5 ms·

See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 Which is a strange read. "Looks like the National Review was w

See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 Which is a strange read. "Looks like the National Review was way out front on this one," is not something I expected to say to myself today.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
This is turning into the biggest science story of the year, and for weeks most of the MSM refused to cover it. I'm not trying to allege bias, just making the observation that stories that don't fit into pre-existing media narratives take a lot of push to get out there. Usually it's the fringe media that keeps kicking and kicking until somebody finally picks it up. If I remember correctly, the National Enquirer was running stories of John Edwards' love child for months before anybody else would pick it up. (And love or hate Edwards, it was a real story that deserved national attention) I wonder if blogging has changed any of this? Sure would be great to read a study on how this type of anti-narrative story breaks today versus 20 years ago.
- spamizbad 17y ago
  There are several reasons why the media is reluctant to cover it. 1) The emails were acquired through an illegal hack, which makes them a highly tainted source for journalists who aren't pushing an agenda. Naturally journalists who are pushing the opposite agenda will ignore it, as those who who are skeptics will readily jump on them. 2) This leak was initially trumpeted as a the end of AGW theory, and has since turned out to be nothing more than scientists being douchey and unprofessional wrt their critics. Smoke, but no fire. There's an important lesson in marketing here: Make sure you set appropriate consumer expectations. 3) (US only) It's technically foreign news, and the American media generally doesn't do foreign news unless it pertains to our various wars or some 3rd world dictator says something bad about America. Long story short, this would be covered in the MSM if: 1) The emails were acquired through a whistleblower with legal protection 2) it wasn't over-sold in the blogosphere the moment it broke 3) US Media actually gave a crap about what happens outside of America's borders that doesn't involve a military escapade.
  - gaius 17y ago
    In answer to your point 3, hasn't Obama just set energy policy, which will affect the living expenses of every American, on promises he made in Denmark? This is a story of great relevance to the domestic American news consumer.
    - davidw 17y ago
      > This is a story of great relevance to the domestic American news consumer. Which means it probably is not hacker news. (Also, consider whether we want to see both sides of this issue posting their stories - if the anti-warming folks post a lot of these, the other guys are sure to want to see their side all over the site as well. I think it belongs elsewhere)
      - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
        I posted this article precisely because I'm not one of "the anti-warming folks". The tribal aspect of this debate somehow manages to be both boring and corrosive, so I ignore it when I can. This article is special because its facts aren't in dispute, and yet still tend to cast doubt on the consensus view that I, at least, thought was the truth. The discussion between "the anti-warming folks" and "the other guys" has been ongoing for some time on this site: http://searchyc.com/submissions/global+warming http://searchyc.com/submissions/global+warming Have you always taken the position that global warming is not hacker news? Or has something changed so that is was hacker news before and isn't any longer?
        davidw 17y ago
        I flag anything that has anything to do with it, pro or contra.
        mnemonicsloth 17y ago
        Bravo. HN would be a better site if more people did that. Particularly on Sundays. I have a few bête noir topics I try to moderate away, too, but I tend to draw the line at explicit endorsements of one side over another in a tribal conflict. I can see how it would make sense to just excise tribal issues and have done, though.
- patio11 17y ago
  I'm not trying to allege bias I'll allege bias for you, then. There is no conceivable way that you could produce documentary evidence of a Republican saying, in as many words, "Destroy this so that it can't get used for a Freedom of Information (Act) request" and not have that be the front page of the NYT the next day. I don't care if he was the Deputy Undersecretary of the Department of Who Gives A Care, that sort of thing is normally blood in the water. It attracts front page attention, massive follow-up coverage, and Pulitzer prizes. When it targets the right people.
  - spamizbad 17y ago
    You mean like the George W. Bush White house email scandal? It got MSM some coverage, not front page, and certainly no awards. In fact, it was only noteworthy because it was a meta-scandal that lived inside the far bigger one of the firing of US attorneys, a story that was basically set ablaze not by the media but by the moronic testimony of Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling before congress. And it was never wrapped-up or followed-up on beyond diggings from the progressive blogosphere because after AGAG was hung out of dry the media deemed its job complete. Anyway, your comparison is apples and oranges. Political scandals will always carry more weight in the public eye than science ones, if for no other reason than the fact that their hands are directly on the levers of power, whereas scientists just use a (relatively) small amount of taxpayer money compared to what is doled out in the halls of political power. And their impact on our daily lives is significantly less direct than even a mid-level staffer.
    - cwan 17y ago
      Do you also not see this as a political scandal given the policy measures that are being proposed in response to the conclusions some of these people make? These political measures being proposed have a real impact (financial and social) that far exceeds any war in recent years. Personally, I suspect that the AGW thesis probably stands given that it's more than this handful of apparently corrupt scientists. That being said, where does the science stand if we take out these suspect models and the ensuing research that was based on them? Given these scandals, why is there not more of a movement to make these climate models and data in effect open source? The level of secrecy, defensiveness and arrogance as shown by example in the Scientific American is especially troubling when you realize that practically all this research was publicly funded. Why are there non disclosure agreements on the data to begin with? (A real question - does anyone know?)
- mhartl 17y ago
  I'll join in with alleging bias. Here's a representative sample from the Los Angeles Times front page a few weeks ago (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-mtkenya10-2009nov10,0,3451662.story http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-...): From a tree-shaded plateau facing Mt. Kenya, the worshipers gaze anxiously at its melting ice cap and wonder: Is God dead?...The scientific community is divided over the causes of melting ice caps in Africa. But many experts believe the retreating snow on Mt. Kenya is one of the continent's clearest examples of climate change and global warming. There are two layers of bias here, one obvious and one subtle. Obviously, "The scientific community is divided over the causes of melting ice caps in Africa" means that some experts think the melting is due to global warming, and some experts think it's not. Long-time observers have come to expect the Times (and the MSM generally) to choose the pro-global warming interpretation every time. The subtle bias is that the Times wrote this article at all.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

This is turning into the biggest science story of the year, and for weeks most of the MSM refused to cover it. I'm not trying to allege bias, just making the observation that stories that don't fit into pre-existing media narratives take a lot of push to get out there. Usually it's the fringe media that keeps kicking and kicking until somebody finally picks it up. If I remember correctly, the National Enquirer was running stories of John Edwards' love child for months before anybody else would pick it up. (And love or hate Edwards, it was a real story that deserved national attention) I wonder if blogging has changed any of this? Sure would be great to read a study on how this type of anti-narrative story breaks today versus 20 years ago.

spamizbad 17y ago
There are several reasons why the media is reluctant to cover it. 1) The emails were acquired through an illegal hack, which makes them a highly tainted source for journalists who aren't pushing an agenda. Naturally journalists who are pushing the opposite agenda will ignore it, as those who who are skeptics will readily jump on them. 2) This leak was initially trumpeted as a the end of AGW theory, and has since turned out to be nothing more than scientists being douchey and unprofessional wrt their critics. Smoke, but no fire. There's an important lesson in marketing here: Make sure you set appropriate consumer expectations. 3) (US only) It's technically foreign news, and the American media generally doesn't do foreign news unless it pertains to our various wars or some 3rd world dictator says something bad about America. Long story short, this would be covered in the MSM if: 1) The emails were acquired through a whistleblower with legal protection 2) it wasn't over-sold in the blogosphere the moment it broke 3) US Media actually gave a crap about what happens outside of America's borders that doesn't involve a military escapade.
- gaius 17y ago
  In answer to your point 3, hasn't Obama just set energy policy, which will affect the living expenses of every American, on promises he made in Denmark? This is a story of great relevance to the domestic American news consumer.
  - davidw 17y ago
    > This is a story of great relevance to the domestic American news consumer. Which means it probably is not hacker news. (Also, consider whether we want to see both sides of this issue posting their stories - if the anti-warming folks post a lot of these, the other guys are sure to want to see their side all over the site as well. I think it belongs elsewhere)
    - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
      I posted this article precisely because I'm not one of "the anti-warming folks". The tribal aspect of this debate somehow manages to be both boring and corrosive, so I ignore it when I can. This article is special because its facts aren't in dispute, and yet still tend to cast doubt on the consensus view that I, at least, thought was the truth. The discussion between "the anti-warming folks" and "the other guys" has been ongoing for some time on this site: http://searchyc.com/submissions/global+warming http://searchyc.com/submissions/global+warming Have you always taken the position that global warming is not hacker news? Or has something changed so that is was hacker news before and isn't any longer?
      - davidw 17y ago
        I flag anything that has anything to do with it, pro or contra.
        mnemonicsloth 17y ago
        Bravo. HN would be a better site if more people did that. Particularly on Sundays. I have a few bête noir topics I try to moderate away, too, but I tend to draw the line at explicit endorsements of one side over another in a tribal conflict. I can see how it would make sense to just excise tribal issues and have done, though.
patio11 17y ago
I'm not trying to allege bias I'll allege bias for you, then. There is no conceivable way that you could produce documentary evidence of a Republican saying, in as many words, "Destroy this so that it can't get used for a Freedom of Information (Act) request" and not have that be the front page of the NYT the next day. I don't care if he was the Deputy Undersecretary of the Department of Who Gives A Care, that sort of thing is normally blood in the water. It attracts front page attention, massive follow-up coverage, and Pulitzer prizes. When it targets the right people.
- spamizbad 17y ago
  You mean like the George W. Bush White house email scandal? It got MSM some coverage, not front page, and certainly no awards. In fact, it was only noteworthy because it was a meta-scandal that lived inside the far bigger one of the firing of US attorneys, a story that was basically set ablaze not by the media but by the moronic testimony of Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling before congress. And it was never wrapped-up or followed-up on beyond diggings from the progressive blogosphere because after AGAG was hung out of dry the media deemed its job complete. Anyway, your comparison is apples and oranges. Political scandals will always carry more weight in the public eye than science ones, if for no other reason than the fact that their hands are directly on the levers of power, whereas scientists just use a (relatively) small amount of taxpayer money compared to what is doled out in the halls of political power. And their impact on our daily lives is significantly less direct than even a mid-level staffer.
  - cwan 17y ago
    Do you also not see this as a political scandal given the policy measures that are being proposed in response to the conclusions some of these people make? These political measures being proposed have a real impact (financial and social) that far exceeds any war in recent years. Personally, I suspect that the AGW thesis probably stands given that it's more than this handful of apparently corrupt scientists. That being said, where does the science stand if we take out these suspect models and the ensuing research that was based on them? Given these scandals, why is there not more of a movement to make these climate models and data in effect open source? The level of secrecy, defensiveness and arrogance as shown by example in the Scientific American is especially troubling when you realize that practically all this research was publicly funded. Why are there non disclosure agreements on the data to begin with? (A real question - does anyone know?)
mhartl 17y ago
I'll join in with alleging bias. Here's a representative sample from the Los Angeles Times front page a few weeks ago (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-mtkenya10-2009nov10,0,3451662.story http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-...): From a tree-shaded plateau facing Mt. Kenya, the worshipers gaze anxiously at its melting ice cap and wonder: Is God dead?...The scientific community is divided over the causes of melting ice caps in Africa. But many experts believe the retreating snow on Mt. Kenya is one of the continent's clearest examples of climate change and global warming. There are two layers of bias here, one obvious and one subtle. Obviously, "The scientific community is divided over the causes of melting ice caps in Africa" means that some experts think the melting is due to global warming, and some experts think it's not. Long-time observers have come to expect the Times (and the MSM generally) to choose the pro-global warming interpretation every time. The subtle bias is that the Times wrote this article at all.