NationStates Jolt Archive

"Moreover, the question of how to substitute accuracy for mere “balance” in science reporting has become ever more pointed as journalists have struggled to cover the Bush administration, which scientists have widely accused of scientific distortions. As the Union of Concerned Scientists, an alliance of citizens and scientists, and other critics have noted, Bush administration statements and actions have often given privileged status to a fringe scientific view over a well-documented, extremely robust mainstream conclusion. Journalists have thus had to decide whether to report on a he said/she said battle between scientists and the White House — which has had very few scientific defenders — or get to the bottom of each case of alleged distortion and report on who’s actually right."
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

I recommend reading the whole article.
It has a lot to say on the forced balance in the media today.
I'm interested to hear what criticisms people have of it.

Sorry but I wouldn't give two cents for an article published by the home of, "Bias in Journalism, isn't it a wonderful thing."

Great article. Reminds me of another use of fringe science by the Bush administration, in this case the FDA. After a large FDA review body, comprised of a large number of scientists, recommended that the "morning after pill" was safe, the upper echelons of the FDA flat out over-ruled them, bringing in an outside study that claimed it might be dangerous to adoelescants. Mind you, this was the only study that I know of that had any problem with the morning after pill.

While it is OK for the upper echelons of the FDA to raise a concern when they found this study, the answer is not to just throw away the results of your own scientific review, the same type of review that everytginh the FDA approves goes through. What they did hurt the credibility of the FDA process. The right thing to do wouldhave been to raise these concerns with the review body, maybe even invite the scientist who did this study to join the review process. Instead, they went out, found an obscure study that did what they wanted (not support the morning after pill), and claimed they used good science. Bullshit.

Sorry but I wouldn't give two cents for an article published by the home of, "Bias in Journalism, isn't it a wonderful thing."
Dude, that is not what the article says at all.

Sorry but I wouldn't give two cents for an article published by the home of, "Bias in Journalism, isn't it a wonderful thing."
What are you talking about...?

Sorry but I wouldn't give two cents for an article published by the home of, "Bias in Journalism, isn't it a wonderful thing."
Give me a penny.

Give me a penny.

haha I used to be a reporter for a couple of major newspapers and it left a really bitter taste in my mouth to see what j-schools have come to view as ethical journalism. I know a lot of what they teach is determined in part from feedback from media companies, however, the damage these people have done to the profession is unforgivable.

haha I used to be a reporter for a couple of major newspapers and it left a really bitter taste in my mouth to see what j-schools have come to view as ethical journalism. I know a lot of what they teach is determined in part from feedback from media companies, however, the damage these people have done to the profession is unforgivable.
I really don't understand what you are saying judging from this one article. Basically its about science articles catering to a balance in journalism on issues where science has basically reached a consensus. It appeared to me to be well rounded in it's fairness.

I really don't understand what you are saying judging from this one article. Basically its about science articles catering to a balance in journalism on issues where science has basically reached a consensus. It appeared to me to be well rounded in it's fairness.

It has nothing to do with the article at all. I didn't read it, as I do not believe that the Columbia School of Journalism is capable of publishing an article that is accurate, honest and without a political agenda. In my mind they have the credibility of Fox or Cnn.

It has nothing to do with the article at all. I didn't read it, as I do not believe that the Columbia School of Journalism is capable of publishing an article that is accurate, honest and without a political agenda. In my mind they have the credibility of Fox or Cnn.
OK...
Well, in the realm of science, wouldn't you say that you believe in the idea that a scientific article should weigh heavily on the side of scientists published in peer-reviewed journals?

OK...
Well, in the realm of science, wouldn't you say that you believe in the idea that a scientific article should weigh heavily on the side of scientists published in peer-reviewed journals?

Yeah, but that means you actually have to believe qualified scientists when they talk about science. Common sense tells us we should listen to economists on matters of biology, geology, ecology, climatology and physics.

balance good. facts bad. there are no facts, only positions.

sky is blue you say? well, this man with a fake phd from bible camp disagrees. who are we to judge? more importantly, who are those elitist bastards from the academy to tell us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen? i personally side with bible camp dude. and anyone who doesn't join me hates america.

It has nothing to do with the article at all. I didn't read it, as I do not believe that the Columbia School of Journalism is capable of publishing an article that is accurate, honest and without a political agenda. In my mind they have the credibility of Fox or Cnn.
If you are not going to even read the article that started this thread, than just shut the hell up and go away. If you read it, and then want to complain about its source, who wrote it, or whatever, be my guest. Right now, you are like the people who complain about who is in political office, but didn't vote. Shut up, and quit complaining if you are too lazy to read the article.

Yeah, but that means you actually have to believe qualified scientists when they talk about science. Common sense tells us we should listen to economists on matters of biology, geology, ecology, climatology and physics.
I assume that you are not JOKING and that I shall have to resort to fisticuffs. I'll be waiting for you patiently outside my home waiting for you to throw down.

I assume that you are not JOKING and that I shall have to resort to fisticuffs. I'll be waiting for you patiently outside my home waiting for you to throw down.

Okay, I'll meet you at your cardboard box, commie!



:rolleyes: of course I was joking. Of course, you were too. Shall we both raise a beer in a toast to the art of sarcasm?

If you are not going to even read the article that started this thread, than just shut the hell up and go away. If you read it, and then want to complain about its source, who wrote it, or whatever, be my guest. Right now, you are like the people who complain about who is in political office, but didn't vote. Shut up, and quit complaining if you are too lazy to read the article.

And you would be who, to dictate who can speak and what they can say? Are you a moderator or just assuming you have the authority to act as one? Quite frankly as far as I am concerned you can kiss my ass. Why not grow some real nuts and go talk that smack to someone who can reach out and snatch your sorry ass.

Okay, I'll meet you at your cardboard box, commie!



:rolleyes: of course I was joking. Of course, you were too. Shall we both raise a beer in a toast to the art of sarcasm?
I suppose. It really depends on what beer you brought with you though.

It'd be nice to have a discussion on this article. Maybe overnight my thread will blossom like the petals of a rose in a Spring time shower.

And you would be who, to dictate who can speak and what they can say? Are you a moderator or just assuming you have the authority to act as one? Quite frankly as far as I am concerned you can kiss my ass. Why not grow some real nuts and go talk that smack to someone who can reach out and snatch your sorry ass.
I do, its called holding debates in the real world. Face to face. And when we do that, we read each other's articles and information before disecting it.

bump

This is one of those things that Jon Stewart has been complaining about for a while as well, the idea that reporting these days is just repeating what both sides say without any real investigation.

It's something I've seen here, after the election or even during the election, people rated bias by listing the number of negative articles against each candidate, as if balance was rated as "Well, we said three bad things about Bush this week, we better find three bad things to say about Kerry..."

The argument of bias is a Red Herring that journailists have followed abandoning the real issue, accuracy.

The argument of bias is a Red Herring that journailists have followed abandoning the real issue, accuracy.

what i find surprising is just how far the hardcore right has been successful in the states at scaring the media into retreating into epistemic relativism, giving up on the very notion that there are facts out in the world to be discovered. and all by crying about 'liberal bias in the media'. well, and also by buying up the media and flooding the political discourse with blatant lies. if it wasn't so damn dangerous and scary, it'd be impressive.