tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post1130644888554554746..comments2024-01-16T05:48:33.523-05:00Comments on Errata Security: The false-false-balance problemDavid Maynorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921229607193067441noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-86883395503134005512016-12-01T07:08:00.924-05:002016-12-01T07:08:00.924-05:00Get best hacking proof, Responsive and SEO friendl...Get best hacking proof, Responsive and SEO friendly mobile website.<br /> <a href="http://www.pnpuniverse.com" rel="nofollow">Website Design and Development</a>P&P Infotechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00924113618381013377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-65753134299715955112016-11-22T19:16:59.406-05:002016-11-22T19:16:59.406-05:00Saying it another way: the author is effectively s...Saying it another way: the author is effectively saying that if I can persuade a sufficiently large proportion of the population to accept my argument, by fair means or foul, however pure or ugly the argument, my argument is, by definition, 'reasonable'.<br /><br />I'll leave it to you to think of some unreasonable ugly arguments that large parts of the population have believed in the past or could quite conceivably believe in the future.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00218203537404735086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-65690981543870265722016-11-22T19:02:05.262-05:002016-11-22T19:02:05.262-05:00Kevin, your 97% figure includes scientists who bel...Kevin, your 97% figure includes scientists who believe humans are responsible for 1% of climate change and scientists who believe humans are responsible for 90% of climate change. It is not a useful statistic to inform public policy decisions.Jon the Valianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16560532623048203962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-34833657460693680812016-11-22T18:56:15.655-05:002016-11-22T18:56:15.655-05:00The author said, "In debates that evenly divi...The author said, <i>"In debates that evenly divide the population, the issues are complex and nuanced, both sides are reasonable. That's the law. "</i><br /><br />That is not any 'law'; there is no possible guarantee that both sides are reasonable. Suppose for example that the population is evenly divided on an issue <b>because</b> of media false balance. In other words suppose the 50:50 split is a result of people hearing lies promoted as (or on an equal basis as) truths and not knowing the difference - and in any sufficiently complex and nuanced debate a large part of the population will not know. <br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00218203537404735086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-67910591182968370742016-11-22T10:18:06.723-05:002016-11-22T10:18:06.723-05:00Chris, I suggest you look at the full transcript i...Chris, I suggest you look at the full transcript instead of the heavily edited version used in this post. The moderator asks Rubio a direct question about climate change, to which Rubio gives a long and uninterrupted answer. Then, when Rubio objects to the skeptic label, the moderator allows him another 149 words to clarify his actual position. Yes, that is more than ample opportunity when you consider that this was a debate with 11 candidates covering the full gamut of issues.<br /><br />The public discussion about climate change <i>is</i> about man-made climate change. It is a facile and meaningless observation that the climate has changed at times in the Earth's history. When the term <i>climate change</i> is used in public discourse it is about <i>anthropogenic</i> climate change. That is what the 97% figure is about, etc. So if someone says they don't believe the evidence for "man-made global warming" then it's reasonable to call them a skeptic, or to say they "question" it (as in the headline you object so strongly to).<br /><br />Of course, I'm not trying to hold Marco Rubio to these opinions or any others. My only point is that this debate incident was quite reasonable and thus constitutes poor evidence for the author's thesis.Kevin Christopher Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12092674614957270373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-41890899473364696492016-11-22T09:09:20.700-05:002016-11-22T09:09:20.700-05:00It's amazing how your comment almost single-ha...It's amazing how your comment almost single-handedly supports the author's point.<br /><br />Rubio says he doesn't believe there's enough evidence for him to believe in "man-made" climate change. He is quoted directly in the very article you post saying that he doesn't disagree with climate change itself, just how much impact humans have on it and how much impact attempts to rein it in should have on the economy. That article is a perfect example of the poor journalism that this author speaks of, given that the headline implies Rubio denies climate change and then quotes Rubio in that very article as accepting climate change.<br /><br />What you have linked to is basically proof of the author's premise that journalists are ideologically driven to ignore nuance and frame people they dislike as idiots.<br /><br />Also, the moderator didn't give Rubio time to clarify his position, he called Rubio a skeptic as part of a question to the other candidate. How is that "ample opportunity to clarify his current position?"Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02310975782422533461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-2367674471822995312016-11-22T08:25:14.051-05:002016-11-22T08:25:14.051-05:00I believe that removes nuance. As even there Rubio...I believe that removes nuance. As even there Rubio's comment to Crist doesn't indicate a level of contribution. It would suggest, however, that he believes Crist thinks it is a large amount of man-made contribution. Likewise we can look at Rubio's "I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify it." What is "it"? Global Warming or perhaps 'the extent of man-made contribution.'<br /><br />The problem with a lot of these debates is we assume we are all talking about the same terms, and wind up being unable to talk because we're unaware we're all using our terms slightly differently than each other. If we could clarify our definitions I'm sure we'd all find each other far more reasonable.<br /><br />"Skeptic" is a good word, but the thing about Skeptics is they by definition are awaiting evidence to be convinced. Personally I believe Climate Change is real, a majority of it is manmade.<br /><br />Also to be fair to Rubio, 2010 is 6 years ago at this point. Science is constantly moving and maybe the mounting evidence now has affected his opinion of 6 years ago. I would ask him to clarify his old opinion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17076876569610200613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-83041952479703041682016-11-22T06:41:14.992-05:002016-11-22T06:41:14.992-05:00Did it occur to you that the moderator based his c...Did it occur to you that the moderator based his characterization on Rubio's past comments, and not simply on the last thing Rubio said in the debate itself?<br /><br />For example, this is from a <a href="http://www.tbo.com/ap/politics/rubio-questions-climate-change-83470" rel="nofollow">2010 Tampa Bay Tribune article</a>: "In an interview with the Tribune on that subject Friday, Rubio called Crist "a believer in man-made global warming." "I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify it," Rubio said."<br /><br />"Skepticism" is a pretty accurate word to describe that position.<br /><br />So: the moderator accurately summarized the candidate's stated opinion on the subject, and then gave him ample opportunity to clarify his current position. Sounds like reasonable journalism to me.Kevin Christopher Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12092674614957270373noreply@blogger.com