7 ms·

It's in The very Fine Article: "While just 10% of the press releases Wetts found featured anti-climate action messaging, those rarer releases were twice as lik

by acqq 6y ago

It's in The very Fine Article: "While just 10% of the press releases Wetts found featured anti-climate action messaging, those rarer releases were twice as likely to get coverage as pro-climate action press releases" "Wetts said the results seem to support the popular opinion that mainstream news organizations often mislead readers by giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence."

reaperducer 6y ago
news organizations often mislead readers by giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence. News organizations used to filter out the cranks. Some still do, but more have buckled to the pressure to shove out metric assloads of low-quality content in order to satiate people who only get their news by scrolling. (It's called "feeding the beast.") And those that still do filter out the low-quality garbage are attacked on social media for being left-wing or right-wing, or whatever wing the social media megaphones decide is bad at that particular nanosecond.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  When heads of state of Western nations are pushing the crank theories it's hard to blame the media for not filtering them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
valvar 6y ago
I know this is beside your point, but the following part of the last sentence stung my eyes somewhat: >even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence This is not how ``Science'' is supposed to work. While the comparison is in all likelihood not accurate in this case (I happen to think that the establishment is usually right, and that it is mostly right when it comes to the subject of climate change), it is very reminiscent of the classic example of how the establishment viewed Gallileo's objections to the geocentric model of the universe. Science is advanced by adversity, and especially by figuring out what should be done when parts of mainstream theories are falsified or challenged. Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. The establishment are all very excellent scientists, but science (should) never really become ``established''. I think perhaps the most important reason for why the currently mainstream climate models are actually so strong is that it has been necessary to overcome a lot of adversity.
- acqq 6y ago
  > Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. That however has nothing to do with the news coverage. That coverage does a poor job or is even harmful to all the citizens if it falls prey to the manipulations of the political parties and corporations which are making simply wrong claims, using the paid actors. And that's what is happening behind the "climate change denial." The most current example of such manipulations, in something much more short-term than climate change, this is just not science: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-coordinated-reopen-push-are-behind-doctors-n1235100 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-c... And these surely aren't Galileos: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 "No Evidence That Doctor Group in Viral Video Got Near COVID 'Front Lines'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-immanuel-hydroxychloroquine-video-trump-americas-frontline-doctors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-... "Immanuel has asserted that many gynecological issues are the result of having sex with witches and demons (“succubi” and “incubi”) in dreams, a myth that dates back at least to the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” a Sumerian poem written more than 4,000 years ago. She falsely claims that issues such as endometriosis, infertility, miscarriages and STIs are “evil deposits from the spirit husband.”" Likewise, the claims from the "climate change deniers" could be checked by the other scientists, and if they are rejected, it's not because of some conspiracy, but because there is typically no science there. It's just a bit more subtle to be shown to the "common people" than "sex with demons." The science behind the climate change was developed through the last 150 years. Those that denied until quite recently denied what was already proven 150 years ago, then much later started to deny what was proven 100 years ago etc. That's not science. But boy were they supported politically, by the sponsors and by the news giving them "equal time." Also: https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of-cranks-and-charlatans/ https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of... "Galileo was not dismissed by the scientific experts of his day. His theories and discoveries were controversial, but he was generally acclaimed by scientific authorities. He was punished for contradicting the Church’s entrenched philosophical commitments." His actual sentence: "suspected of" "having believed" "heresy" "that the sun is the center of the world" "contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures": http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case_of_galileo.pdf http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case... "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture". By the way Galileo was really the "first" in hist "front line": he constructed his own telescopes and was the first to see the moons orbiting around Jupiter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons
ojbyrne 6y ago
Isn’t this just the nature of news? Common events are not news, uncommon ones are. So news is always going to give more coverage to the less common theory.
Aunche 6y ago
10% of anti-climate action messaging isn't causing ~30% of people being opposed to taking measures against climate change. It's the other way around.

by acqq 6y ago

reaperducer 6y ago

news organizations often mislead readers by giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence. News organizations used to filter out the cranks. Some still do, but more have buckled to the pressure to shove out metric assloads of low-quality content in order to satiate people who only get their news by scrolling. (It's called "feeding the beast.") And those that still do filter out the low-quality garbage are attacked on social media for being left-wing or right-wing, or whatever wing the social media megaphones decide is bad at that particular nanosecond.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
When heads of state of Western nations are pushing the crank theories it's hard to blame the media for not filtering them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

valvar 6y ago

I know this is beside your point, but the following part of the last sentence stung my eyes somewhat: >even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence This is not how ``Science'' is supposed to work. While the comparison is in all likelihood not accurate in this case (I happen to think that the establishment is usually right, and that it is mostly right when it comes to the subject of climate change), it is very reminiscent of the classic example of how the establishment viewed Gallileo's objections to the geocentric model of the universe. Science is advanced by adversity, and especially by figuring out what should be done when parts of mainstream theories are falsified or challenged. Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. The establishment are all very excellent scientists, but science (should) never really become ``established''. I think perhaps the most important reason for why the currently mainstream climate models are actually so strong is that it has been necessary to overcome a lot of adversity.

acqq 6y ago
> Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. That however has nothing to do with the news coverage. That coverage does a poor job or is even harmful to all the citizens if it falls prey to the manipulations of the political parties and corporations which are making simply wrong claims, using the paid actors. And that's what is happening behind the "climate change denial." The most current example of such manipulations, in something much more short-term than climate change, this is just not science: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-coordinated-reopen-push-are-behind-doctors-n1235100 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-c... And these surely aren't Galileos: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 "No Evidence That Doctor Group in Viral Video Got Near COVID 'Front Lines'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-immanuel-hydroxychloroquine-video-trump-americas-frontline-doctors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-... "Immanuel has asserted that many gynecological issues are the result of having sex with witches and demons (“succubi” and “incubi”) in dreams, a myth that dates back at least to the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” a Sumerian poem written more than 4,000 years ago. She falsely claims that issues such as endometriosis, infertility, miscarriages and STIs are “evil deposits from the spirit husband.”" Likewise, the claims from the "climate change deniers" could be checked by the other scientists, and if they are rejected, it's not because of some conspiracy, but because there is typically no science there. It's just a bit more subtle to be shown to the "common people" than "sex with demons." The science behind the climate change was developed through the last 150 years. Those that denied until quite recently denied what was already proven 150 years ago, then much later started to deny what was proven 100 years ago etc. That's not science. But boy were they supported politically, by the sponsors and by the news giving them "equal time." Also: https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of-cranks-and-charlatans/ https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of... "Galileo was not dismissed by the scientific experts of his day. His theories and discoveries were controversial, but he was generally acclaimed by scientific authorities. He was punished for contradicting the Church’s entrenched philosophical commitments." His actual sentence: "suspected of" "having believed" "heresy" "that the sun is the center of the world" "contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures": http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case_of_galileo.pdf http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case... "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture". By the way Galileo was really the "first" in hist "front line": he constructed his own telescopes and was the first to see the moons orbiting around Jupiter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons

ojbyrne 6y ago

Isn’t this just the nature of news? Common events are not news, uncommon ones are. So news is always going to give more coverage to the less common theory.

Aunche 6y ago

10% of anti-climate action messaging isn't causing ~30% of people being opposed to taking measures against climate change. It's the other way around.