4 ms·

Misinformation? A verbatim partial copy of the police force's official statement with a link to the original source? I'm reasonably confident that a Guardian ar

by keanzu 7y ago

Misinformation? A verbatim partial copy of the police force's official statement with a link to the original source? I'm reasonably confident that a Guardian article titled "Police contradict claims spread online exaggerating arson's role in Australian bushfires" does not consider the NSW police official website as exaggerated online claims which the police are contracting. It is a police source, if they think their own website is providing false information they can take it down.

cam_l 7y ago
Yes, it is a good example of misinformation. Firstly, by the NSW police for conflating the severity of the current bushfires with the people they have arrested for arson - even though they have pointed to no-one being arrested for starting any of those fires. Secondly, by everyone reporting on this article while removing the sentence which alludes to that very fact. By your comment, did you not read the Guardian article? It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. The articles main argument is that these reports from police have been misused with a campaign driven in part by bots and trolls (and murdoch papers) to divert attention from the real issues. Now while I fully believe that in time we will see actual charges laid for these bushfires, as usually happens, to report numbers before there is evidence to support it is misinformation. Particularly also, as you yourself have argued further down the thread, in that arson is secondary, or at least oblique to the very real issue of increased load and increased hot, dry and windy conditions.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. I read the article twice, I didn't see that. Please provide the exact quote. > to report numbers before there is evidence to support it is misinformation The police state "24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires" - they've reported a number of people they've charged. What evidence do you require beyond the official police statement describing how many arrests they made. An audit?
  - cam_l 7y ago
    >I read the article twice Sorry, I would not normally have suggested otherwise - I misunderstood your previous comment where you made reference to being 'reasonably confident' to the content of the article due to its title, I see now this was more rhetorical than actual. >Please provide the exact quote. "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." >What evidence do you require beyond the official police statement describing how many arrests they made. That they actually link the arson to the bushfire they have charged someone with lighting? I mean, if they charged them they have evidence right? Surely at least one of those 24 people have been charged with one of the current fires? Their comment that they are still investigating the cause of current fires suggests perhaps none of these are linked. All other reports I have seen of charges are from September through November. Why did you and everyone else reciting these stats leave the qualifying comment out? And why conflate the figures from the pre-fire season with the current fires? Why not just say that historically, nearly half of bushfires are suspected to be deliberately lit. Or better yet, 13% of bushfires have been proven historically to be deliberately lit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-ignition-source-how-we-know/11701132 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-igni... Do the numbers show the rate of arson this fire season worse than previous ones? If it is not, then why is it being used to suggest otherwise? This is why I said this is a very good example of misinformation. It is objectively true on the face of what is reported, it produces a compelling narrative which is difficult to question if you are just skimming the news, while leaving out pertinent information that may complicate that narrative.
    - keanzu 7y ago
      >>> It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. >> Please provide the exact quote. > "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." That's merely an accurate restatement of the police statement. You said "did not get a response from the NSW police" but nowhere in the article (that I saw) does it say anything about how the Guardian made any attempt to contact the police nor fail to get a response.

by keanzu 7y ago

cam_l 7y ago

Yes, it is a good example of misinformation. Firstly, by the NSW police for conflating the severity of the current bushfires with the people they have arrested for arson - even though they have pointed to no-one being arrested for starting any of those fires. Secondly, by everyone reporting on this article while removing the sentence which alludes to that very fact. By your comment, did you not read the Guardian article? It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. The articles main argument is that these reports from police have been misused with a campaign driven in part by bots and trolls (and murdoch papers) to divert attention from the real issues. Now while I fully believe that in time we will see actual charges laid for these bushfires, as usually happens, to report numbers before there is evidence to support it is misinformation. Particularly also, as you yourself have argued further down the thread, in that arson is secondary, or at least oblique to the very real issue of increased load and increased hot, dry and windy conditions.

keanzu 7y ago
> It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. I read the article twice, I didn't see that. Please provide the exact quote. > to report numbers before there is evidence to support it is misinformation The police state "24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires" - they've reported a number of people they've charged. What evidence do you require beyond the official police statement describing how many arrests they made. An audit?
- cam_l 7y ago
  >I read the article twice Sorry, I would not normally have suggested otherwise - I misunderstood your previous comment where you made reference to being 'reasonably confident' to the content of the article due to its title, I see now this was more rhetorical than actual. >Please provide the exact quote. "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." >What evidence do you require beyond the official police statement describing how many arrests they made. That they actually link the arson to the bushfire they have charged someone with lighting? I mean, if they charged them they have evidence right? Surely at least one of those 24 people have been charged with one of the current fires? Their comment that they are still investigating the cause of current fires suggests perhaps none of these are linked. All other reports I have seen of charges are from September through November. Why did you and everyone else reciting these stats leave the qualifying comment out? And why conflate the figures from the pre-fire season with the current fires? Why not just say that historically, nearly half of bushfires are suspected to be deliberately lit. Or better yet, 13% of bushfires have been proven historically to be deliberately lit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-ignition-source-how-we-know/11701132 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-igni... Do the numbers show the rate of arson this fire season worse than previous ones? If it is not, then why is it being used to suggest otherwise? This is why I said this is a very good example of misinformation. It is objectively true on the face of what is reported, it produces a compelling narrative which is difficult to question if you are just skimming the news, while leaving out pertinent information that may complicate that narrative.
  - keanzu 7y ago
    >>> It expressly does consider, but did not get a response from the NSW police. >> Please provide the exact quote. > "NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season." That's merely an accurate restatement of the police statement. You said "did not get a response from the NSW police" but nowhere in the article (that I saw) does it say anything about how the Guardian made any attempt to contact the police nor fail to get a response.