reading LJ during any sort of political fray, because I see the same incident as told through the viewpoints of my right-wing friends, my left-wing friends, and my centrist friends, and I often wonder if they were all watching the same event. :)
Hm. I think I've edited this enough times. I'm probably forgetting some really amazing point I wanted to make, but I'm too tired to see it.
- And by "genuinely divided" I'm not talking about the "division" between the 99.999% of scientists who understand evolution and the 0.001% who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism. That is a manufactured controversy (manufactroversy) perpetrated by gullible media and ID-iots with an agenda. A genuine divide might be something along the lines of the schism between paleontologists who think the Chixchulub meteor impact alone caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and a very high percentage of life planet-wide and the paleontologists who think the meteor strike was but one piece of bad luck in a string of catastrophes that brought about the extinction over a much longer period of time. You're yawning right now, aren't you? That's why the media likes to create controversies where there aren't any: the real ones are so boring, no one would care. Plus, scientists don't generally yell and scream at each other, but add a devout ID-iot into the fray, and it's like Jerry Springer within minutes.
- Note that I did not use the recent fossil named "Ida" as an example. This was by design. There was practically no argument among scientists in the archaeological/paleontological fields about what Ida was and what she represents. It turned into a media circus, and almost every one of the news reports (that I saw) got it dead wrong.
Tags:
Scientific division
Re: Scientific division
Re: Scientific division
Re: Scientific division
*And are misleading in their names, since, obviously, animals that climb trees can also get around just find on level ground and animals that live primarily on the ground can also get up trees now and then. (No one looking at a black bear, for instance, would say "There's an animal tailor-made for life in the trees" and yet they climb all the time.) And then there's the fact that some animals inhabit different habitats at different times in their life-cycle: newly hatched Komodo dragons live almost exclusively in trees, and climb often until adolescence, when they get too heavy.
Re: Scientific division
no subject
99.999% to 0.001%? Really? That wasn't 'contrived' or anything, was it? ;-)
Keith Olbermann? Say it ain't so! (insert gagging sounds here)
You may call me an 'ID-iot' but I call you a fool. (Psalm 14 and all) But, I say with the utmost affection. :-)
no subject
<insert fuming here>
Quick summary: It's actually about 99.993 to 0.007, if you do the math.
Yes, Keith.
But of course. :)
no subject
The Discovery Institute has a list of scientists world-wide who have signed a statement—which is innocuous on the face of it (click that link to read)—saying that they're "skeptical" of evolution and that "[c]areful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," as if that weren't already the case. A good number of them aren't biologists or any other -ologist in a field that has anything to do with evolution (materials scientists, electrical engineers, computer scientists, etc.), but for argument's sake, we'll take them all into consideration.
Their list is 18 pages of single-spaced names, some of whom take up more than one line listing the university or company they're affiliated with. I counted a couple of pages and it came out to around ~45, so we'll assume 44 per page for 16 pages, plus another 44 for the combined first and last page, which are about half full. 17 * 44 = 748. For ease of math, we'll round it up to 800. (I chose 44 because of the ones who took up multiple lines.)
The NCSE, seeing this list, decided to prove a point. They contacted a number of scientists to sign their own list, stating that they agree that evolution is the best explanation for the complexity of life on Earth, etc. The caveat was, they only wanted scientists named Steve. This was in honor of Steven J. Gould who had just recently died. And Steve included Steven, Stephen, Stephanie, Stefan, Estéban, Étienne, Istvan, Tapani, and other "Steve-equivalents" in various languages. They managed to round up 220 pretty much overnight, and published the list on their site, where scientists named Steve-equivalents are still signing it today.
I'm also ignoring their non-biologists and other -ologists who are not in fields where evolution would matter, just as I did with the DI's list. The ratio is supposedly higher on the NCSE side than on DI's, but that's hardly surprising.
Why was this "proving a point"? Because the name Steve (and its equivalents) make up about 1% of the population of the US. So each Steve on the list represented 99 other scientists not named Steve. So their 220 names represented 22,000 scientists, compared to the Discovery Institutes's figure at the time which was something like 100. I don't remember. The other point was that without even trying very hard, they got more scientists named "Steve" on their list than the Discovery Institute had on their non-name-restricted list. Evolution is not a "theory in crisis" anymore than gravity is.
At any rate, the figures today are ~800 on the ID side, 1089 on the evolution side (as of yesterday), and 800/108900 = roughly 99.993% vs. 0.007%.
Both lists also contain scientists who are not American, and I ignored that distinction as well, because I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have time to read nearly 2000 names and universities/companies and try to figure out what percentage of them are in the US. Or whether it matters.
The fact of the matter is, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted in scientific circles as the best theory we have yet come up with that explains what we observe. Predictions have been made using the theory that were later discovered. One hundred and fifty years of constant testing have honed the theory, and nothing has been found that invalidates it. Nothing has even come close, although if you read headlines only, this will surprise you. (cont'd...)
no subject
I'd still like to hear an evolutionist anywhere explain to me how a beehive and all its intricacies 'just happened'. Or how a baby grows in your body for exactly the right amount of time forming hundreds of thousands of cells all designed for a specific purpose 'by accident'. How our bodies are perfectly designed to give birth. How hormones soften your ligaments at just the right time, your milk comes in at just the right time and at just the right combinations of fats and proteins which change with the changing needs of the baby. How the vascular system of the newborn changes in just the right way at just the right time to internalize oxygen exchange, the foramen ovale closes and nutrients are absorbed through the digestive system. (sorry for all the baby examples but it's what I know. Ha!) How all of that just crawled out of the primordial soup baffles me. It takes more faith to believe THAT than to believe that 'the watch had a Watchmaker'. That's my creation vs. evolution speech of the day.
no subject
Are you a young-earth or old-earth creationist? (Is the Earth 6000-10000 years old or 4.5 billion?)
Can you describe to me how you have been taught evolution works? I don't mean in exacting detail, but not in one sentence, either.
no subject
My basic understanding of evolution (and I'll admit to not being all that well studied on this subject but I'll give it a go) is three parts. There's the whole big bang thing which says that the universe was created by a cosmic explosion which threw the solar systems together and got us all started. Then there is the biological aspect of evolution which says all life evolved from one thing to the next to the next going higher and higher up the complexity/intellectual ladder. Amoeba to fish to ape to man type thing. Then there's the cellular or chemical, I guess you would say, which says that the inorganic can mix with this or that chemical reaction and become organic. In other words life can pop into being from nothing or from a non-living substance with the right chemical cocktail.
That's not one sentence but it's not a real full explanation either. I'll be happy to add to it if you want me to give it more 'meat'. Again, I plead a good deal of ignorance on this subject... I'm not nearly as well informed on evolution as I am on, say, vaccines and childbirth. :-)
no subject
The "whole big bang thing" is called the big bang theory and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. They are completely and utterly separate things. The theory of evolution addresses what you called "the biological aspect" only. It begins with life as a given and operates from there.
The last part that you refer to as "cellular or chemical," that says that "inorganic can mix...and become organic" is called abiogenesis and is also not a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution as a process doesn't care (and here I personify it a bit for clarity) how the chemicals got there, nor does it care how lifeless matter became life. It only cares that once there is life, the processes described in the theory begin to take effect.
The big bang theory (aside from being a very funny TV show) has its own mound of evidence but I'm not going to go into that. No one is yet sure how abiogenesis happened, but there are several promising hypotheses. We may, in fact, never actually know which process occurred, even if we manage to replicate one or more of them in laboratory conditions. Chemical processes don't fossilize. :)
At any rate, the whole point of this was to say: the theory of evolution only deals with the middle part of the three pieces you mention, and it is what I will address when I have time to do so. The other two are not now, nor have they ever been, part of the theory of evolution. It is a very common misconception, however.
no subject
Here's what I'm wondering... if evolutionists say that they don't know and we may never know the origin of life, why is it so hard for them to acknowledge that maybe life was created by a Creator?
Also evolution in terms of a species adapting to its environment is all well and good. I get that and I agree. So, we may agree more than I thought! Where we probably part ways is in saying that species evolve across species lines.
Looking forward to more great discussion!
no subject
It turns out not to be a trivial question, and it doesn't have a definitive answer, either.
As a reminder to myself when I get time to explore this further: "ring species"
no subject
I would say that 'species' is defined as a type of classification for different kinds/groups/divisions/sets of living things.
How'd I do?
no subject
Dogs, wolves and coyotes can interbreed. Housecats and bobcats can interbreed. So you can't say "species can't interbreed." Even horses and donkeys can interbreed, even though the offspring aren't fertile.
So there are other considerations, and not every person who classifies them agrees.
no subject
How about if I go out on a limb and say where the ability to interbreed stops? If they can breed then they are part of a subspecies of the same species, right? Different species cannot interbreed with each other, right? (all the question marks are because I'm just thinking out loud and I don't really know what I'm talking about)
no subject
You have a mountain range or some other large, physical, geographical separator. Species A lives to the west. Over time, they migrate slightly to the north, changing to fit thew new climate, food sources, etc. Now we have Species B. More time passes, and they migrate farther to the north. Then east, all the way around to south, then back around to the west until Species, let's say M, is living directly south of Species A.
Species A & B can interbreed. As can B & C, C & D, D & E, and so on up till L & M. But M cannot interbreed with A, nor can any two species separated by a species both can interbreed with (A & C, B & D, C & E, etc.)
This is a real situation, not hypothetical. It raises some interesting questions about how one goes about deciding what separates a species from another. It turns out to be a lot of factors, even down to mating behavior (Species A and C might not be able to interbreed only because Species A does a different courtship dance or has a different call (for birds), and Species C doesn't recognize the Barry White aspect of it.
no subject
I don't think we'll disagree on much about this aspect of evolution. I think our big disagreement comes on the origin of life.
no subject
Another thing you may have been taught is that to accept the validity of evolution, you absolutely must deny your religious convictions.
While this may be somewhat more true in your case (4.5 billion years vs. 6000), that is not necessarily the case, and many Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of other faiths around the world happily accept evolution without it affecting their faith. Even the Catholic church has come out in support of evolution.
I—and other skeptics, atheists, and agnostics—simply desire scientific support for hypotheses, which is why we don't believe in (or doubt the existence of) a creator. Even though we do not now know all the details of how all this <insert gesture to include everything> got to where it is, advances in our knowledge are made literally every day that make the gaps in our knowledge smaller and smaller.
My intent here is not to "convert" you or brow-beat you. I'm merely going to try to help you understand our POV. With the tacit understanding, I hope, that I am not by any means the best voice for the science involved. I have a layman's understanding of things, but I am not a biologist, chemist, physicist, geneticist, geologist, paleontologist, or any other -ologist. I'm just an interested bystander who does a lot of reading. :)
no subject
Based on what you just said, you sounded more agnostic than atheistic. Do you have more of a bent toward agnosticism than atheism? Just wondering how you classify yourself.
And, my own disclaimer also, I never try to 'convert' anyone. That's the Lord's doing. :-) But, I love nothing more than a healthy, hearty debate/discussion so I can't wait to hear more!
no subject
no subject
Now teach me some evolution! :-) Which begs the question, do you think we'll disagree on anything since the 'disagreeable' aspect is more centered around the origin of life?
no subject
no subject
There are arguments within the field about some particular aspect of evolution (for example: slow and steady vs. punctuated equilibrium), but neither side is questioning whether evolution happened; they're trying to discover some nuance about how or when. And some of the questions will probably not be answered, like whether dinosaurs had cold or warm blood, because for that, we'd pretty much need a live dinosaur.
As for the rest:
Keith Olbermann makes me laugh. Probably because he dislikes many of the same people I dislike and uses his acid sense of humor to make fun of them. And although I think he goes too far (Bill O'Reilly is hardly the Worst Person in the World even on his most obnoxious day; I'd reserve that title for someone more like Rush "I Hate Drugs Unless They're the Ones I Am Addicted To" Limbaugh or Pope "Condoms Cause Aids" the First), I understand that he's using the bombast to make a point, just like O'Reilly, Coulter, and others.
I almost always use the term "ID proponent" or "IDer" when referring to someone who believes in Intelligent Design. I used the offensive term "ID-iot" on purpose to make a point. And yes, I've been called a "Psalm 14 fool" more than once. And much, much worse. :)
no subject
You've been called worse? I can't even imagine it! :-)
On a completely unrelated subject, are you coming to the July 4th reunion?
no subject
Rush's hypocrisy is what turns me against him. I even agree with some portion of what he says, but he always couches it in such vitriol and hate, I just can't go down that road.
I intend to come to the July 4th thing, yes. I think it's in Northport? Or is it somewhere out in the chigger-infested jungle that is Greene County?
no subject
I think the reunion is in Northport. If it's with the chiggers, you can count me out!! I do know the invitation mentioned air-conditioning which is another prerequisite for me.
no subject
So we end up with all these people basing their opinions on other opinions instead of fact and spouting off misinformation on the air as if it were fact, only furthering the nonsense. And somehow we have a belief in our society that every person should have an opinion on everything, even as most people can't be bothered to do any actual research into the topics they are discussing.
I don't understand the appeal of shouting heads shows either, but I think it's related to the voyeurism that fuels realtiy TV as a whole: people who are unhappy like to see people who are worse off than themselves. Schadenfreude, as you say. "I hate my job, but at least I'm not one of these guys fighting over this 'issue'." And because most of the "issues" are, as you say, manufactured by the entertainers, that only heightens the sense in the average viewer that what they are watching is entertaining and not important. (Even though it clearly affects their perceptions of the world and their opinions.)
Basically, I'm trying to say I agree and you said this very well. : )
no subject
no subject
you could craft a short book well, i'm sure of it.
no subject
About once every atto-second or so. :)