3 ms·
So the article is true, but you don’t like it because it’s from WSJ? Let me guess, I should be reading CNN, TheHill or WaPo? If people keep demanding sensatio
by tekknik 3y ago
So the article is true, but you don’t like it because it’s from WSJ?
Let me guess, I should be reading CNN, TheHill or WaPo?
If people keep demanding sensationalist news that drives people to action then you’ll end up with people that mistrust the media.
- defrost 3y agoIf you're seriously asking for my recommendation, as if that wasn't already apparent to the meanest intellect, then I would strongly suggest you look to the raw data and read informed papers on the aquisition and interpretation. All 'news' papers, especially those that are heavily political and editorially biased (Murdoch's media empire, for example), will shape for eyeballs and reduce to the lowest common denominator. You can see that I chose to go directly to an overview on the Global Fire Emissions Database and chose to quote directly from there. The trite bite "Fires are actually decreasing." is meaningless sans context.
- tekknik 3y agoMany people do not have the time to read papers, jobs and life get in the way, which is why we use newspapers. WSJ happens to be one of the least biased papers, with a slight right lean. Fires decreasing globally is not out of context here. I find that information interesting. Sure fires are increasing in other places but it seems to me your main concern is around people hearing that fires globally are decreasing.
- Turskarama 3y agoMaybe you've heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Well, this is the statistics. There's nothing more misleading than the truth taken out of context.
- tekknik 3y agoThe assumption it’s being taken out of context infers the readers of WSJ are incapable of understanding what it means. It’s yet again an insult.