Comments on: Blinded By Science

Blinded By Science

stbalbach — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:47:11 -0800

Blinded By Science: How `Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality. How and why the media has failed so completely to educate the American public on the massive environmental dangers we face. (via WorldChanging)

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:04:54 -0800

The media is balanced for this very reason. They are *paid* to be "fair and balanced." It's one of the reasons we're screwed.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:26:13 -0800

When I think of the media in the US today, I'm reminded of the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch.

CUST: Well, an argument isn't just contradiction. MR. B: Can be. CUST: No, it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. MR.B: No, it isn't! CUST: Yes, it is! It's not just contradiction! MR. B: Look. If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position! CUST: Yes! But that's not just saying "No, it isn't"! MR.B: Yes, it is!

The media figures that as long as they have two "sides" to a debate, they're being fair, even if one sides is merely saying "no it isn't". And as long as there are two sides to an issue, it remains "controversial". I think it was Paul Krugman who said that if the Bush administration were to declare that the earth was flat, the headlines would read "Shape of the Earth: Views Differ".

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:35:18 -0800

For a brief moment I toyed with having liberal scientists release these "findings": Abstinence Lowers I.Q.! Voting Republican Increases Cholesterol! Reading the Bible Causes Impotency! but I came to my senses and realized that increasing the noise (lies) would only dilute the public's faith in science.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:49:05 -0800

Americans aren't merely ignorant. They're mostly in denial. It's not the fault of the media that people waste shit and pollute. We've been told, but why do we continue to ignore the environmental problems we have? It's easier, duh!

By: zelphi

zelphi — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:34:50 -0800

Maybe it's because many of the enviromental predictions made in the 60s-70s didn't come true. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now" - The Population Bomb

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:02:37 -0800

Fuck the lower IQ, I am GETTING SOME!

By: turaho

turaho — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:04:45 -0800

Maybe it's because many of the enviromental predictions made in the 60s-70s didn't come true. Whew! Finally got rid of all that bathwater.... holy crap, where's the baby?

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:15:46 -0800

Maybe it's because many of the enviromental predictions made in the 60s-70s didn't come true. Hmmm. That doesn't stop the guy on my street corner who's pretty sure the Rapture is coming New Years Day ~~2000~~ ~~2002~~ ~~2004~~ 2005. I don't buy it. People believe what they want to believe.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:38:18 -0800

Man, if Galileo were alive and working in the U.S. today, he wouldn't get anything done.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:49:18 -0800

Mooney's blog.

By: dmd

dmd — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:05:56 -0800

jpoulos, you know the rapture's coming in 2006, because 2+6 = 8 (a vertical infinity sign, separated by '00', a horizontal one!) Anyone who dares argue will not be swept up in [this year's] rapture. More on-topic: This isn't just a problem of the mainstream media. I've definitely seen peer-reviewed journals publish objections to really, really good research ("to stimulate debate") where the research was top-notch (and the reviewers had thought as such) and the objections essentially come down to "this doesn't agree with my pet theory".