No, really. Why should you?
Check, check, and check agin. Compare and contrast. Challenge if necessary. Just make sure you have all the possible facts, and a decent spread of subjective opinion, before coming to a view.
And then be open to having it evolve if necessary.
Why do I write all this?
Well, for an envionmental campaigner, I am about to post two pieces form what can only charitably be deemed 'climate optimists'.
Thing is, it is their right to have views, and share them. So long as they are sincere, honest, well argued and referenced.
Which is why I have been so unhappy from others, who should really know better, using terms such as 'denialists' in an ongoing, and unsubtel battle of wills, and fight for the thoughts and support of the general public.
Now, I have a stated unease with focussing too much on the person and their supprters as opposed to the argument, but this can of course coem to matter.
As, I believe, it does here.
Bearing in mind my caution at the top, bearing this intoduction in mind, I think what is raised in these blogs is worth sharing, and the consequences thought about.
How the public is served its information (bear in mind that the BBC serves up only a few 'authoratative' environment reproters , with various titles that sledom to my mind are warranted form their backgrounds) is, still, to my mind, a critical aspect of how we conduct our daily lives.
Bishop Hill Blog - The amazing disappearing Roger Harrabin!
Harmless Sky - The Freedom of Information Act and the BBC’s willing little helpers
Just the facts, man... just the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment