5 ms·

Neutrality is a mirage. Journalism can and should be fair without trying to appear 'balanced' or neutral. For example, there aren't really two sides to climate

Neutrality is a mirage. Journalism can and should be fair without trying to appear 'balanced' or neutral. For example, there aren't really two sides to climate change when 99% of scientists and experts agree. It's really only the news who tries to position issues as if they are competing arguments like sports teams. This seems like it's had a negative impact over all by giving a false equivalency, for politically motivated reasons, to issues that are by and large not contestable or debatable.

killjoywashere 10y ago
I think the networks way over-adopted the spirit of the FCC's Fairness doctrine (1) and the equal time rule (2). It's so easy to build controversy and call if "fair and balanced", which drives up ratings while suppressing the evolution of any meaningful progress in any of the affected areas. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
- diogenescynic 10y ago
  I think a lot of it has to do with CNN and cable news presenting politics as sport. Jon Stewart's take down of Crossfire is still relevant and if anything, CNN doubled down on what Jon was criticizing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
nonbel 10y ago
>"there aren't really two sides to climate change when 99% of scientists and experts agree" So what exactly is this one side that 99% of experts agree upon?
- vkou 10y ago
  That it's happening, that we're causing it, and that if we don't change something, we are fucked. The only disagreements are on extent to which we will be fucked - will we see hundreds of millions of climate refugees, or billions.
  - nonbel 10y ago
    Can you be more specific? For example, I really doubt anyone thinks climate change is not always "happening" or that human activity has exactly zero influence on it.
    - moduspol 10y ago
      Well, I mean, the alternative is that it's a complex issue often touted as black-and-white to allow for taking a moral high ground against rational people that reasonably disagree on some of the conclusions and proposed methods for dealing with the issue. And if that's true, then it's possible there's no grand conspiracy and at the end of the day, either the evidence isn't strong enough or the case isn't being made well enough to get everyone on board. If the debate is being lost before they even start telling people how dramatically their lifestyles will have to change to have a meaningful impact on the issue, what possible hope could they have when those realities are laid out? But that's probably not true, so don't worry about it. Now are you with us or a denier?
    - lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
      A certain commander in chief has in public espoused that: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."[0]. There are plenty of misinformed people that will gladly tell you there is no such thing and if there was human activity has no effect. Pretending that there aren't and even if the issue is complex there isn't a set of clearly wrong opinions is disingenuous to the extreme. [0] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838...
      - nonbel 10y ago
        I asked about "climate change". You are talking about "global warming" as if I asked about that. Are you saying these concepts are equivalent to the aforementioned 99% of scientists and experts? I'm really not trying to act dense, just figure out what it is people even believe about this topic.
- nemild 10y ago
  You might like Merchants of Doubt which goes deep into false equivalency in media coverage.
ams6110 10y ago
There is really no way to control 3,000 people and have them all having the same understanding of and all applying the moderation criteria in the same way. You'll be at the mercy of whichever out of 3,000 moderators ends up passing judgment on your post, whether they are liberal or conservative, whether they are having a good day or not, etc. I don't see this going well for Facebook.
btdiehr 10y ago
There is a debate, it's just not on the questions you're looking at. Climate Change is by no means a 'settled' science, one of the most important questions scientists must answer is what the Climate Sensitivity is to CO2. There's a wide range of answers to this question by scientists, depending on which climate model you use, as well as many other factors. http://imgur.com/a/vbOM0 http://imgur.com/a/vbOM0
- diogenescynic 10y ago
  The only debate is over the degree of how bad CO2 is, but we know it is 'bad enough' to be avoided. Whether it's really bad or just bad, we should move on to alternatives without that problem. As someone else said below, this is roughly like asking if there will be millions of climate refugees or billions?
  - btdiehr 10y ago
    Whether we are looking at 1.5C vs 8C is absolutely enormous in terms of what policies we should be looking to enact. Everything in this discussion is shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty due to the complexity of weather, and the thousands of negative and positive feedback loops which can take thousands of years to stabilize. Popular science articles misrepresent the science and ignore the variance/complexity, in the end hurting the cause in the eyes of those who don't agree with the prescribed policies to address it.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

killjoywashere 10y ago

I think the networks way over-adopted the spirit of the FCC's Fairness doctrine (1) and the equal time rule (2). It's so easy to build controversy and call if "fair and balanced", which drives up ratings while suppressing the evolution of any meaningful progress in any of the affected areas. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

diogenescynic 10y ago
I think a lot of it has to do with CNN and cable news presenting politics as sport. Jon Stewart's take down of Crossfire is still relevant and if anything, CNN doubled down on what Jon was criticizing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

nonbel 10y ago

>"there aren't really two sides to climate change when 99% of scientists and experts agree" So what exactly is this one side that 99% of experts agree upon?

vkou 10y ago
That it's happening, that we're causing it, and that if we don't change something, we are fucked. The only disagreements are on extent to which we will be fucked - will we see hundreds of millions of climate refugees, or billions.
- nonbel 10y ago
  Can you be more specific? For example, I really doubt anyone thinks climate change is not always "happening" or that human activity has exactly zero influence on it.
  - moduspol 10y ago
    Well, I mean, the alternative is that it's a complex issue often touted as black-and-white to allow for taking a moral high ground against rational people that reasonably disagree on some of the conclusions and proposed methods for dealing with the issue. And if that's true, then it's possible there's no grand conspiracy and at the end of the day, either the evidence isn't strong enough or the case isn't being made well enough to get everyone on board. If the debate is being lost before they even start telling people how dramatically their lifestyles will have to change to have a meaningful impact on the issue, what possible hope could they have when those realities are laid out? But that's probably not true, so don't worry about it. Now are you with us or a denier?
  - lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
    A certain commander in chief has in public espoused that: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."[0]. There are plenty of misinformed people that will gladly tell you there is no such thing and if there was human activity has no effect. Pretending that there aren't and even if the issue is complex there isn't a set of clearly wrong opinions is disingenuous to the extreme. [0] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838...
    - nonbel 10y ago
      I asked about "climate change". You are talking about "global warming" as if I asked about that. Are you saying these concepts are equivalent to the aforementioned 99% of scientists and experts? I'm really not trying to act dense, just figure out what it is people even believe about this topic.
nemild 10y ago
You might like Merchants of Doubt which goes deep into false equivalency in media coverage.

ams6110 10y ago

There is really no way to control 3,000 people and have them all having the same understanding of and all applying the moderation criteria in the same way. You'll be at the mercy of whichever out of 3,000 moderators ends up passing judgment on your post, whether they are liberal or conservative, whether they are having a good day or not, etc. I don't see this going well for Facebook.

btdiehr 10y ago

There is a debate, it's just not on the questions you're looking at. Climate Change is by no means a 'settled' science, one of the most important questions scientists must answer is what the Climate Sensitivity is to CO2. There's a wide range of answers to this question by scientists, depending on which climate model you use, as well as many other factors. http://imgur.com/a/vbOM0 http://imgur.com/a/vbOM0

diogenescynic 10y ago
The only debate is over the degree of how bad CO2 is, but we know it is 'bad enough' to be avoided. Whether it's really bad or just bad, we should move on to alternatives without that problem. As someone else said below, this is roughly like asking if there will be millions of climate refugees or billions?
- btdiehr 10y ago
  Whether we are looking at 1.5C vs 8C is absolutely enormous in terms of what policies we should be looking to enact. Everything in this discussion is shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty due to the complexity of weather, and the thousands of negative and positive feedback loops which can take thousands of years to stabilize. Popular science articles misrepresent the science and ignore the variance/complexity, in the end hurting the cause in the eyes of those who don't agree with the prescribed policies to address it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]