There is No Common Ground between Different Realities August 27, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Congress, Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: Bias, Bipartisanship, Congress, Conservatives, David Vitter, Democrats, Fox News, Media Bias, Offshore Drilling, Oil Spill, Party of No, Political Climate, Politics, President Obama, Republicans, ThePoliticalClimate
To call Republicans “the Party of No” is not quite fair – they say a lot of things besides ‘no.’ But that is the full extent of their political output: speech. Currently, Republicans are more accurately the Party of Rhetoric.
Now this is partly because they are in the legislative minority, but I can’t think of any other period in our history during which the minority party decided to so fully abstain from policymaking. You can count on one hand the number of GOP senators willing to substantively work with the Democratic majority. It makes you wonder what the rest of them are doing with their time.
In the past, when our country faced a problem, our two political parties fought about which policy was better to address it. That is how our legislature is supposed to function.
You may have noticed that this occurs less today. Increasingly, the political debate has devolved into an argument not of HOW to act but rather IF any action is even warranted. Instead of debating solutions, we find ourselves arguing about whether or not a problem exists at all:
- This is true of climate change: conservatives don’t have their own solution, they simply deny that the problem exists.
- This is true of healthcare: how many times during the last year were we told that “America has the best healthcare in the world”?
- This is true of any policy that involves regulation (finance, pollution, offshore drilling etc.), because a push for deregulation instead of better regulation contains the implicit assertion that no problems exist (or that regulations somehow cause what problems there are).
Republicans deny that these problems exist altogether, and that is problematic because they are quite real.
Historically, even policies supporting inaction were not based on denial. Consider America’s now defunct isolationism. Advocates of non-intervention did not dispute the existence of foreign wars, they simply determined that staying out of them was a better course of action. At least everybody was still operating in the same reality – they debated the merits of different solutions.
In 2006, Stephen Colbert told President Bush that “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” So conservatives simply left. Today, Republicans occupy their own reality. They get their own news tailored to that reality, and anything that contradicts this fictitious worldview is simply denounced as biased, even empirical science. No policy debate can occur because the conservative reality has its own facts and they distrust “ours.” Experts are just elitists anyways.
But this planet and this country face real challenges, even if conservatives refuse to believe them. Unfortunately, by the time they become full, immediate crises, it will be too late to act. Think of America as riding in an SUV speeding towards a cliff: everyone in that car is in trouble – even the kid in the backseat with his eyes shut tight, plugging his ears and singing loudly to himself (presumably Mellencamp’s “[This Is] Our Country”). But once the wheels leave the pavement, and likely well before then, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it. That kid is only forced to finally acknowledge the outside world upon impact.
So how we can bridge this inter-reality chasm? It may not even be possible. But there is one way we can try (and the Daily Show has been attempting this valiantly).
The Party of Rhetoric, especially now that it has started drinking Tea, has begun to make some wild claims. Conservatives won’t listen to our words, so we must hope that they still believe theirs.
As Republican politicians increasingly resort to fear-mongering, they make ridiculous extrapolations and predict devastating futures that result from liberal policies. So when these disasters do not occur, we must repeat their words back to them.
It will be a while before we can utilize this strategy for most issues, but we can start small with offshore drilling now. Conservatives and the oil industry railed against the Obama administration for its perfectly justified temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling. They insisted that this most minimal safeguard against another massive oil spill would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and more economic devastation than the BP spill itself.
As the New York Times reported this week, that simply has not happened. Even the administration’s estimates were overly pessimistic (to a much lesser extent). Instead of hundreds of thousands of laid off oil workers, unemployment claims attributable to the moratorium are currently just in the hundreds.
I’m sure that the conservative reality has an explanation for this development or simply rejects it altogether. But if we can’t even look over our shoulder and agree about what just happened, how can we possibly look ahead and safely navigate the future?
Public Ignorance Polls August 23, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Media, Politics.
Tags: Balance, Fox News, Journalism, Media Bias, Obama, Opinion Polls, Political Climate, Politics, Public Polls, ThePoliticalClimate
add a comment
News consumers are subjected to a daily deluge of polling data. Unfortunately, like much of today’s media coverage, this information is not leaving us better informed.
A conventional issue-specific opinion poll offers a choice between two valid responses. For example, “Do you approve of the death penalty?” This is an appropriate poll. There is no right or wrong answer; there are substantive arguments to support both positions, and the poll attempts to gauge public support for a controversial policy that is directly relevant to our nation’s governance.
A regrettable distinction can be made between a prototypical public opinion poll such as that and the frivolous politically-charged polls we see more and more today. I’m referring to polls such as, “Is Obama a Muslim?”
This question has a wrong answer. The responses are not equally valid. Such polls do not measure public opinion, they measure public ignorance. Worse, they measure the successful pervasion of partisan misinformation.
These polls are everywhere, and the results are always shameful:
- only 39% of Americans believe in evolution;
- only 43% of Americans believe in anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change; and, last week,
- only 47% of Americans believe Obama is a Christian (24% think he’s a Muslim).
What angers me most about these polls is that the phrase “believe in” really means “understand that.” These aren’t questions of choice. There is only one right answer. It’s indisputable.
The respondents in these three polls didn’t express their opinions, they betrayed their ignorance. And that ignorance is not the innocent absence of education, it’s the sinister product of deliberate misinformation spread by well-funded special interests (for the polls above, evangelicals, big polluters and conservatives respectively…forgive the fuzzy boundaries between them).
Now, I am not saying that ignorance should be prosecuted like some Orwellian thoughtcrime. To me, all these polls really show is that the media are failing. True, propagandists and politicians breathe life into these stories, but journalists are the ones who perpetuate this nonsense.
In the new era of “fairness and balance,” the media think they have to report every claim a partisan commentator makes without remarking on its truthfulness – because that would be “unbalanced.” Think of birtherism, Obama’s supposed socialism, death panels…all these manufactured scandals started as baseless comments reported by the media without question merely because a partisan spoke them. Apparently transcribing a press release or interview is now where a journalist’s obligation ends: We accuse, you decide.
Yet opposition does not confer equivalency. Just because there are two sides to a story does not mean they’re necessarily equal. For a journalist to automatically report them as such is misleading.
When a Wisconsin senate candidate says climate science is wrong and gives a scientifically disproven alternative “explanation,” it’s not partisan to say he’s lying – it’s accurate. In fact, to merely parrot those proven lies isn’t balance, it’s active disinformation.
Real public opinion polls have obvious political value for politicians and advocates etc. But what do public ignorance polls contribute to society? Nothing. They just validate the misconceptions they seek to quantify by presenting them on equal footing with actual facts. This is another manifestation of the “bias of balance” in modern media coverage.
With one notable exception, today’s major media outlets are not trying to disseminate falsehoods, but they are succeeding nonetheless. As long as we allow balance to trump accuracy in journalism, this type of ignorance will not only persist but continue to spread.
Another Day on the Campaign Trail: GOP Lies = News August 17, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Congress, Election, Media, Politics.
Tags: Climate Change, Election, Global Warming, GOP, Jon Stewart, Journalism, Media Bias, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Political Climate, Politics, Ron Johnson, Russ Feingold, Senate, Steve Schultze, sunspots, Tea Party, The Daily Show, ThePoliticalClimate, Wisconsin
On Monday, a GOP senate candidate in Wisconsin made the following statement:
“I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change. It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination.” –Ron Johnson, six-figure BP stockholder and oil spill apologist.
This “forgotten Tea Party candidate” went on to expound his misguided opinion in detail. He said some other stupid things, but I think my favorite was that a strong economy would keep the environment clean. Isn’t that cute?
It always angers me to see such baseless denial, especially when excreted by a man who would seek to become among the most powerful decision-makers in our country. But what really set me off was how this story was covered.
The national press will do what they always do, so for Congressional races, I prefer to take a look at how these stories are covered locally in order to better gauge what effect they will have on the people who can actually vote. The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel has more than twice as many readers as the next biggest newspaper in Wisconsin.
This is the article they ran by Steve Schultze. Suffice it to say that it did not calm me down.
In the ~800 word piece, the word “said” appears 25 times and makes up 3% of all the words used. This “article” isn’t journalism, it’s stenography. Worse, in letting Ron Johnson dictate to the newspaper, this reporter just spread blatant misinformation.
Yes, I know this guy was reporting an interview. I am aware that Mr. Johnson is entitled to his opinion, even if it’s wrong, and that a reporter’s job is, in this case, to present that opinion to the electorate. But journalists are supposed to pursue the truth, not just balance.
Let me offer a more specific example from the interview. Johnson is 100% sure that humans aren’t warming the planet. So how does he explain the rising temperatures?
“It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity,” he says.
That’s Johnson’s opinion, that’s what Schultze reported. Why is that poor journalism? Because it is demonstrably false.
Solar output does vary, and that radiated energy does exert some influence on our climate systems. So at first blush, sunspots do appear to be a valid hypothesis for global warming. …That is, until you take even a glance at solar output data and discover that we are in a drastic solar minimum; the sun is currently cooler than it’s been in over a century.
Fact: the sun is not causing our current climate change. If anything, decreased solar output is masking what would otherwise be even more extreme warming!
After reading Schultze’s article, Wisconsinites know that Ron Johnson thinks the sun is causing global warming. Don’t the voters deserve to know that he is unquestionably wrong? Wouldn’t that help them make a more informed decision? I think so.
In the hallowed name of fairness and balance, Mr. Schultze did offer a counterpoint to Johnson’s falsities:
[Democratic Sen. Russ] Feingold has taken a completely opposite position on global warming, saying that “most people think man had some role in it.”
And that was that. A difference of opinion, nothing more.
In political news coverage, media outlets strive to maintain objectivity by offering both candidates equal coverage, without appearing to favor one or the other. That 50-50 coverage, presenting both sides of the story in a “we report, you decide” paradigm, accomplishes objectivity when covering differences of opinion.
However, when the media provide 50-50 coverage to a situation where one party is clearly lying or wrong, that attempt at objectivity becomes what is called the “bias of balance,” about which I have blogged extensively and wrote my honors thesis.
This problem pollutes the debate about every major issue our country faces today. Gutless, “balanced” media coverage enables conservative demagogues to successfully manipulate public opinion against effective and desperately needed legislative reforms. And the situation is not improving.
Everyday, critical policy considerations are buried further and further beneath piles of manufactured yet diligently transcribed political drama. THAT is why I am among the majority of people who think this country is on the wrong track.
And no, Mainstream Media, that is NOT bad news for Democrats – it’s bad news for America. And it is in no small part your fault.
Case in point a la Jon Stewart and the NYC mosque ridiculousness (as usual, worth watching in its entirety, but most directly relevant starting at 4:00).
Send BP’s Spokespeople Home May 31, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: BP, Deepwater Horizon, Media Bias, MSM, Offshore Drilling, Oil, Oil Spill, Tony Hayward
add a comment
“There aren’t any underwater [oil] plumes.” – BP CEO Tony Hayward.
Why not? Because Tony says so. End of story. At least as far as the mainstream media are concerned.
“The oil is on the surface,” Hayward said. “Oil has a specific gravity that’s about half that of water. It wants to get to the surface because of the difference in specific gravity.” –Tony Hayward, 5/30/10.
Duh. Oil rises in water? Thanks for that expert analysis, Tony. But even a 23-year-old with an Internet connection can figure out why the oil isn’t just rising here, so that statement is a baldly transparent lie. Hint: it has to do with the incredible amounts of toxic dispersants that YOU YOURSELF ordered injected into the well.
There is no question about the existence of these plumes. Scientists from at least 4 different universities so far have independently found underwater oil plumes by analyzing images, video, and water samples. They have even piloted submarines through the plumes.
Yet Tony Hayward is successfully combating scientific research in the media simply by saying that BP has found “no evidence” of such plumes, with zero elaboration on what testing they did. BP claims to have 30 aircraft searching for signs of oil, but as I understand it most airplanes are confined to the air. Perhaps they found no evidence because they didn’t look underwater. Tony didn’t say and evidently was not asked. How could anyone let him make that claim and not ask the follow up question?
This is what is wrong with our country. I mean it. Public accountability no longer exists. It is not “gotcha” journalism to call out a public figure for a baseless lie or contradiction. That is not “media bias” or “unbalanced reporting” or any of those things. It is JOURNALISM. It is their jobs. It is the reason why the media are protected in our country; democracy cannot function without objective news coverage.
As an aside, this is exactly what has happened in the politicized “debates” about climate change, healthcare, financial reform…you name it. There are facts in this world. Simply saying something is wrong does not ipso facto disprove its factuality or even call it into question. And to dutifully report that “controversy” in the fanatical pursuit of “balance” is a loathsome perversion of objective journalism. This was the subject of my honors thesis.
I still believe that BP has a compellingly strong financial incentive to lead the efforts to kill this well; there is no cost-benefit analysis that can be done in which BP benefits from having this well flow a single day longer than it has to. Even in a scenario in which they are trying to save the well for future exploitation, the broader damage done to the company and even the industry by even a marginally larger, ongoing oil spill vastly outweighs any benefit they could gain from skimping on containment efforts.
It is worth mentioning again, however, that a similar, seemingly obvious economic argument should have compelled Exxon to use only double-hulled tankers after Exxon Valdez, but it has not.
Unfortunately, BP has another financial incentive as well. As I pointed out last week, our biggest complaints with BP’s response are not about their containment actions, they’re about dishonesty, lack of transparency, and constantly downplaying of the scope of this disaster. They’re about spin.
Following the blowout itself, which was obviously an engineering failure, how many critiques have you seen of BP’s engineers? Not many. They probably should have figured out methane hydrates would form in the first containment dome. But our biggest problems have been with BP’s spokespeople (and executives operating in that role). BP is doing literally as much damage control as it can. And that is the real problem here.
BP has two, simultaneous damage control operations in action: one to protect the Gulf, and another to protect BP. One is trying to staunch the flow of hydrocarbons, the other is trying to staunch the flow of legal liability and corporate backlash. One is taking place underwater, the other is taking place in the media.
That Tony Hayward and BP continue to be able to make these claims is despicable. But we have let it happen.
As one of many examples, recall the 5,000 barrel per day flow estimate. For over a month, BP was able to low-ball the spill rate and nobody could authoritatively contest the claim. They controlled the information. BP barely backed down when caught in essentially Orwellian doublethink, on the day they claimed to be siphoning 5,000 bpd off of a 5,000 bpd spill.
This weekend, Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, finally conceded what the rest of us have been saying all along about the spill estimates: “BP has a financial interest in these numbers.”
And they have looked after that interest. It is a huge boon to BP that this spill occurred offshore and at such great depth. It might as well have happened in space. In today’s world journalists can even embed in the military to cover wars in person, yet no journalist can independently corroborate any claim about this oil spill. We couldn’t even see the spill until BP was forced to share the video feed. In the absence of any other source of information, the media have trotted out BP’s statements verbatim.
New information about the spill is released almost exclusively by BP spokespeople, pre-spun and told from their perspective. We have let them control this story, and it shows.
Tony Hayward’s fallacious denial of the underwater plumes should be everywhere. It’s not. I found it on the front page of the Huffington Post and buried in the 24th-27th paragraphs (out of 27) in a Washington Post article. Thank goodness the AP also published a story.
The administration may well be correct in its assertion that BP is better equipped to handle the containment of this gusher. Obviously, the government has additional resources to bring to bear, especially for the clean up operation, but BP has both the equipment and expertise that the physical solution to this problem requires. They should continue that endeavor. However, the administration should have assumed control of the information flow weeks ago, at the first signs of BP’s dishonesty.
If we really want to see results, we should muzzle BP’s executives and spokespeople. Send them home. Better yet, put them to work cleaning the despoiled beaches of Louisiana.
Currently, regardless of what happens, BP gets to spin its own story first. This is a privilege they do not deserve and have repeatedly abused. So let’s strip them of it.
Instead, have BP report their updates to the administration (or an independent body of experts, if you are concerned about more propaganda). Let someone less concerned about BP’s future synthesize the progress and inform the media.
I understand the desire to grill these executives and make them stew, and that time will come. But we must start getting objective, unfiltered information about this catastrophe.
This would not only penalize BP for its actions, it would offer them another incentive to stop this spill. If they are not allowed to spin their story, the only way they can get good coverage is to make their success self-evident. No more excuses.
If BP cannot control its oil wells, we cannot let them control this story. What have they done to deserve that courtesy?
Full list of oil spill questions and answers here.
For Sale: The Fourth Estate April 15, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Election, Media, Politics.
Tags: Alan Grayson, Balanced Media, CNN, Elections, Erick Erickson, Fox, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Joe Wilson, Journalism, Mainstream Media, Media, Media Bias, MSNBC, Partisanship, polarization, Politics, spin
1 comment so far
In a classroom, if you present an argument, it is expected to be logically sound. If it’s not, you can expect to be called out for that. As a [relatively] recent college graduate, it has been disheartening to discover that those expectations do not extend to important places off-campus. Like our government.
I now live in Washington, DC, the front-line of a polarized America. And from the floor of the Senate to the op-ed page of the Washington Post, I am disgusted by the deliberate mistruths and toxicity that have polluted the national dialogue. Name your issue, they’re there.
I have taken to watching Fox News at the gym; say what you will about Glenn Beck, but I have yet to find anything that keeps me as fired up – provided I can overcome the urge to assure passersby that I am not a Tea Partier. But if you actually watch the programs, it becomes clear that these talk shows are a cleverly wielded and dangerously effective political tool.
It is true that MSNBC runs similarly structured programming and is guilty of some of the same partisan tactics. Both “news” organizations should clean up their acts. But MSNBC does not operate with Fox’s defiant shamelessness, and ideological opposition does not automatically confer equivalency.
Many people I’ve talked to argue that Fox News is irrelevant because it yells into its own echo chamber and thus does not affect moderate, independent or undecided voters anyways. But even if I were to concede that premise, in the media’s current state, I have to disagree with the conclusion.
Last year, I lamented Fox’s apparent victory as the mainstream media embraced “balance” as their primary value, unseating objective accuracy. Consider a linear spectrum from liberal to conservative. As long as balance trumps accuracy, whenever conservatives dive to the right, no matter how outrageous the claim, media outlets must move at least half as far in that direction to stay in the center. That taints everybody’s news.
Instead of trying to perfectly straddle that mobile center, media outlets have increasingly drawn upon punditry; pair each comment from the left with a comment from the right and you have ostensibly achieved balance – at the expense of the truth. Case-in-point: CNN’s recent hiring of the despicable, foul-mouthed conservative blogger Erick Erickson.
If the news is just a soapbox for politicos and outlets are afraid to call out disprovable lies, the system has collapsed.
When the now infamous Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) interrupted President Obama, he didn’t yell, “I have statistical data that casts your theory into doubt!” A baseless claim, “you lie!” now suffices as a political riposte. And the solution to this behavior is not an equally extreme liberal demagogue like Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). Just tell the truth!
The nastiness of our political discourse is unprecedented, but not inexplicable. Our two-party system has had this all-out combative capability since Jefferson and Adams. It has just been held in check by the media…until now.
With its financial survival threatened, American journalism has sold out and compromised its ideals. Accusations of media partisanship have begun to stick partly because they’ve begun to be true. And with its objectivity in question, one of our government’s most important safeguards has failed: the loss of accountability is to blame for our current political climate.
Politicians used to be restrained by unbiased fact-checking and investigative journalism. Trusted, objective news coverage once held extreme rhetoric in check. Today, American news outlets are either perversely partisan or utterly defanged. And when the referees are biased or silent, the game quickly turns violent.
Knowing what we’ve lost is the first step towards replacing it. But I’m not sure how to take the second. Journalism didn’t fall from grace because it grew tired of protecting of our democracy, it succumbed to increasing financial pressure and failed to adapt.
There is money to be made in opinion journalism because we, the public, are demanding it. So we must instead demand that news sources provide news, not spin or the political talking points du jour. If that means stop watching MSNBC and Fox News, we must do that too – I once managed to motivate myself without staring at Glenn Beck’s curvaceous bod, I can do it again.
Even if we cannot sway the national media, we are not powerless to turn back this ugly tide. We can’t pick the refs, but we can pick the players.
Believe it or not, it’s already another election year. Many primaries are just next month, and in November many of us will be able to elect a new U.S. Senator and Representative.
So let me be the first this year to say, “please vote.” As an official DC resident, I essentially no longer can. It’s one of the many things I miss that I was able to do in college.
A version of this post appeared in The Chronicle at Duke University.
Sunlight: The 2nd Best Disinfectant February 26, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Media, Politics.
Tags: Balance, Balanced Media, Barack Obama, Bias, Congress, FOIA, Healthcare, Healthcare Summit, Media, Media Bias, Obama, Policy Debate, President Obama, Sunlight, Transparency
add a comment
“Transparency” is tossed around Washington like the solution to all our problems. But what good is a window if nobody is looking through it? Citizens today are inundated by so much information that we must rely on others to sort and interpret the news that is actually relevant to us. And in our politicized country, most of us receive governmental news from outlets at least slightly skewed towards our preexisting views.
I’m a liberal. When a Republican says something outrageous, I know about it immediately thanks to Media Matters and the rest of the liberal blogosphere. But when a Democrat makes an equivalent mistake, I may not even find out. The big slips make national news, covered by the “balanced” mainstream media, but the more mundane mistruths fly under the radar. The little lies about a particular bill. The deliberately distorted talking points that obstruct well-intentioned legislation. The average person does not hear about the everyday dishonesty that has crippled our democracy today.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously opined, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” So we have multiple C-SPAN channels, the Freedom Of Information Act and more political reporting than would seem possible. There is so much information available in the name of transparency that no single person could ever hope to monitor politics casually; that’s a full-time job.
How many ordinary people actually watch C-SPAN? Virtually none*. The cameras are almost always on, but nobody watches directly. We all rely on dedicated observers to tell us if something of note happened in Congress. So because we get our political news pre-spun and, more importantly, pre-filtered, few people get the full picture.
As a result, I would argue that sunlight is not the best disinfectant. The blinding brightness of all this transparency has actually forced us to shield our eyes and turn away. Too much of a good thing has had the exact opposite effect as intended. It is true that sunlight stops the big schemes, like Watergate. Yet more often, sunlight just provides fodder for the politically-hyped fake scandals, like “Climate-gate.”
I’m not advocating for increased secrecy, I would merely like to point out that we have just witnessed the demonstration of a much more powerful force in the name of good governance: public viewership.
Despite its shortcomings, yesterday’s Healthcare Summit hosted by President Obama was something different. Yes, it initially appeared to be an interlocking presentation of talking points, but 3-4 hours in, something interesting began to happen. Unexpected areas of agreement appeared. Sensible minority proposals met with majority support. Progress was taking place.
In our toxic political climate, it is worth asking, “what was different?” Why can’t such dialogue and rational policy debate take place in Congress, the body created for that express purpose? Having the President there to babysit likely helped, but much more important was the fact that the country was watching.
Events that people watch in person are much less susceptible to spin because we form our own opinions on the spot. That is supposed to be the driving force of a free country: the will of the people, not the mantra of the shepherd with the largest, mindless flock.
I have no doubt that either side could strategically excerpt yesterday’s proceedings to make their opponents look foolish, and that almost certainly happened. But when the public tunes in directly, politicians are once again restrained by a sense of accountability – the same accountability that objective media coverage, which is often necessarily “unbalanced,” used to provide.
The Healthcare Summit was not a turning point in our country. The politics have not changed, even for healthcare, and the public is not about to become involved in everyday politics (nor, frankly, should they have to be). But this did remind us, for a few hours, that productive political dialogue can occur – if we, the people, demand it of our elected representatives.
*Digging a little deeper, it appears that C-SPAN does actually have significant viewership. That’s news to me, but I think my main point stands.
Balancing Act April 14, 2009Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Media, Politics.
Tags: Bias, Climate Change, George Will, Global Warming, Joe the Plumber, Journalism, Juliet Eilperin, Mary Beth Sheridan, Media Bias, New York Times, Opinion, Sea Ice, Sea Ice Loss, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post
In February, Washington Post columnist George Will wrote a piece entitled “Dark Green Doomsayers.” This column, joined by two others over the last three months, was littered with blatant mistruths and distortions about climate science. For example, Will claimed that a study said global sea ice levels hadn’t changed in 30 years when in reality it documented a loss of 520,000 square miles. Either painfully ignorant or deliberately deceitful, Will’s work has rightfully incited intense criticism of the Post.
The paper has taken halfhearted steps to redeem itself. The Post’s ombudsman responded, but really just defended the paper and its editors. Then the Post ran two powerful letters to the editor debunking Will’s columns (one of them written by the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), whose work Will also misused)…only to allow Will to misrepresent WMO data again in his third column!
Newspapers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to their readers. Permitting such thoroughly disproven material to be published, even in an opinion piece, undermines the journalistic integrity of the entire paper. And clearly others at the Post agree.
Because the editorial staff so clearly shirked their duty, serious journalists at the Post have stepped in. A week ago, Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan finally chastised Will – from the Post’s news section. Their article on sea ice decline included a paragraph that reads: “The new evidence…contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will.”
This is unprecedented. The task of fact-checking or retroactively correcting an errant columnist should fall to the editors or ombudsman, not to writers on page 3. And this incident skirts a journalistic issue of great importance to climate coverage in general: opinions in news.
News articles are supposed to contain facts, not opinion. In this case, Eilperin and Sheridan were justified because Will has been so verifiably and even quantifiably wrong in his recent columns that the existence of his errors is fact. But subtly opinionated news has plagued global warming coverage for years.
At the beginning of the year, I set out to examine the interaction between the media and the uninformed American public here on this blog. And as I wrap up this endeavor, I am also putting the finishing touches on an honors thesis investigating bias in the print coverage of climate change. To that end, I conducted a media analysis examining news stories (omitting editorial content) that mentioned global warming and how they portrayed the state of climate science.
I focused on measuring the “bias of balance,” which occurs when reporters artificially equalize two unequally supported, competing viewpoints (like climate scientists versus skeptics); essentially overzealous attempts at objectivity. But the most interesting results appeared when I separated my data by source.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post are among the nation’s leading newspapers. And because writers for all three ostensibly strive for the same impartiality and cover the same set of climate-related events, one would think that their climate news coverage should be quite similar.
And in the New York Times and Washington Post, it is. In the Wall Street Journal, however, articles are fully twice as likely to emphasize caution and voluntary programs to address climate change (rather than immediate, mandatory regulation). They’re also five times as likely to present with doubt the concretely established existence of anthropogenic (human-caused) warming. That’s just in news stories, not opinion columns or letters. This suggests that editorial voices can infiltrate into supposedly objective news articles to significantly influence coverage.
But even the most accurate climate coverage may be lost on many people. A recent Gallup survey showed that a record high 41% of Americans now think that news stories exaggerate the seriousness of climate change (3x more Republicans than Democrats). Yet the lessons of my thesis apply to threats that people actually comprehend and respect too.
According to Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach, distinguished journalists now leading the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, “the primary purpose of the media is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing.” And if that is true, today’s media are largely failing.
With pundits driving coverage and politicians’ sound-bites replacing expert analysis, real journalism is getting drowned out; we should be hearing from Joe the Economist, not Joe the Plumber. And the fact that you can turn on different “news” stations and see completely different views of the world is a shameful indictment of our overly politicized country.
The media have collectively settled on a misguided notion of balance and “fairness” as their single-minded priority for journalism. But what this country really needs right now is an emphasis on accuracy; viewers should not get to decide what facts are real. There is far too much at stake for such foolishness.
Opinion journalism has its place, and that’s not on the cover or under a breaking news headline. It’s at the back of the paper behind even the comics, opposite the editorial page where commentaries belong.
A version of this post ran in the Chronicle at Duke University.
Unfortunate Evolution February 24, 2009Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Media, Politics.
Tags: Bias, Creationism, Darwin, Democrats, Evolution, Fox News, Intelligent Design, Journalism, Media, Media Bias, Politics, Republicans
On the cover of its November 2004 issue, National Geographic posed the question “Was Darwin wrong?” But when you flipped to the article inside, the answer was printed in big, bold font: NO. Even the main evolution page on Wikipedia doesn’t mention any controversy, and for all of the free encyclopedia’s faults, that’s saying something. Yet just in time for Darwin’s 200th birthday, Gallup released a new poll showing that a scant 39 percent of Americans “believe in the theory of evolution.”
That’s appalling. This shouldn’t need explaining, but there is no substantive controversy about evolution. There are still questions to be answered about some of its mechanisms and intricacies, but within the volumes of predictive, verifiable data we have gathered, there is not a single piece of evidence that refutes the theory. And for clarification, that’s scientific theory, rigorously tested and tantamount to fact, like the theories of gravity and plate tectonics. This differs from the colloquial “theory” you might use to guess how you made it home from the bar without remembering. To paraphrase physicist Murray Peshkin, saying evolution is “only a theory” is like saying it’s “only science.”
Yet just last month, Dr. Don McLeroy (a dentist) led conservatives on the Texas Board of Education in a renewed crusade to wedge religion into the classroom at the expense of basic education. This review of the state’s science standards will face a final vote next month, but similar battles have already been fought in at least ten states over the past decade, often buoyed by alarming levels of public support. In Kansas, the most infamous case, teaching evolution was actually banned for two years. Thank goodness we aren’t trying to pass any evolution legislation.
We are, however, expecting legislation on important science-based issues like climate change, and the outlook there is just as bleak. In my first column this semester, I wrote about a May 2008 poll showing a partisan divide among Americans who understand that humans contribute to climate change. A similar Rasmussen poll recently found that this rift has widened: now just 21 percent of Republicans acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, compared to 59 percent of Democrats. As Stephen Colbert once said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias” (video in this previous post). So it is understandable that Republicans have not exactly championed our nation’s academic pursuits. But an anti-scientific sentiment can have dangerous consequences, especially if it goes unchecked.
Watching the major congressional battles since this summer (especially on offshore drilling and climate change) I have noticed a trend: the national media, particularly on TV, have largely abandoned their watchdog role and have been covering these debates without substantive fact-checking as “he said/she said” stories. Facts and fabrications have been placed on equal footing to avoid “taking a side.” The election was covered the same way. But this is a terrible journalistic paradigm.
Balance is nice, but isn’t accuracy a more important journalistic value? Calling out a politician for lying is not partisan, it’s the media’s responsibility. Obviously it would be best if people just told the truth, but that’s not happening. And the stimulus coverage was more of the same.
Media Matters analyzed twelve cable news programs’ coverage of the stimulus debate. Of the 460 guests interviewed, only 25 of them – that’s 5 percent – were actually economists. No wonder the potential impacts of the bill were so vulnerable to political spin. And Think Progress found that savvy Republicans were only too happy to exploit this opportunity, appearing on cable news programs twice as frequently as their Democratic counterparts. But one network took coverage to a new low.
The following may shock you, so brace yourself: Fox News has a Republican bias. And last week, they were as tactful as a skirted starlet stepping from a limo. On Feb. 10th, anchor Jon Scott put up a graphic showing the costs of the stimulus package that was copied verbatim from a press release by the Senate Republicans Communication Center, same damning typo and all. “Fair and balanced” my Democratic donkey. Kudos again to Media Matters for “exposing” such a blatant attempt to disseminate partisan propaganda as reporting. But at least Fox had the courage to apologize – for just the typo (video thanks to Howard Kurtz).
Our country is being steered by a misinformed public and polarized politicians unrestrained by accountability. Science itself is under attack. These are complex problems with varied causes. Yet they have one thing in common: objective media coverage could combat them all.
But that’s not going to happen. Believe it or not, journalism is evolving. With the expansion to the internet and growing popularity of blogs, niche news is on the rise. People seem to want their news told from their perspective, and media outlets will provide what consumers demand; Fox News, the Huffington Post, even Jon Stewart are thriving. And with newspapers experiencing serious financial difficulties, the days of the objective reporter could actually be numbered. If you think bipartisanship is a myth today, try to imagine it at the bottom of this slippery slope (a logical fallacy, I know, but the point stands).
I wish I could end this column with a solution, but I honestly don’t see one. It would be comforting to believe that some omnipotent, not explicitly Christian deity was guiding this media transformation, but judging from its current trajectory, this looks like anything but an Intelligent Design.
A version of the post ran in The Chronicle at Duke University.