Science Media Sold Out

Discussion in 'Media' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 22, 2013.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,936
    Time to focus on a particular aspect of the media....
    Science Journalism.
    Who Do You Believe?

    1. We all link, source and quote books, websites, blogs….yet overlook the fact that that undermines the unspoken idea that same doesn't necessarily prove our point. If one has any experience studying the political landscape, it is obvious that this nation is not only pretty evenly divided….(Obama 50.8 percent, while Romney had 47.49 percent.)
    Romney?s final share of the vote? You guessed it: 47 percent.)
    ....but fiercely so.

    a. Why, then, expect our 'experts' to be objective? Where do the statements originate??
    The sign of the times is the death of science journalism.

    b. Answer: the same naïveté that imbues “scientists” with ethics different from any other human being.






    2. The business model is part of the problem. Newspapers try to compete with the internet, and time is money. “So inevitably there is a temptation to take short cuts -- such as relying more on press releases.

    "Under these straitened conditions the mainstream media's need for quick and accurate science content is being met primarily by public-relations departments," according to Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre….quality is giving way to what British investigative journalist Nick Davies calls"churnalism". That means relying more on press releases and newswire stories rather than that time-consuming business of original reporting.”
    How to save science journalism (Wired UK)

    Sensationalism sells far better than 'everything is alright.'

    a. “Science media has gone from 'journals of verification' to 'journals of announcement'; by that he meant bloggers are just talking about the latest press releases rather than digging into substance.” Science Journalists Have Met The Enemy, And They Are Bloggers

    b. Again: that means that rather than knowing, stories are relying on what interested parties are telling them. Including corporations, and political parties….and academics.
    That would be academics who need grants to put food on the table.
    Just like everyone else.






    3. Here’s an interesting insight from BBC science correspondent, Pallab Ghosh, who claimed that he witnessed the end of science journalism some eight years ago.
    At that time, claims were emerging that oil companies were paying people to go to policy conferences and instill doubt about climate change.
    This is not a verification that it was actually happening….nor that climate change is a fact.
    But, the rumor had an effect:
    “Climate scientists and journalists, who until that time had stayed fairly moderate in their zeal discussing and reporting on the issue, suddenly started responding to claims that Exxon was funding debunkers to go to conferences and talks and instill doubt, and adapted a mentality of 'we must get something done now' and the tone began to change.” Science Journalists Have Met The Enemy, And They Are Bloggers

    a. “Science journalists….collectively adopted an activist mentality against anyone who doubted climate change. They believed they were banding together to support objective science. Yet they had inadvertently thrown away their own objectivity. They were now cheerleaders….”
    Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p.198.

    b. “The Royal Society of England wrote directly to sympathetic science journalists and asked them not to cover opposing claims about climate change. It was false to even mention skeptics; the science was settled.” Ibid.

    4. “…Royal Society,… writes: "We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support."

    a. The Royal Society pressuring science writers??
    Sound like science to you?


    b. Collins, the UK Telegraph, was shocked…and wrote of the ‘sceptics:’ These people are not nutcases, nor are they in thrall to the oil companies (even if they were, does anyone seriously believe that Big Oil wants to destroy the planet?). They are just as capable of doing serious science as those who take it as an article of faith that global warming is all our fault.
    Global warming generates hot air - Telegraph





    5. So…this is the state of things. Do not doubt, politics is more real than what is called ‘science,’ today.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    wow,


    is there a low level you will reach that makes you stop and think?


    SCIENCE is the search for reality.

    You think ist NOT GOOD just like you think mankind is NOT GOOD
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,936

    I'll answer you a bit later....

    Now your are interrupting me in the middle of my "Manti Te'o Physical Fitness" workout!

    I'm up to the 25 pound imaginary weights.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,210
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,953
    Consensus =/= Science
     
  5. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    He is a 21 year old latter day saint kid.


    How much will you flail him for being a trusting kid who wanted to wait until he was married to consumate his realtionship.

    Why os it there is nothing more this country hates than a trusting soul?
     
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,680
    "Trust, but Verify". Someone famous said that. Pretty Scientific too isn't it?
     
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,210
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,953
    When you listen to real scientists they will tell you that if your theory fails on ONE data point it must be discarded.

    AGW, not so much. You can fudge data, point to any weather even and go, "See that?! That's ManMade Global Warming right there in that record cold and snowfall!!"

    that's how you can tell AGW =/= Science
     
  8. emptystep
    Offline

    emptystep VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Thanks Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +221
    If a publication wants a wider readership they become less intellectual. There are still fundamental, academic publications which are rooted in core science, Popular Science is not one of those.

    I am getting the impression that you are saying that we are arguing with posts linking to information which is less than rigorous. I agree, even with myself. It is easier to find and easier to cut-and-paste from loosely articulated material.

    See my signature for a statement on this very topic.
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,936
    I appreciate the opportunity to review the precis.

    1. The journalists in question are not scientists.

    2. Due to the provenance of their incomes, they are susceptible to the exigencies of their business. Access. Information.
    And, 'if it bleeds, it leads.'



    3. Of course, politicians are morons. "Prince Charles warned that the survival of mankind itself was in peril, and that only seven years remained “before we lose control of the levers of control” over the climate." Daily Telegraph, December 15, 2009.




    4. More difficult to absorb is the anti-scientific attitude of The Royal Society;

    a. 'The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, known as the Royal Society, is a learned society for science, and is possibly the oldest such society in existence.'
    Royal Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Imagine this austere body threatening to deny access to science journalist who dare to give voice to alternative views.
    That, and the revelations of 'scientists' of East Anglia tell all you need to know.


    5. And that, in light of the very paucity of evidence to support the terrifying global alarmism, the environmental Armageddon, is the best evidence for the lack of rationality, and, by the same token, the supremacy of ideology, in the scientific community.

    a. In a 2003 poll conducted by environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany, about a quarter of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers.
    Are climate change investors living in a fool?s paradise?




    6. " In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor."
    Melanie Phillips, "The World Turned Upside Down."
     
  10. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95,962
    Thanks Received:
    11,259
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,211
    This story is not false:

    American climate skeptic Soon funded by oil, coal firms | Reuters

    American climate skeptic Soon funded by oil, coal firms


    By Timothy Gardner

    WASHINGTON | Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:49am EDT

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Willie Soon, a U.S. climate change skeptic who has also discounted the health risks of mercury emissions from coal, has received more than $1 million in funding in recent years from large energy companies and an oil industry group, according to Greenpeace...


    ...Soon agreed he had received funding from all of the groups and companies, but denied any group would have influenced his studies. "I have never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research," he said.
     

Share This Page