I know! It’s shocking! But then I knew all along that he was smarter than his flirtation with the abhorrent insanity of Nisbetian framing would suggest. He has an article summarizing the George Will nonsense — where Will promoted outright falsehoods in support of his global warming denialism — and Mooney states something in his summary that I agree with entirely. Well, almost entirely.
In this sense, I view the George Will affair with sadness. Sure, I share in the temporary glee of the bloggers. But at the same time, I know there are many kinds of journalism, particularly about science, that bloggers will never replace. They’re extremely well-equipped to pounce and skewer a George Will column, but hardly well equipped to deliver an investigative or narrative feature story. We’re watching the media change before our eyes, the science media in particular–and no one can say, in light of episodes like the latest one involving George Will, that much of old media doesn’t in some sense “deserve” what’s happening to it now. Yet if our only sentiment is joy over the bloggers’ latest trophy, or outrage at the Post, we’re missing something deep indeed.
While I do think that there are many bloggers who can and do deliver good narratives, I think it is fair to say that his larger point is correct: there is an ecosystem of the media, and we each have our niches; blogging is not and should not be the sine qua non of information delivery, and newspapers (and TV and radio and podcasts and magazines and …) have their role to play. The lesson of the George Will episode — and of the last dozen years of politics — is that the news has failed because it hasn’t fulfilled that role. Newspapers are supposed to have more rigor and stricter fact-checking than blogs; they are supposed to bravely dig deeper than the average citizen into the major issues of the day. They don’t. There certainly is no glee in that sad fact, but I think some joy is deserved that somehow and somewhere the failure of the news media is finally getting some exposure.
Let’s hope that someday that means clowns like George Will can get fired for incompetence, and that newspapers like the Washington Post will make changes to enforce accountability. It doesn’t now, of course, which is another reason to temper our happiness.
Oh, Mooney can be quite all right. He seems to have fallen previously for a belief that framing isn’t being done. But it is, and it is being done in a scientifically responsible manner. While some change might be helpful (like if scientists became far better at PR, which is extremely unlikely), Nisbet’s and Mooney’s vague recommendations seemed to suggest that scientific honesty didn’t matter much in a time of crisis.
Mooney appears to have let Nisbet have that position now, so makes much more sense.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Look, I’m getting really sick of saying this sort of thing, but I’m going to keep plugging away at it in the hope that it eventually sinks in: they’re not supposed to do those things, they merely claim to. They’re supposed to make money. Period. Full stop. End of story.
The idea that the media are supposed to do those things is merely a part of their advertising. Claiming that they’re supposed to do them is like claiming that Pespi Max is supposed to make you into a successful extreme sportsman. Don’t believe the hype.
I suspect that part of the old mass media’s problem is that they have been catering to the pop culture, short attention span, lowest common denominator demographic. Sure, this crowd spends the most money, but they very quickly moved on to the intartubes and are unlikely to mourn the passing of print (and big money TV, which has the bucks for a full-times reporting staff and other resources). The magazines and papers that cater to an educated or interested segment of the population (such as the Wall Street Journal) seem to be doing better than the average newspaper.
I understand that the educated crowd is also moving to new media, and I’m not sure there *is a solution for saving dead tree news sources. While there are problems with concentrating power and wealth in a few hands, I would hate to see the loss of the Walter Cronkites and the Robert Woodwards of the last generations.
The science bloggers might do alright; most of you folks are working full-time as teachers or researchers. Maybe good reporting will still exist, but the different fields will be dispersed throughout the internet.
LOL dunc, If I had a dollar for each time I said that to people who claim liberal bias. I say the same damn thing about insurance companies.
I take no joy in the prospect of journalists being fired for being wrong. They do, however, need to partake in a dialog of challenge and response.
This is one of the strengths of blogging. You never get a fully structured narrative handed to you, but over time and over a variety of blogs, you get balance. Assuming you are looking for it.
No, they are supposed to do that. Yes, ultimately, it is to make money…but the way they do that is to promise us consumers a quality product that meets our expectations of journalism. Look at Fox News — they claim to hold to a journalistic credo of “fair and balanced”, and that’s the stock they trade in when they appeal to viewers eyeballs. They’re lying, of course.
You’ll have a good point when papers proudly announce that “We make stuff up that you want to hear!”, and then it sells well. But they don’t. They announce “We have investigated and uncovered the True Facts!”, and then they turn around and sell cheap lies that are what they think people want to hear — and that is a betrayal of what they are supposed to do, of what they tell us they do.
No, they are supposed to because that is what I pay them for.
It is really disingenous to say their only purpose is to make money. Yes, of course they are, that is what every business is supposed to do. So it that sense it becomes meaningless. What a business is supposed to do (in order to make money) is do what they claim to do. If they claim to be a newspaper then they are supposed to provide factual, accurate information.
What difference does it make what newspapers are “supposed” to do. It’s clear to me, at least for my local paper (The Ottawa Citizen) that the editors believe their first duty is to sell papers. One way they do that is pander to ignorant/uneducated parts of their readership by printing creationist articles and other anti-science nonsense. We can complain, and we do, but nothing changes because they know there is money in it. The only sensible approach I can think of is writing a letter to the paper telling them why you don’t buy it and then get your news and commentary elsewhere.
Re Chris Mooney
Apparently, his sojourn in Los Angeles was beneficial in getting him cured of his brainwashing by numbnuts Nisbet.
Dunc | February 25, 2009 12:02 PM
Er. Argumentum ad full stopium?
Thank you for your contribution to the addled thinking that put newspapers where they are today – not just intellectually bankrupt, but very likely to be fiscally bankrupt as well.
Some organizations – and many newspapers are an excellent example of this – make it a point to appeal to people who want quality. Most such people are not interested in quality that is merely a means to an end – as they know it may discarded at any time, in favour of a means which appears to serve the end better. The organization must show it values quality as a good in its own right. If it can’t do that, people will get frustrated and look for alternatives. Newspapers created the belief that they are supposed to have more rigor and stricter fact-checking – and now they’re being taken to task for not living up to it. If the doctor can’t heal people, he’s still a quack, regardless of whether or not he’s only in it for the money.
Didn’t Al Gore recently get slapped by a scientist union for uncritical presentation of global warming?
#2 “Look, I’m getting really sick of saying this sort of thing, but I’m going to keep plugging away at it in the hope that it eventually sinks in: they’re not supposed to do those things, they merely claim to. They’re supposed to make money. Period. Full stop. End of story.”
Profit is no excuse for delivering a defective product. The word that is fraud. By your reasoning it should be okay for grocery stores to sell tainted meat because, so what if people die, they’re are in it for the money.
This mild applause for Mooney just makes me think of his buddy Nisbet and what the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/science/earth/25hype.html) has him saying about this episode:
Criticism of Mr. Will’s columns, Dr. Nisbet said, “only serves to draw attention to his claims while reinforcing a larger false narrative that liberals and the mainstream press are seeking to censor rival scientific evidence and views.”
Because we all know that the best way to combat outrageous lies is to remain silent.
May I assume that this Chris Mooney is NOT the one who authored “The Republican War on Science?” Does anybody have knowledge of this?
Exactly PZ. Newspapers are supposed to dig deeper than bloggers, same goes for other mainstream journalistic sources.
When Israel was bombing the hell out of Palestine, how much in depth, objective news was there in the media? Most of it was largely Israeli biased. I’m not saying that the Palestinian leadership should not have been held accountable, but what about the Israeli leadership? The media didn’t even slap them on the wrist, let alone objectively report the news as it happened. They should have told the world that they couldn’t report on Gaza because Israel didn’t allow Western journalists. Well, good, under the cover of media darkness, who knows what atrocities were committed? So let me get this strait, when Russia reacted to Georgia’s invasion of Ossetia with a “disproportionate response” where were the same calls when Israel similarly reacted to the tinker-toy rockets launched by Palestinians? How can hypocrisy be so blatant? With mainstream news as the main source of information, the answer to that question is easily.
This is but one instance of the mainstream Media, be it print, television, or online, proving themselves utterly useless.
What worries me about the collapse of newspapers as viable businesses is that I don’t see anything which will replace them as the source for all the stories bloggers then comment upon. If the papers go, where do the reporters go? Like it or not, me calling up Senator Jawbone and asking for a comment about some legislation while saying I represent some blog doesn’t have the same cachet as saying I represent the NYT. The latter has a lot more readers than I do, and Senator Jawbone can guess that.
Oh, there is definitely a viable ecological niche for something that employs investigative reporters. But in order to work, it probably has to not involve huge masses of paper and ink and delivery systems.
It isn’t just that these media outlets (ie mainstream) claim to present “balance” and fact-checking.
It is the bias slipped in as balance eg palestinian toy rockets vs the militiary-industrial might of Israel living on USA weapons handouts. The slaughter of children becomes justified and everyone is told that Israel are the good guys.
The other idiocy that the press push is the “me too” attitude that gives a voice to those that have no case (climate denialists). Throw in self-censorship and the media really doesn’t have much of worth to say.
I agree that investigative journalism is under threat. Maybe it is time for newspapers to look hard at how they are doing things. It is great that blogs are not only challenging this media bias, but also demanding (forcing) a higher level of performance and eventually some level of intellectual honesty.
Simply argumentum ad punctum, I’d say.
Dennis asked
No, it’s the same Chris Mooney. He even has a blog right here on ScienceBlogs: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/
Dennis (#14): It’s definitely the same guy.
Manufacturing Consent and Bill Moyers’ “Selling the War in Iraq” are available online, if anyone’s interested.
I remember when Fox first ran the story about Congressman Foley resigning from Congress for his harrassment of male pages. They had a D (for Democrat)next to his name instead of the correct R (for Republican). This couldn’t have been an accident. As for their stupid mantra: “We report, you decide”; I always remember that it’s Fox News that decides what stories to report.
There will always be some bias in any media. An educated person tries to get their news from more than one source.
PZ is right though. A newspaper should have a higher standard than “let’s make money.”
“Look, I’m getting really sick of saying this sort of thing, but I’m going to keep plugging away at it in the hope that it eventually sinks in: they’re not supposed to do those things, they merely claim to. They’re supposed to make money. Period. Full stop. End of story.
The idea that the media are supposed to do those things is merely a part of their advertising. Claiming that they’re supposed to do them is like claiming that Pespi Max is supposed to make you into a successful extreme sportsman. Don’t believe the hype.”
Um, huh? The press in this country used to be an information resource on current events that was a loss-maker, but nonetheless supported because of the vital service it provided. News didn’t start really becoming money-oriented until it was deregulated, allowing companies to come in and buy up news providers who’s sole interest was generating interest, or what we today would call “clicks”. You seem to have a very limited view of the media based upon recent history. Your Pepsi example flies in the face of all the good journalism that has historically been done, on TV or elsewhere, and it doesn’t seem even remotely appropriate.
I understand your argument in the current context, but that doesn’t change the fact that the media used to do their job a whole lot better than they do now.
Oh, there is definitely a viable ecological niche for something that employs investigative reporters. But in order to work, it probably has to not involve huge masses of paper and ink and delivery systems.
Ah, evolution has so many applications. Here we see bloggers evolving into a journalistic business model. _This_ is something that can replace national newspapers. If everything else wants to evolve into tabloid sensationalism, the voided niche will be filled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post
That’s right, Huffington Post is a professional news service now. The Daily Show even made fun of that two weeks ago.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/57285/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-clusterfk-to-the-poor-house—the-stimulus-package?c=336:392
On a more positive note, the Tupelo, MS areas newspaper is fairly reliable. Reported on Titanboa and other fossils without a hitch. It’s almost like Florida Kentucky and Louisiana are fundie creotard magnets that leave my state a curious vacuum of such. I keep expecting more…
“…Because we all know that the best way to combat outrageous lies is to remain silent.”
Gees, no kidding. Nisbet, based on that extremely asanine quote, I would say is more the typical notion of a “liberal” spread by conservatives. Shuffling his feet and making all kinds of reasons why his own side is supposedly wrong, and basically stabbing his cohorts in the back. Thanks Nisbet. Thanks for the vote of support in reason’s fight against idiocy…PSYCH!!!
@ 6 & 7 (PZ & Sturgeon):
I’ve had similar thoughts for quite a while “filed” under “bring back the by-line”. What I mean by that, is that perhaps newspapers ought to be made to present a by-line and be made to hold to it. This would provide a yard-stick to measure the content against what might be expected of it.
Ugh, what a smell. Somebody left the back door open. PZ we need a cleanup on aisle 5.
gwias
Seek help dude. Seriously.
The Nazi analogy is pitiful.
Dammit, I’m gonna strain my back forking that pile into the trebuchet.
Yes, Red, I detect the distinct odor of Warmista troll.
@Global Warming Is A Scam
Didn’t PZ give you the boot the last time you were here?
Help dude, seek it.
Twin-Skies, he is firmly in the dungeon, doing a Stan (also in the dungeon) impersonation on us. Not even imaginative there. Just another pointless, boring little idiot.
Projecting again, are we Red? How pathetic. You might want to seek help with that little issue.
Yes, Rev, I definitely think you should seek help for your projection issues. And you might want to seek out someone who can help you recover from your religious delusions about global warming.
Slea Z’s definition of “outright falsehood”:
Slea Z’s definition of “denialism”:
@Global Warming Is A Scam
And what exatly do you aim achieve by showing us you’re just an immature little prick who’s apparently got nothing better to do than be an imbecile.
You’re doing a terrific job, btw.
Nope haven’t said a word about global warming, just you and your issues.
That’s an intriguing thought… do you make much money preaching Chimpish Rev?
I’ve done pretty well so far this month spreading the word of the goddess Cluckhead.
Why yes Patricia, when I’m done with my Nazi inspired group meetings I stand on the corner and yell at the tourists.
They pay me just to keep me from throwing poo at them.
@Rev. BigDumbChimp
The next time I get the urge to try to extract a sensible answer from a troll, would you kindly thump me on the head with whatever blunt instrument you have handy.
(10 pts for whoeverspots the BioShock reference there)
Was this thread even about GW?
Damn, you’re still going at it. You’d think with all that energy you could actually go do some science and bring back evidence, instead you throw out insults like Warmistas in order to deflect from the fact that you are out of step with the scientific community without good reason. Bring some evidence or fuck off!
TL’s definition of “immature little prick”:
TL’s definition of “imbecile”:
Yes, you are doing a terrific job–of projecting. Professional help is available. Please seek it out.
Surely! Just shortly following me smashing in the side of my skull for the same reason.
And BioShock was a great game.
Projecting again, are we Kel? By the way, what’s the optimal temperature of the planet? Are you still avoiding the question? A genius like yourself should be able to answer that one right off the top of your pointed head!
I’ve answered the question several times. Do you have a reading problem? I’ve answered the question over and over, either show where I’m wrong or shut up.
Two can play this game.
@Kel
Leave it alone man – this is clearly an exercise in futility.
The question was answered, what was wrong with my answer? I’m giving you a chance here to state your case if you haven’t realised. Instead all you are doing is asking the same question over and over. Actually back up what you say damn it!
Rev. – Ah, I see.
Pretty much the same for me. I try to sell eggs for $1 each to lob at the christians picketing the porno shop. This Reverend business is harder than it looks.
But you do give me a new idea – perhaps I could sell chicken poo instead.
You’re right. GWIAS is clearly an arsehat who will run rings to avoid saying anything of substance.
That is some weapons-grade stupid right there. Holy shit, the irony in that could power China for the next hundred years.
GWIAS blathered:
GWIAS also blathered:
@Patricia, OM
Bad idea. Bird droppings contain a key ingredient in the manufacture of gunpowder – I forget if it’s sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate. Homeland Security might haul you off for that.
By the way, what’s the optimal temperature of the planet?
There is no such thing. Now, if you are asking what is the temperature that our civilization is best adapted to, that CAN be answered, and right now we are well above it. But it’s clear you don’t give a damn about that, just lying to everyone about a “scam” that doesn’t exist except in the deluded minds of denialists who serve the interests of Exxon and other fossil fuel industries. The sooner most of those companies are driven out of business, the better off ALL of us will be.
We all know the game you are playing and it just makes you look like a baby on steroids. When you learn how to do real science, come back to us. There is nothing scientific about denialism.
Yes it is rather stupid of you to think that you can win the argument with things like “I like a reptile up my ass”, isn’t it Lancer?
Oh well, religionist is as religionist does.
Yep. That’s all he’s had for the last week or so on several different blogs. Insults, Nazi references, and five-year-old “You said booger!” rewrites.
Hasn’t he been banned once?
The longer this goes on, the more GWIAS reminds me of “Sad Kermit”. Seriously. In the bathtub? Yeah… that’s him.
Twin-Skies – Holy shite! Well that explains all those men in black suits following me around. I thought there was an undertakers convention in town.
Don’t you just love it when a troll immediately demonstrates exactly what you’ve just mentioned? Sometimes it’s so easy…
Go back and spank to your picture of Miss Piggy, GWIAS… or is it Jim you’re more into? Just checking.
Is that what children on drugs look like?
Dale Husband here. Well, you certainly don’t give any genuine case that global warming is not a real problem, do you, GWIAS?
Well, you just give us more opportunities to bust you!
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/those-terrible-twins-of-climate-change-co2-and-h2o/
Those terrible twins of climate change, CO2 and H2O
One of the most commonly held misconceptions about the man-made global warming hypothesis is that temperatures must increase every year and evenly over the world. No one knowledgable about climate issues would seriously claim that, so it’s an obvious strawman. The question is, why do temperatures fluctuate so much and does global warming explain this? Indeed it does!
The process begins with the slight increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere known to be caused by human emissions. Because CO2 traps slightly more heat, it also causes more water to evaporate. Water vapor (H2O) is also a greenhouse gas, so that causes a feedback loop, in which the temperature increases further, causing more water to evaporate. In the summer months, the result is much hotter weather than you might expect from CO2 alone.
But H2O has an opposite effect in winter. As temperature drops, the increased amounts of H2O forms clouds, which block sunlight and thus cool the earth further. Winters will be even colder than one would expect, plus there would be increased precipitation, including snow.
As long as the average temperature over the course of a year at a certain place or region is below the melting point of water, then global warming actually has the paradoxical effect of causing colder winters, more snow and thus increased ice in certain places. It is where the average annual temperatures have risen above the melting point of water that we see glaciers retreating. And the hotter summers at the northern ice cap are nothing to ignore, for its melting away will still have a tragic effect on polar bears.
In the southern hemisphere, global warming has had less of an effect, and this can be explained by geography. There is far more land up north than down south. Land radiates heat, while oceans absorb it. Also, the Arctic Ocean is water surrounded by warmer land, while Antarctica is frigid land surrounded by cold oceans that insulate it from warmer regions. So it stands to reason that the Arctic Ocean will melt long before the Antarctic does, and that there may even be some increase in Antarctic ice for the reasons I explained above.
If there was no CO2, or any other greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, the average temperature on Earth would actually be below the freezing point of water, thus the oceans would be frozen solid and life on Earth would be impossible. And if there was no H2O to form oceans and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, then CO2 would have accumulated so greatly in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions over billions of years that we would have experienced temperatures too high for carbon based life forms to survive, thus we would already be like Venus. The abundance of water on Earth, plus the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, provide the delicate balance that maintains life on Earth. But too much CO2 can be as much a problem as too little, hence our concern about how much longer it may be before we reach a tipping point in the climate change problem.
Ignore GWIAS; PZ will delete all his comments anyway – though it’s fun knowing that every time he gets banned he’s having to find new email addresses so he can post here.
Dance, troll!
Do you have anything constructive to say? Any actual arguments to make? Any actual questions to ask?
Children on drugs throwing temper tantrums. Making sure they never get their way or heard by getting so tied up in the vitriol, that they lose track of any real point they want to make.
Do you really not remember when these were answered?
*facepalm*
You know it’s really sad to see someone morph in order to keep trolling. Add something constructive for a change!
See y’ll later. I’ve got a pork tender loin to make gravy for and carrots that need dilled.
GWIAS is a dildo – does that count?
And why should we blindly follow the conclusions of those whose livelihood is entirely dependent upon which conclusions they reach?
False assumption.
And why do climate “scientists” pretend that CO2 increases cause temperature increases, when the opposite is true?
False claim, debunked long ago.
And how does giving over 1400 media interviews constitute being muzzled?
Before or after President Bush Jr took office?
GWIAS, if you really beleive that nonsense that temperature increases CAUSE CO2 levels to rise, then you must beleive in miracles. Are you a Creationist too?
Temperatures increases cause water evaporation rates to rise as well, thus enhancing the effect of global warming due to water vapor also being a greenhouse gas. If CO2 levels also rise, it would be the result of volcanic eruptions and/or massive die offs of plants, which act as natural “carbon sinks”. But warmer temperatures actually causes plants to grow faster, thus causing CO levels to DROP.
Okay, you don’t remember. So let’s try it one more time.
1. What’s the ideal temperature of the planet?
There is no such number. Human civilization has developed in a climate slightly cooler than the one we have now. Drastic changes in the climate would have drastic impacts on our ability to grow food, flood most of our major cities, and displace millions of people.
2. Why should we blindly follow the conclusions of those whose livelihood is entirely dependent upon which conclusions they reach?
Absolute bunk. Climate scientists would get paid either way. They would be studying the climate right through an ice age if that were the case. Attempting to claim that their livelihood is dependent on their conclusions is disingenous at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
3. Why do climate “scientists” pretend that CO2 increases cause temperature increases, when the opposite is true?
Another absolute lie. This claim has been debunked repeatedly in several forums.
4. How does giving over 1400 media interviews constitute being muzzled?
Professionally muzzled. The Bush administration used it’s executive power to edit climate reports to minimize the actual results. They prevented Hansen from attending at least one major conference in his field. They repeatedly stifled dissenting scientists in order to perpetuate their agenda.
Those are approximately the same answers I gave you before. At that point, you started the childish Nazi references. I suppose you’ll do that again? Please stop. It is annoying and has nothing to do with any real discussion.
Clarification: I was referring in my last post to NATURAL global warming in the distant past. The global warming being caused by humans now is a whole other game plan. The rules of one do not apply to the other.
Please stop responding to the banned troll, people.
Will’s dishonesty is well-within the bounds of past sleaziness.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/george-f-will-his-unet_b_35251.html
In 1980 Will helped Reagan prepare for his debate with Jimmy Carter using a briefing book that had been stolen from the Carter campaign. This resulted in the legendary “There you go again,” business from Reagan’s surprisingly strong showing. (It really does help win a debate if you know what your opponent is going to say in advance.) Will praised Reagan’s performance without discosing either that he was on the team or that Reagan had cheated. Maybe Reagan would have won anyway, but the fact that Americans never got to find out about his dishonesty until after the election, prevented his image from being legitimately tarnished during a crucial part of the campaign. Will was instrumental in the deception while masquerading as an objective journalist. He was a creep then and he’s a creep now.
Could somebody give me a quick overview of why many of the people here (including PZ) seem to not like Mooney very much? I’ve got a copy of his book “The Republican War On Science” sitting on my nightstand right now (borrowed it from the library) and I thought he was “one of us” for lack of a better term.
Of course, I’m not going to just reject his book based on what people here say, but you can often learn a great deal about someone from their critics.
I like Chris. Unfortunately, he got all tangled up in Matt Nisbet, who I don’t care for quite so much.