Posted by
Steve Smith on
Apr 05, 2013; 8:19pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/just-the-facts-tp7582525p7582542.html
Arlo -
I don't think Democracy! Now purports to be 'just
the facts' - while of course they wouldn't say they distort the
truth, mostly they are devoted to news and interviews about
left-leaning topics, or civil/humanitarian rights in general.
Fox News, on the other hand, is equally focussed on conservative
viewpoints, and occasionally makes stuff up. CNN is going for
whatever draws viewers (controversy) without angering them (any
perception of sidedness, even where it is an inapplicable
concept).
I generally agree with your analysis, and in fact appreciate it's
insightfulness.
I limit my "push" media to DN! but with a fairly good awareness that
it is very *selective*. I listen to it *for* it's strong
progressive voice. I am fairly confident in their honesty and
accuracy within the limits of their bias. I cannot say the same
for Fox News. I am pretty sure that they are strongly in the camp
of "the ends justifies the means" and "say anything". Their 2008
mascot, ms. "I can see Russia from here and they ARE coming, let's
go shoot some wolves from helicopters, I'm a Maverick" was such a
huge caricature of that kind of "form over substance" that I gag
when I see their talking heads and banners (who *IS* that woman
commentator with the constantly flaring nostrils?).
CNN is a very commercial beast as you point out... my confidence in
them fell 25 years ago when my sister and brother-in-law moved from
Spain (where all media was government controlled) to Chile (where
they had access to Satellite media from the US and Europe). This
was during some of the big unrest in Santiago. My brother in law
drove past the Capital building *every day* and then would come home
to watch Riots and other things happening on CNN *at the Capital*
that had patently NOT happened. WTF?!
He and I were roughly crossing poltical/ideological paths at that
point. He was a young (but older than I) highly charged
progressive/liberal and I was somewhat caught up in the rhetoric of
the conservative/libertarian world. This was about the point where
he (who had become a successful exploration geologist) was starting
to believe in the message his International Corporate (backed by the
US, UK, etc. govts) bread-provider was telling him and *I*, was
starting to *doubt* the nationalistic/patriotic truisms of the
National Laboratories, Big Government, and Mutual Assured
Destruction rhetoric. His TV now runs Fox News 24/7, and of
course, I spend all my time and attention yammering on FRIAM and up
to an hour a day listening to Amy Goodman's voice reel off all of
the horrors against humanity (sometimes even including white males)
of the day.
Ultimately it is up to the viewer to attempt to perceive,
intuit, and presume biases and to gestalt multiple sources to
try to construct an accurate view of the world. So if one wants
'just the facts', they will have to go where facts are generated
- firsthand sources and data.
Absolutely. *this* is what makes the internet as powerful (for me)
as it is. I have *half a chance* of getting within one or two
degrees of separation of *source material*. I have regular
correspondence with several people who live in the middle east
(Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) who are variously US ex-pats and
Westernized Muslims. I *can* find raw data from many sources
(though it is always hard to be sure how "raw" or "cooked" some
sources are) and I *can* find others who have the expertise to help
me "cook" it to my own liking whilst at least acknowledging their
own biases.
For example, in the so-called 'Climategate' issue,
why not find a general journal you have access to, and sample
papers that have been published about climate change - do most
of them have data showing causes as being anthropogenic, or not?
And because papers cite other papers, you can see what responses
have been to any given study. This is a lot of work if done
properly and does not guarantee you a fairer worldview but it
certainly helps.
It is a bit trickier than that. Up until about 2000, even though I
had fairly direct access to a variety of climate scientists (LANL,
NOAA, NCAR, etc.) I was not convinced of anthropogenic climate
change. I was *inclined* to believe it, but I wasn't convinced by
the "facts" I could find that anyone knew for sure. And it seemed
pretty arrogant to assume so much power for our puny little selves.
I don't remember a specific "factoid" that broke this camel's back,
but I did notice that when I was standing on the beach in New
Zealand on Boxing day December 2000 and got a *sunburn* in less than
10 minutes (having come from 7000 ft elevation, I am used to humid
sea-level locations giving me *much* more time to frolic without
bubbling skin).
This experience didn't make suddenly *believe* in the ozone hole, it
just made it *palpable*! I already had an abstract belief in the
(anthropogenic) ozone hole (by that time already "healing"), but
with it's *palpability* I felt a sudden rush of acceptance that the
pile of factoids I'd been juggling about (anthropogenic) climate
change were probably sufficient to *act as if* the basic theory were
true. After that the facts just started lining up for me
(confirmation bias?) like a self-organizing crystal. I noticed
that early reports on the topic were more convincing (in particular
Bill McKibbin's work in the early 1980s)... and I felt a bit of an
idiot for not giving over sooner.
On the other hand, I think my *resistance* was partly a result of
the "the messenger". Too many people I'd been hearing screaming
"The Sky is Burning! The Sky is Burning!" were the same ones (or
had the same affect) as those saying (in Doug's mock-voice)
"Chemtrails!" or "Elvis LIVES!" or "Crystals Heal!" or "Pyramid
Power!".
It wasn't that I fully disbelieved in anthropogenic climate change,
I guess I was just feeling more humble about humanity than to find
it easy to believe we could tilt the earth on it's axis (or burn up
it's biosphere) through our puny activities.
The scientists studying aspects of this who I talked to were *very*
reluctant to suggest they *knew* that such things were happening.
Some were skeptical ("it is hard to make that correlation") and some
were guardedly supportive ("I'm afraid it might turn out to be
true... I'm working hard to learn all I can, because if it is, we
have a problem!"). I heard none (NONE) say "that is all left-wing
fearmongering, don't worry, drill baby, drill, burn baby burn!". I
*did* hear many right wingnuts however, saying roughly that... while
the (other) loony toons danced about naked chanting "the Sky is
Burning, the Sky is Burning!".
Today, I'm pretty sure we have a problem and I'd rather face the
problems of slowing our growth and our (all forms) energy dependence
and girding our loins for more significant environmental problems
than to stick my head back into the fracking tar sands whilst
sucking entire cities into sinkholes with crude spilling muckily
from the bottom of the barrel all over the baby seals (wait, I think
I got carried away).
I'd rather apologize to my grandchildren's children for having
erred just a bit on the thoughtful and nurturing side than on the
greedy and willfully ignorant side. But then, maybe that is just
me.
Carry on,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com