4 ms·
>What's the word for this type of propaganda, where they add in some sort of adjective that wasn't needed, in order to prime the reader on how to think/feel, ra
by coldtea 3mo ago
>What's the word for this type of propaganda, where they add in some sort of adjective that wasn't needed, in order to prime the reader on how to think/feel, rather than just objectively reporting the facts?
It's called an editorial.
It's not supposed to be a mere report, concerned with respecting any random person's feeling about how all electricity consumption is equally valid and should be equally respected.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoIt's called a value judgment and an emotionally charged tone. That's certainly a form of editorial but IMO not the good kind. If an outlet seeks to advocate for a cause it ought to do so in a well reasoned manner and with a professional tone.
- beepbooptheory 3mo agoCan you link to any examples of a good editorial by this measure?
- kevinpet 3mo agoEditorials are a thing. This is not an editorial. It's structured as a news report.
- hunterpayne 3mo agoCredibility is a thing. Articles like this burn it quite quickly. It really is past time that the scientific community needs to make a public statement rejecting these types of "journalists".
- coldtea 3mo agoThe scientific community has burned a lot of credibility itself to make any kind of statement to that effect.
- hunterpayne 3mo agoThat's the thing, the popular impression is that this is the case. But if you read what scientists actually wrote/said you would realize that what science says and what activists and journalists claim science says are quite different. That's why its almost impossible for a journalist to get a quote from a scientists on this topic anymore. Its also why there are almost no scientists who are members of "green" political entities (eg Sierra Club) anymore. Did you see a quote from a scientist in this article? When was the last time you saw one?
- defrost 3mo ago> Did you see a quote from a scientist in this article? The article cited the latest figures from Ireland's Central Statistics Office (CSO). There's little need here for Niels Bohr or a bleeding edge virologist to lean in on annual summary stats on civil infrastructure usage.
- hunterpayne 3mo agoThose are not scientists. They also compute GDP.
- defrost 3mo agoWhy do they need "a scientist" to compound statistics? They certainly have BSc Mathematics types. What is the additional scientific discipline you think needs to weigh in here?
- hunterpayne 3mo agoYour post doesn't have a reply link for some reasons but here is my response. What they need is expertise in energy generation. They need to understand concepts like a duck curve, power storage and its material requirements, relative EROEI of various power generation sources and a basic understanding of when newer forms of generation are likely to be ready. For instance, they should understand that renewables need to be well sited. They need to understand that the solar albino of Ireland is (far) too low for solar PV to be effective. Things of this nature. Engineering things around energy generation and the physics of how a grid works. If you don't understand these things, you are throwing darts at a dart board when you try to provide analysis of various types of industrial infrastructure.
- zdragnar 3mo agoThis is The Register we're talking about. Of course it is heavily editorialized, that's half their schtick.