Hotspring 44
10-14-2015, 08:57 PM
The full title of the article is:
“Wrong, wrong, wrong: The anti-science bullsh*t which explains why the right gets away with lies — and why the mainstream media lets them” (https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/)
[This post is about the AP's recent style guide that says:
Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers.
- Barry ]
I have posted this because:
I think it is an interesting and well written article by Paul Rosenberg in SALON Tuesday, Oct 13, 2015 that details the way in which a well known media entity (AP) used (what I call semantics 'rules') to appease particular attitudes (?) that people have by not allowing what I would characterize as 'journalistic freedom' at the expense of accuracy, and in doing so has created (IMO) further misunderstandings of facts and made a difficult to understand and do something about {the} situation more convoluted than it ever would have without that sort of 'censorship'...
...Instead of having a more free and enlightened journalism to read (within AP) which could have been more literally correct in it's reporting, but;
because of AP's 'requirement' of how the usage of the words/terms “climate change skeptic” and or “climate change denier” etc.. ended up being, it gave too much credibility to so many incorrect and anti-factual, out of context, bias-based, intentionally misleading and downright prejudicial statements which could be and in all likelihood some are at least (IMO) outright boldface lies by those who are dead-set on insisting that 'humans are not having any affect' (significant) on "global warming" ("climate change") by any man made (human caused) input of 'greenhouse gasses' onto the Earth's atmosphere...
On the one hand, AP took a big step forward by deciding to stop using the term “climate change skeptic”, following concerted pressure from scientists and activists. But they also took a big step backward by deciding to not use the term “climate change denier” instead, and to actively nix it as well. “Climate change denier” sounded too much like “Holocaust denier,” AP explained, so it was out, too. They added the following to their style guide (which many journalists outside AP use as well):
A few more snippets from the long, well done and detailed article:
Meanwhile, ScienceBlogs writer Greg Laden tweeted (https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/646659493514768385): “The term ‘denier’ is a widely used term social science research. AP is being anti science,” and at Media Matters, researcher Denise Robbins referenced Laden in a collection of scientists, climate communicators and journalists criticizing AP in similarly harsh terms (https://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/23/experts-criticize-associated-press-for-disavowi/205759).
When the reality-based community is giving you harsh reviews like that, and “[I]those who reject mainstream climate science” are congratulating you for “entering the realm of objectivity,” you know you’re doing something seriously wrong. The only real question is, “What?” I wanted to answer that question on a detailed micro-level, so I contacted AP to interview the panel who made the decision. For all I knew, there may have been thoughtful deliberations behind the scenes, despite the end results. Sometimes well-intentioned people simply focus on the wrong thing. Minority views in one deliberation may hold the seeds of future wisdom. I wanted to know more than the public record told, but AP was not talking. “We have done interviews about our amended Stylebook entry and now we’re done,” was the one-sentence explanation offered by Paul Colford, Director of AP Media Relations.
Add that to what was already known, and it’s hard not to conclude that AP knows they stepped in it
But it’s more than a preference. It’s a matter of accuracy, something that science and journalism are supposed to have in common. And it’s downright inaccurate for AP to pretend it’s simply a matter of preference. Having diminished CSI’s objection, AP then elevated the deniers:
But those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.
This is a classic example of false balance on AP’s part, with multiple problems on both sides of the scale and one big thing wrong at the middle: “doubt” is not mid-way between “skepticism” and “denial” . It far closer to the former than to the latter, which is why the deniers were so pleased with it.
All that is true, but there’s a further point worth making: climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder.
The most recent estimate (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134014/1/9789241507691_eng.pdf?ua=1) (2014) from the World Health Organization (a 128-page report) projects that “Under a base case socioeconomic scenario, we estimate approximately 250,000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050.” That’s 5 million deaths over just that 20 year window. Major impacts will come via diarrhea, malaria, childhood undernutrition, and heat exposure in elderly people. But the total will undoubtedly be significantly higher:
There is lots more to the article with even more links; If you have been interested enough to read this far than you will be even more interested in reading the whole article and maybe even follow some of the other links in it too.
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/
“Wrong, wrong, wrong: The anti-science bullsh*t which explains why the right gets away with lies — and why the mainstream media lets them” (https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/)
[This post is about the AP's recent style guide that says:
Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers.
- Barry ]
I have posted this because:
I think it is an interesting and well written article by Paul Rosenberg in SALON Tuesday, Oct 13, 2015 that details the way in which a well known media entity (AP) used (what I call semantics 'rules') to appease particular attitudes (?) that people have by not allowing what I would characterize as 'journalistic freedom' at the expense of accuracy, and in doing so has created (IMO) further misunderstandings of facts and made a difficult to understand and do something about {the} situation more convoluted than it ever would have without that sort of 'censorship'...
...Instead of having a more free and enlightened journalism to read (within AP) which could have been more literally correct in it's reporting, but;
because of AP's 'requirement' of how the usage of the words/terms “climate change skeptic” and or “climate change denier” etc.. ended up being, it gave too much credibility to so many incorrect and anti-factual, out of context, bias-based, intentionally misleading and downright prejudicial statements which could be and in all likelihood some are at least (IMO) outright boldface lies by those who are dead-set on insisting that 'humans are not having any affect' (significant) on "global warming" ("climate change") by any man made (human caused) input of 'greenhouse gasses' onto the Earth's atmosphere...
On the one hand, AP took a big step forward by deciding to stop using the term “climate change skeptic”, following concerted pressure from scientists and activists. But they also took a big step backward by deciding to not use the term “climate change denier” instead, and to actively nix it as well. “Climate change denier” sounded too much like “Holocaust denier,” AP explained, so it was out, too. They added the following to their style guide (which many journalists outside AP use as well):
A few more snippets from the long, well done and detailed article:
Meanwhile, ScienceBlogs writer Greg Laden tweeted (https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/646659493514768385): “The term ‘denier’ is a widely used term social science research. AP is being anti science,” and at Media Matters, researcher Denise Robbins referenced Laden in a collection of scientists, climate communicators and journalists criticizing AP in similarly harsh terms (https://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/23/experts-criticize-associated-press-for-disavowi/205759).
When the reality-based community is giving you harsh reviews like that, and “[I]those who reject mainstream climate science” are congratulating you for “entering the realm of objectivity,” you know you’re doing something seriously wrong. The only real question is, “What?” I wanted to answer that question on a detailed micro-level, so I contacted AP to interview the panel who made the decision. For all I knew, there may have been thoughtful deliberations behind the scenes, despite the end results. Sometimes well-intentioned people simply focus on the wrong thing. Minority views in one deliberation may hold the seeds of future wisdom. I wanted to know more than the public record told, but AP was not talking. “We have done interviews about our amended Stylebook entry and now we’re done,” was the one-sentence explanation offered by Paul Colford, Director of AP Media Relations.
Add that to what was already known, and it’s hard not to conclude that AP knows they stepped in it
But it’s more than a preference. It’s a matter of accuracy, something that science and journalism are supposed to have in common. And it’s downright inaccurate for AP to pretend it’s simply a matter of preference. Having diminished CSI’s objection, AP then elevated the deniers:
But those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.
This is a classic example of false balance on AP’s part, with multiple problems on both sides of the scale and one big thing wrong at the middle: “doubt” is not mid-way between “skepticism” and “denial” . It far closer to the former than to the latter, which is why the deniers were so pleased with it.
All that is true, but there’s a further point worth making: climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder.
The most recent estimate (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134014/1/9789241507691_eng.pdf?ua=1) (2014) from the World Health Organization (a 128-page report) projects that “Under a base case socioeconomic scenario, we estimate approximately 250,000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050.” That’s 5 million deaths over just that 20 year window. Major impacts will come via diarrhea, malaria, childhood undernutrition, and heat exposure in elderly people. But the total will undoubtedly be significantly higher:
There is lots more to the article with even more links; If you have been interested enough to read this far than you will be even more interested in reading the whole article and maybe even follow some of the other links in it too.
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/