Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-08-14 12:00 PM - Post#167394
Accuracy varies significantly across major cable news outlets. All of them can take steps to improve their coverage of climate science.
Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science
I found this study interesting so I thought I would share. The article linked above sums it up - but the study itself found here tells the specifics in detail.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
04-08-14 01:01 PM - Post#167402
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Of course it says MSNBC was the most accurate and Fox was the least accurate. Al Gore is the far left Lib they worship.
Mother earth cycles through hot and cold and judging from some of the recent cold spells and lack of strong hurricanes this past season I'm just not too worried about the quacks on the far left of the global warming spectrum. Pretty hard to screw up Mother earth. She's weathered through a lot.
The variable deviation found throughout each news network is assuming the science on global warming is a fixed constant; solid evidence and 100% proof that there is global warming. There are mixed opinions on the science therefore you must have different opinions communicated through different mediums of media.
Some rich lib paid this kid to do a fruitless study.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-08-14 02:45 PM - Post#167414
In response to Allensince1993
"Climate Science" is dead.
"Climate Ideology" has replaced it.
If you agree with the ideology, there is no bias. If you disagree with the ideology, there is bias.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-08-14 03:00 PM - Post#167415
In response to Allensince1993
Of course it says MSNBC was the most accurate and Fox was the least accurate. Al Gore is the far left Lib they worship.
Mother earth cycles through hot and cold and judging from some of the recent cold spells and lack of strong hurricanes this past season I'm just not too worried about the quacks on the far left of the global warming spectrum. Pretty hard to screw up Mother earth. She's weathered through a lot.
The variable deviation found throughout each news network is assuming the science on global warming is a fixed constant; solid evidence and 100% proof that there is global warming. There are mixed opinions on the science therefore you must have different opinions communicated through different mediums of media.
Some rich lib paid this kid to do a fruitless study.
The sheer irony of your response has left me with nothing to say. You could not have proven the larger point any more effectively.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
04-08-14 11:22 PM - Post#167427
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global...
Science can't agree therefore the media can't agree. Is that easier?
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 06:47 AM - Post#167429
In response to Allensince1993
Are they covering my ideology favorably or not....no bias there.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 07:05 AM - Post#167430
In response to Allensince1993
Robert Carter??? You can't be serious.
 
It only took a couple of posts for this to evolve away from the paper on media coverage to citing the paid Heartland fringe.
I understand it takes a little effort to understand this type of thing - but I think it's worth it.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 07:33 AM - Post#167432
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
There is no such thing as cable news. That is the overriding glaring flaw in this study.
You have networks catering to a bias. Some lean one way, others lean the other. But none of them are news. They are corporate entities spewing endless streams of confirmation bias to their consumers.
The subject of the bias is irrelevant, the study will have the same conclusions whatever the topic is.
The study itself is just more confirmation bias.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 07:54 AM - Post#167433
In response to pup
I could agree that the study itself could be interpreted as confirmation bias if it was being used to make some other point than it is here. Do you see what I mean? By itself, it is what it is. You can over analyze this if you want. In fact, you have, in my view. But I don't see the point of that except to make some other point not related to the conclusions of the paper.
If you look at the paper, it's findings, and it's methodology for what it is, for how it was intended - it is simply making the point that out of three *mainstream* information portals - sources of information that a large portion of the general public refer to - none of them do the relative facts due justice. That's it. It's not any deeper than that.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 08:04 AM - Post#167434
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Name one topic that they do give it's due justice.
And how is it surprising in any manner that none of them do?
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
04-09-14 08:09 AM - Post#167435
In response to pup
There is no such thing as cable news. That is the overriding glaring flaw in this study.
You have networks catering to a bias. Some lean one way, others lean the other. But none of them are news. They are corporate entities spewing endless streams of confirmation bias to their consumers.
The subject of the bias is irrelevant, the study will have the same conclusions whatever the topic is.
The study itself is just more confirmation bias.
Exactly. Fox is Republican. MSNBC is Liberal. CNN has a left lean.
Name your topic and you'll see the lean. The study in question was a waste of money because the 'left' supports the fact we have global warming. The 'right' denies it. Fruitless study, period.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 08:26 AM - Post#167437
In response to pup
Name one topic that they do give it's due justice.
And how is it surprising in any manner that none of them do?
Exactly! So you agree. Why not just say that?
It's not surprising to me. The whole point is that it may be a surprise to those that rely on these sources for information about this topic. *That's* the point.
I might or might not be able to name another topic that they do or don't give it's due justice if this thread was about that. But it's not. It's about this papers conclusions relative to those network's coverage of climate science... and that a less than properly informed public hurts an honest debate, the democratic process, and decision making process.
; - )
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 1026
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
04-09-14 08:54 AM - Post#167439
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
They assessed “accuracy” using their own biased (and disputed) definition of what is accurate. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a very leftward leaning group that has an alarmists global warming agenda) defined what they believed to be accurate information. (My pet name for them is the “Union of Liberal Scientists,” but that’s a different story, and I don’t want to get too far off topic).
CNN was criticized because they allowed balanced debates.
Most of CNN’s misleading coverage stemmed from segments that featured debates between guests who accepted established climate science and other guests who disputed it. Such debate formats represent a framing choice that suggests established climate science is still widely debated among scientists, which it is not. This debate structure also allows opponents of climate policy to convey inaccurate portrayals of the science to viewers
It’s a common technique in this field where disputed details are portrayed as fact. Claiming that these details are not widely debated among scientists is an example.
“Disparaging climate science” was listed as a category of inaccuracy!
Fox programs featured 12 instances of hosts or guests disparaging climate science by questioning the credibility of scientists and criticizing the study of climate science in general.
Wow!
A summary of the whole article could be: Global warming alarmist group agrees with media that portrays the global warming issue as alarmist.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 09:14 AM - Post#167440
In response to nomoon
Says a guy who, by his own statements on this site, has a known skeptic-bias on the subject of climate science to begin with. Which is, of course, perfectly fine. Just thought I'd point that out.
I disagree with your assessment for a couple of reasons which I may or may not get back to in more detail a little later.
But I will throw out just a couple of quick obvious points:
They assessed “accuracy” using their own biased (and disputed) definition of what is accurate.
Similar to how scientists use their own biased (and disputed) definitions of what is accurate as they relate to the science of "evolution", origin of species, etc. Or electricity. Or gravity.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (a very leftward leaning group
My pet name for them is the “Union of Liberal Scientists,”
They may exist - but I am not aware of any mainstream, reputable domestic or international scientific organization that, when seen through the lens of the political or policy spectrum, would not be viewed as left or liberal.
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1551
Reg: 09-07-03
|
04-09-14 12:47 PM - Post#167459
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
I'm sure that there are folks who will claim the earth is flat. That makes it a disputed idea. The point is that climate change is widely supported and that some news portals, in an attempt to be balanced, give too much of a platform to positions that are not in wide dispute from credible sources. This distorts the news they present and has potential to sway policy responses.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 01:17 PM - Post#167460
In response to SB
Yep. Well said. I agree.
I assume that if it weren't for the observed reality that the public is not being properly informed by the mainstream information portals, then this organization likely would not have bothered looking into it in such a formal way. It makes sense to me that they likely knew going into it that their findings would be considerable and that if they looked into it formally, such as they did, they would be providing a benefit to those that might pay attention.
I decided long ago to refuse to look at this subject ("climate science" I mean) from a political or policy standpoint - and strictly from a viewpoint of "what are those that study this saying?" as I continued to gather information on my own. I don't doubt for a minute that if the science, at any point, points a different direction - then responsible members of the scientific community will reveal just that.
I also want to point out that the scientific method and the fact based conclusions that are yielded from that discipline on whole don't give a damn about policy or politics - they just are. What we do with them is up to us. Color them red, color them blue - the science remains the same. That could have been a Led Zeppelin song/album title.
whoops, gotta go...
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3859
Reg: 09-25-09
|
04-09-14 01:39 PM - Post#167462
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Am I off on this? I thought climate change was always well accepted by pretty much everyone. The climate is constantly changing. Global warming and cooling happens in cycles.
I thought the debate was always centered around man's influence on that constant climate change. That is in fact a very debatable subject. You could write the exact same paper in opposite depending on who's data you choose to look at. The same scientists have flip flopped on man's influence more than once.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
weblady
enthusiast
Posts: 147
Reg: 10-27-06
|
04-09-14 02:22 PM - Post#167464
In response to mgrayar
Reading this thread leaves me to wonder just how many of you have any scientific background or how many of you actually have done any real research into this subject. My spouse has a degree in Chemistry and is very experienced in quantitative analysis. Together we have read up on this subject and viewed the evidence. 97% of the scientists all agree that climate change is real and is caused by man. It is just a fact. Perhaps there is a real scientist on this thread who has actually done experiments, which can be repeated and up to peer review to disclaim this argument, but I doubt that very much.
It is sad to me that we spend so much time arguing about this subject and very little energy is put into solving the problem. The problem will just get worse, and it will affect us in a huge way. Hunger will be common place, as well wild weather and flooding of the coast lines. Our grandchildren and their children will indeed suffer, we only have ourselves to blame. These lame arguments against the idea that man has caused this are really about money and power. In my view this is very sad and shortsighted.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 02:39 PM - Post#167465
In response to weblady
The sky just fell on me and I can't get up.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/201 3/05/30/global-warming-al armists-caught-doctoring- 97-percent-consensus-clai ms/
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 225
Reg: 01-23-11
|
04-09-14 03:00 PM - Post#167467
In response to pup
This might help you stand again.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environm ent/st...
|
