5 ms·

There is an additional trick that the media use which is generally referred to as 'the media sourcing itself'. To do so, article A will make a claim, and as evi

There is an additional trick that the media use which is generally referred to as 'the media sourcing itself'. To do so, article A will make a claim, and as evidence will cite article B. Upon inspection of Article B, you find that it is merely making the same claim. Frequently, article B will cite the supporting evidence, but not always. Here's an example: A top-level Ars Technica article claims "the US fossil fuel industry receiving huge subsidies, estimated at $649 billion in 2015 alone."[0] To support this claim, they don't link supporting evidence, but instead they link a Forbes article[1] which merely makes the same claim. Only by searching the Forbes article can you find a link to the actual supporting evidence [2], which, as it turns out, doesn't even support the original assertion. [0]https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/us-green-economys-growth-dwarfs-the-fossil-fuel-industrys/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/us-green-economys-gr... [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/#35dd7aa94473 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united... [2]https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Glo...

streb-lo 6y ago
I didn't read the linked IMF paper but the summary seems to directly support the claim: >The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- HillRat 6y ago
  I assume the parent poster takes issue with the definition of “subsidy” in the paper, which is probably better called “unpriced externalities” in the context. (It’s still IMO a subsidy, but it’s not what we intuitively think of as such, and thus the data point is rather misleading when quoted in the press.)
  - streb-lo 6y ago
    Fair enough point. I would argue that you can't really take issue with calling it a subsidy unless you're willing to take issue with the unpriced externalities. If a government refuses to price them in it's effectively the same as directly subsidizing the present generations at expense of future ones.
    - jquery 6y ago
      I agree, however to ensure everyone knows what is being talked about, it should be called unpriced externalities, not “subsidies”. Overloading the word like that, without indicating that is what is happening, is begging for misunderstandings.
edanm 6y ago
I mean, that's not a trick. That's totally legitimate. Obviously it means there's a chain of trust here - if Forbes is incorrect, then articles that cite it will also be incorrect. But that's the same as when citing an original paper. (Obviously there is some difference - two different takes on the same original source are better than one take on a source, and another take on the first take - but it's not invalid or wrong to do this IMO.)
- tracker1 6y ago
  I'm sure there is often a case of incompetence at play... however, I'm also sure there is often an amount of dishonesty to say the least and outright evil at worst when news organizations do this. Another problem is not understanding the differences that statistics play in terms of how those statistics are gathered (controlled experiment vs epidemiological study for example).

streb-lo 6y ago

I didn't read the linked IMF paper but the summary seems to directly support the claim: >The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
HillRat 6y ago
I assume the parent poster takes issue with the definition of “subsidy” in the paper, which is probably better called “unpriced externalities” in the context. (It’s still IMO a subsidy, but it’s not what we intuitively think of as such, and thus the data point is rather misleading when quoted in the press.)
- streb-lo 6y ago
  Fair enough point. I would argue that you can't really take issue with calling it a subsidy unless you're willing to take issue with the unpriced externalities. If a government refuses to price them in it's effectively the same as directly subsidizing the present generations at expense of future ones.
  - jquery 6y ago
    I agree, however to ensure everyone knows what is being talked about, it should be called unpriced externalities, not “subsidies”. Overloading the word like that, without indicating that is what is happening, is begging for misunderstandings.

edanm 6y ago

I mean, that's not a trick. That's totally legitimate. Obviously it means there's a chain of trust here - if Forbes is incorrect, then articles that cite it will also be incorrect. But that's the same as when citing an original paper. (Obviously there is some difference - two different takes on the same original source are better than one take on a source, and another take on the first take - but it's not invalid or wrong to do this IMO.)

tracker1 6y ago
I'm sure there is often a case of incompetence at play... however, I'm also sure there is often an amount of dishonesty to say the least and outright evil at worst when news organizations do this. Another problem is not understanding the differences that statistics play in terms of how those statistics are gathered (controlled experiment vs epidemiological study for example).