A climate of...?
A few points about my article
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage
If you can be bothered to read these, and the comments generated as a consequence, I'd be interested in how you feel afterwards.
Here is my 2d'worth:
Coming in at this juncture one risks feeling rather like some poor non-com who has been ported into the dead centre of a no-person's land. And one between two mighty armies (if comprising about half a dozen, running along the trenches firing away to look extensive) shoveling ordnance into artillery pieces with no real concern as to where the explosion is, so long as it is big enough to raise a cheer from the 'home tribe's' reserves. So I have to say that I have a certain empathy with the image conjured (at least) by this analogy, as one kindly served a few before trying to help with my education in the past....
564. At 09:28am on 20 Oct 2009, rossglory wrote:
errrr, no. what i have noticed is the following exchange over and over again:
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: i think i'm wasting my time
denier: has anyone noticed alarmists refusing to answer questions?
But, in the spirit of 'balance', I just wonder if it might not be a tad more reflective of the situation(s) (literal and figurative) as follows....
'extreme pessimist': the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way
'extreme optimist' that many 'extreme pessimists' like teasing... and deserve to be: No it's not
'Still neutral': You're right, but I'm unsure how much man really is involved to the level demanded and need to be convinced more before committing the whole farm to serve 'solving' things in the rather selective ways advocated by some.
'Some pessimists' (to any not conforming) : the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way, and by even having doubts you are not with us, and thus need to be shut up or dealt with.
...etc...
Anyone noticed some folk (if from all various 'corners') see things only their way and will not even grant the possibility that there is another view that at the very least deserves to be explored and/or heard?
'If only God the gift hae gae us, to see ourselves as others see us'
Let the bombardments recommence (with, I suspect, the odd frag grenade arriving in my shell hole from various trenches)!
My reply was mainly prompted by this post rather twisting the argument to suit from the off. There was a status quo which has been challenged for change by some who have taken a very absolutist view. Many, myself included, are not comfortable with this, or the methods chosen thus far. Especially to find myself targeted as a 'denier', which makes me feel 'resistant' to this grouping holding sway. I hope my innocent suggestion will be appreciated for laying that conceit bare.
I also stand ready to be accused of being in the pay of someone or other, or at least in league. Which is kinda funny as the ones throwing such accusations around seem to be mostly from the crew cheerfully suggesting they all meet back in the forum they have created to deal with 'wrong thinking folk'.
Showing posts with label REPORTING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REPORTING. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, April 14, 2008
The pain with trains is starting to show the strains
I usually quote articles. But often the letters in response to them are more revealing. And sensible.
Take these to an Indy piece on trains: Train blame
I was mainly attracted by the one about the 'Gee whizz' reporting on growth on usage.
As with waaaay too much these days, and it doesn't matter if it's making a case for good or bad, up or down, it seems oddly facile to me that too many journos and editors seem to have a slight blind spot to the fact that there are a lot more of us doing stuff year on year, and that will often explain a lot much more simply than some of the notions that they attempt to gush over or spin into a headline.
Take these to an Indy piece on trains: Train blame
I was mainly attracted by the one about the 'Gee whizz' reporting on growth on usage.
As with waaaay too much these days, and it doesn't matter if it's making a case for good or bad, up or down, it seems oddly facile to me that too many journos and editors seem to have a slight blind spot to the fact that there are a lot more of us doing stuff year on year, and that will often explain a lot much more simply than some of the notions that they attempt to gush over or spin into a headline.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Playing the playing field
BBC Environment reporters
Many issues have cropped up in the blogosphere lately, but more than usual surrounding Al Gore's legal and Nobel adventures, especially at at time of increased concern (if not at the level of our Government, it seems) in matters MWCC. Of course things have turned nasty, and now we are seeing the people who play the person and not the ball in turn being played. All very disconcerting. However, sometimes it is worth knowing more about those who would (and indeed are often paid) be trusted to serve us objective, informed facts. I just caution against missing the wood for the trees.
It is of course preferable to have those who share scientific news with us, especially where journalistically challenging, to be as qualified as possible. However to an extent I find this a slight red herring, and by playing the person we ignore not just the ball but the playing field.
In matters of Global Warming, climate change, MMCC or man-worsened climate change, from Mr. Gore to the IPCC to Bjorn Lomborg to... [it's a long list] there are a bunch of folk who either are, or quote, scientists who I presume have told them stuff. And I can honestly say that black could still equally be white in matters green from what I see served.
For sure a trusted reporter with the skill sets should be able to cut to the quick, but if the agenda surrounding him/her/them is not too keen on personal integrity (which all too easily can become subjective opinion), then it really matters little what the mouthpiece is. It's more who decides to stick 'em up there and what they get told, or choose to mouth.
I don't think he could have been trusted as an expert on much more than Spitfires (if he was more qualified I apologise to his memory), but I certainly hung on every fact that Raymond Baxter came out with as much as those from James Burke on Tomorrow's World. Because I trusted the system and the programme. Of course, I now wonder what I may have been spun even back then.
I have 2/3 of a vet degree (sheep breathe easier) and a Civ. Eng (Hons), but in the sound bite culture of today... so what? I still would prefer to see pols challenged by a Paxman... so long as he is well, and objectively, briefed.
And speaking of pols in this context, is it not amazing that we are lead at Cabinet level by folk who often get rotated in matters of months between amazingly diverse and complex areas of expertise. How many posts did Dr. (of what?) Reid hold?
But I totally agree with the basic critique in this case. Mr. Harrabin seems incapable of even getting basic facts straight, let alone challenging scientific matters of interpretation adequately.
Weekly Spin- An Ethical Look at Fake News - Not about e-stuff, but it serves here. And illustrates the pretty pickle 'we' face with what we are served... at every level. Both us, the audience, but also the time-poor, cash-strapped journos.
You get served up a nifty, packaged 'story' from a PR, so why not just run it? Well, it may not be the whole story, that's why. And even if it is something 'good', by not looking yourself at the back story you serve your audience as ill as you do the interests of the PR machine well.
Which is why I took recent 'stories' about 'surveys', which manged to put Tesco top and last (well, of 5) in some green ranking with all the salt I could stomach. This is good stuff:
"Press releases don't dwell on controversies and never explain the other sides of an issue," he stated. "They are not interested in other points of view."
Presenting promotional material as "news" has two effects: it undermines news quality, while enhancing the impact of the PR message. "Ask any public relations professional and they will tell you they want their story in television, radio and print news ... because it is more credible. Period. If we [journalists] do a story about it, the public is much more likely to believe it."
"The average viewer does not have a way of understanding whether this is fake, phony, or real." News viewers, he said, "are sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time. They understand a lot about when they're being manipulated. But if you see a video news release -- a piece that looks like every other network or syndicated package -- on your local television station and it's introduced by your trusted local anchors, you're going to believe that that information is from a legitimate -- read, 'independent' -- news operation that's done its fact checking and has balanced its piece."
Many issues have cropped up in the blogosphere lately, but more than usual surrounding Al Gore's legal and Nobel adventures, especially at at time of increased concern (if not at the level of our Government, it seems) in matters MWCC. Of course things have turned nasty, and now we are seeing the people who play the person and not the ball in turn being played. All very disconcerting. However, sometimes it is worth knowing more about those who would (and indeed are often paid) be trusted to serve us objective, informed facts. I just caution against missing the wood for the trees.
It is of course preferable to have those who share scientific news with us, especially where journalistically challenging, to be as qualified as possible. However to an extent I find this a slight red herring, and by playing the person we ignore not just the ball but the playing field.
In matters of Global Warming, climate change, MMCC or man-worsened climate change, from Mr. Gore to the IPCC to Bjorn Lomborg to... [it's a long list] there are a bunch of folk who either are, or quote, scientists who I presume have told them stuff. And I can honestly say that black could still equally be white in matters green from what I see served.
For sure a trusted reporter with the skill sets should be able to cut to the quick, but if the agenda surrounding him/her/them is not too keen on personal integrity (which all too easily can become subjective opinion), then it really matters little what the mouthpiece is. It's more who decides to stick 'em up there and what they get told, or choose to mouth.
I don't think he could have been trusted as an expert on much more than Spitfires (if he was more qualified I apologise to his memory), but I certainly hung on every fact that Raymond Baxter came out with as much as those from James Burke on Tomorrow's World. Because I trusted the system and the programme. Of course, I now wonder what I may have been spun even back then.
I have 2/3 of a vet degree (sheep breathe easier) and a Civ. Eng (Hons), but in the sound bite culture of today... so what? I still would prefer to see pols challenged by a Paxman... so long as he is well, and objectively, briefed.
And speaking of pols in this context, is it not amazing that we are lead at Cabinet level by folk who often get rotated in matters of months between amazingly diverse and complex areas of expertise. How many posts did Dr. (of what?) Reid hold?
But I totally agree with the basic critique in this case. Mr. Harrabin seems incapable of even getting basic facts straight, let alone challenging scientific matters of interpretation adequately.
Weekly Spin- An Ethical Look at Fake News - Not about e-stuff, but it serves here. And illustrates the pretty pickle 'we' face with what we are served... at every level. Both us, the audience, but also the time-poor, cash-strapped journos.
You get served up a nifty, packaged 'story' from a PR, so why not just run it? Well, it may not be the whole story, that's why. And even if it is something 'good', by not looking yourself at the back story you serve your audience as ill as you do the interests of the PR machine well.
Which is why I took recent 'stories' about 'surveys', which manged to put Tesco top and last (well, of 5) in some green ranking with all the salt I could stomach. This is good stuff:
"Press releases don't dwell on controversies and never explain the other sides of an issue," he stated. "They are not interested in other points of view."
Presenting promotional material as "news" has two effects: it undermines news quality, while enhancing the impact of the PR message. "Ask any public relations professional and they will tell you they want their story in television, radio and print news ... because it is more credible. Period. If we [journalists] do a story about it, the public is much more likely to believe it."
"The average viewer does not have a way of understanding whether this is fake, phony, or real." News viewers, he said, "are sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time. They understand a lot about when they're being manipulated. But if you see a video news release -- a piece that looks like every other network or syndicated package -- on your local television station and it's introduced by your trusted local anchors, you're going to believe that that information is from a legitimate -- read, 'independent' -- news operation that's done its fact checking and has balanced its piece."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)