Time to Embrace Shallow Journalism?
Those who pine for an idealized form (and era) of journalism that never existed (and never will), which would transform a nation of Snooki fans into a rationalist, scientifically literate citizenry, are going to looove this new article by James Fallows in the April issue of the Atlantic. At his media blog, Romenesko captures one of the money quotes from Fallows:
I now think it’s worth facing the inevitability of the shift to infotainment and seeing how we can make the best of it. To show why, let’s visit Gawker.
The entire piece by Fallows is a must read. And for those in the climate concerned community who are legitimately open to new ideas about how to communicate their message, here’s something to chew on from the owner of Gawker:
“Liberals love to talk about the erosion of logic and the scientific method,” Nick Denton said. One example he discussed: Al Gore’s book about irrationality in public life, called The Assault on Reason, with passages like this: “The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas describes what has happened as the “˜refeudalization of the public sphere.'”
“But what if the answer to a false narrative isn’t fact?,” Denton says. “Or Habermas? Maybe the answer to a flawed narrative is a different narrative. You change the story.” Which is what, he said, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have done. They don’t “fact-check” Fox News, or try to rebut it directly, or fight on its own terms. They change the story not by distorting reality””their strength is their reliance on fact””or creating a fictitious narrative, but by presenting the facts in a way that makes them register in a way they hadn’t before.
Not to go all meta on the topic, but none of this is exactly new. The criticism of yellow journalism is strikingly similar to what’s being said about today’s media.
The key question is (or should be):
Is intelligent reporting of important events available for those who seek it? The answer is resoundingly yes, and far more than in prior eras.
For the rest of it, like Tobis lamenting the fact that his ‘side’ doesn’t have a stranglehold on disseminating approved truth and forcing consumption, it all boils down to criticizing the taste of media consumers.
That’s not new. I’d venture to say that’s not news.
“Is intelligent reporting of important events available for those who seek it? The answer is resoundingly yes, and far more than in prior eras.”
That point is made in the Fallows article. Again, the whole thing is definitely worth a read.
@1 Tom Fuller:
Tobis lamenting the fact that his “˜side’ doesn’t have a stranglehold on disseminating approved truth and forcing consumption
Is it seriously too much for you to refrain from this sort of strawman, bullsh*t appeal to ridicule?
thingsbreak, my comment is neither strawman argumentation nor bullsh*t. Tobis has quite seriously argued that skeptical voices should not be used to ‘balance’ news coverage. He seems to think that 97% of 72 people who answered a two-question online survey gives him the right to dictate the proportion of media coverage of this debate.
As for ridicule, that’s all his opinion deserves.
Tom doesn’t appear to understand the problems with false balance in media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
Maybe Roy Spencer should be rolled out to “balance” every biologist on evolution coverage. He can do double-duty.
So, New York J, what level of media balance should be given to those claiming that Michael Mann forwarded Phil Jones’ request to delete all emails regarding AR4 to Gene Wahl, who deleted all emails regarding AR4?
Should it receive no coverage? Should it be balanced against those who argue that Mann did not forward that email? Maybe 97% of climate scientists would agree with either or both of those alternatives.
Personally, I believe that tectonic plates are merely an illusory symptom of gastric stress and should be treated by warm milk.
But at some point, the sporting adage that the game is played on the field, not the betting parlor, should really be applied.
In NYJ’s world- anyone who disagrees with him is a
Creationist
9/11 conspiracist
Moon Landing conspiracist
Obama birth certificate something or other
Anti Science
Paid by Big Oil
A very bad person
etc…
With this view of the world, as seen through NYJ coloured glasses, why would he want to listen to anything you have to say…?
Stu and Tom should start a straw business together. They could make a good deal of money on their current stockpiles, and they have many potential qualified employees to hire.
Regarding the apt analogy poor Tom can’t address, is it responsible for the media to give equal coverage to scientists who support evolution and those who are skeptics of evolution? If not, why should that be different in any other field?
I suggest fair coverage would be reasonably relative to the balance of views of qualified scientists.
Since the bulk of this counter narrative would have to be carried by scientists, a Morano-type would simply point out that they were lying, which in fact they would be. And that would be the end of that strategy.
(Note that this kind of thing has been fairly effectively by, for example, The Yes Men. But they don’t claim to be searching after The Truth in the way that scientists are supposed to be.)
Ooh, New York J–let’s get after this one! I actually believe that journalists covering certain subjects should mention scientists that don’t believe in evolution. Lots of journalists cover religion. And even in science-related topics, such as policy direction based on evolution, it should not be forgotten that one drag on policy adoption is the presence of a determined minority that dispute it. With the tagline that they are inconsistent and incorrect.
But there isn’t much in common between the evolution debate and climate science, except in your head. The sad truth is that you are the one clinging on to dogma and refusing to look at new information. So any discussion of the relevance of the evolution debate would have to begin with you acknowledging that your side is the equivalent of those denying evolution. And I don’t think you’ll go that far.
Tom,
So every story that quotes a scientist supporting evolution should quote one supporting creationism? In your fervent rant, you did your best to dodge the equal coverage question. No surprise.
Geez, now I show up in the first comment? Give it a rest, Tom.
I showed up just to draw this article to your attention. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not a matter of censorship, it’s a matter of doing your job of filtering the stuff worthy of attention form the noise. There are two parts to that – ignoring pseudoscience is the part that will get pseudoscience warriors worked up, of course, but it’s much more important to just give weight to the stories that matter. Fallows quotes no less than Barack Obama:
“I’ve been surprised by how the news cycle here in Washington is focused on what happens this minute. Sometimes it’s difficult to keep everybody focused on the long term. The things that are really going to matter in terms of America’s success 20 years from now, when we look back, are not the things that are being talked about on television on any given day.”
New York J, no, I don’t believe they should get equal coverage. How did you get that from what I wrote?
Tobis, given your treatment of others, why would you expect any kind of a break from anyone? What I wrote was accurate–if anything it was understated.
You honestly believe that a) you understand how journalism works, b) that you can offer an informed opinion on how climate change is covered in the media and c) that you can constructively suggest improvements.
From all the comments here, I would submit that you are sadly mistaken on all three counts. It sounds much more like you don’t like the current state of reporting and are whining for change.
From where I sit it looks as though you are saying that coverage of climate change should be 99% in favor of your position as opposed to its current 95%. I dunno, maybe you think it should be 100%.
Evidently journalists, editors and publishers do not have the same opinion as you. Obviously it’s because the Koch brothers have bought them all…
New York J, no, I don’t believe they should get equal coverage
Good. Was that so hard?
No, especially as I never said it.
I think the press should strive to pay attention to people who know what they are talking about and dismiss those who don’t. It’s not a matter of “sides”, but is a matter of understanding that science makes progress, and in doing so leaves some refuted opinions behind, even if a marginal group clings to them.
Gavin Schmidt: “This is not about sides. Bad arguments from any point of view devalue any discussion”
That’s all we want form the press; an acknowledgement that there are good and bad arguments, and a competent effort to separate them out. It’s not a matter of the resulting opinion. There is a wide spread in competent opinion. But the wide spread in the press doesn’t match the wide spread in competent opinion. Much attention is paid to some people’s views which are impossible, and insufficient attention to some views which are entirely plausible.
Most notably, the whole uncertainty spread gets played backwards. Uncertainty is the enemy of complacency in a rational view; yet it is those who advocate complacency who are claiming that uncertainty is understated.
What we need is a system that can process facts rationally. If we don’t want to abandon democracy, that means a better informed public, which in turn means a more engaged and more competent press.
#17. But the wide spread in the press doesn’t match the wide spread in competent opinion. Much attention is paid to some people’s views which are impossible, and insufficient attention to some views which are entirely plausible.
Most notably, the whole uncertainty spread gets played backwards. Uncertainty is the enemy of complacency in a rational view; yet it is those who advocate complacency who are claiming that uncertainty is understated.”
Evidence, please?
@17 You hang out in the blogging world enough to know, I would assume, that there are plenty of great writers out there.
So doesn’t it follow that the problem is not so much “the press” as “the media moguls”?
Kloor: scientists and Al Gore do it wrong but the journalists, bloggers, and comedians R doin it rite…god bless James Fallows
Fuller: Air ’em all, let the people sort it out! and btw, TOBIS!!
NYJ: So, no false balance problem?
Fuller: but…CLIMATEGATE!
Me: oh, brother. Close sesame.
C’mon, Tobis. For the second time in a week, I offer Google News results for today, which should theoretically be a great day for skeptics, with Michael Mann shown to have forwarded Jones’ email to Wahl, and the EPA hearing.
So, where’s the false balance?
Global Warming Argued Again as Congress Votes on Repeal of EPA …”Ž
AHN | All Headline News – 1 hour ago
Climate experts argued again about global warming in Congress Tuesday while lawmakers rethink whether to penalize industries for greenhouse gas emissions. …
Bad for the environment”Ž – Centre Daily Times
Details on the Republican Attack on Our Environment”Ž – SustainableBusiness.com
Slash and burn by the GOP”Ž – Aspen Times
‘Climate change’ rings truer than ‘global warming'”Ž
USA Today – Wendy Koch – 6 hours ago
More believe in “climate change” than “global warming,” a new study by the University of Michigan shows. Three of four people, or 74%, thought the problem …
Global warming requires expert review”Ž – Kansas City Star (blog)
Should I Say ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Global Warming?'”Ž – The Daily Score
The Hidden Agenda behind Global Warming Deception”Ž – The Epoch Times
Video: NPR Executives Compare Global Warming Skeptics to Flat …”Ž
Weasel Zippers – 2 hours ago
(Washington Times)- Senior Vice President of NPR Ron Schiller met with individuals he believed to be potential donors. However, undercover video was running …
EarthTalk: How does conserving land prevent global warming?”Ž
MiamiHerald.com – 1 day ago
How does conserving land prevent global warming? The legislation in question is called the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. It was passed by both houses …
Global Warming Gets Local”Ž
Arizona Public Media – Kimberly Craft – 21 hours ago
Jonathan Overpeck, director of the UA Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, discusses global warming. Climate scientists have worked long and hard to …
Ohhh, the false balance. Ohh, the pity.
Michael Tobis #17 – I think the press should strive to pay attention to people who know what they are talking about and dismiss those who don’t.
This hits the nail on the head; what criteria is used to determine those who know what they are talking about vs those who don’t? To me, those who know what they are talking about make some number of correct predictions on verifiable future events that are not obvious (i.e UConn’s woman’s team making it into the field of 64 doesn’t count), and they have relatively few bad predictions.
Right now, who are the candidates for “those that know what they are talking about”, on either side of the climate debate? What are their predictions? Given the lack of verifiable predictions that have come to pass in climate science, I see no reason for true journalists to take either side.
Matt, there are no “sides”; there is science and there is that other stuff. You may not know this, but journalists do or should.
Science predicted in advance: polar amplification; stratospheric cooling; increased atmospheric moisture; increased local storm intensity; slowing ocean overturning.
The mount Pinatubo cooling event was simulated in advance and served both to validate and calibrate the models.
The leading figures in mid-20th century meteorology and oceanography released a report in 1979, whose results mostly stand to this day. Read it here:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html
In 17 Tobis writes
<blockquote>
think the press should strive to pay attention to people who know what they are talking about and dismiss those who don’t.
</blockquote>
So whenever a climate scientists writes an article using statistics, the press should immediately dismiss it?
Tobis: Uncertainty is the enemy of complacency in a rational view.
The Tobis principle: the less we know about climate the more we should be afriad (or something like that, which I’ve seen repeatedly in various guises). I heard something bad might happen, but I really have no basis for knowing, so I’m really, really scared. A formal appeal to ignorance.
Help me out here MT, surely I’m missing some nuance. Are you seriously arguing that your inability to prove climate catastrophe beyond doubt (ie uncertainty) strengthens your case for action. And that the more uncertain your case the more I should be compelled to act.
Really.