Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Media

  • Fact Checking and Opinions

    I’ve previously said a few good things about fact checking operations such as Politifact, but I’ve also noticed a few questionable items where opinion interfered with facts.

    But today I read the article Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’, and having looked into this a bit further, I must say that the few issues I have found personally with the service are not really representative of the facts. There is, in fact, quite a serious problem here.

    The errors that Hemingway points out are of the same type as I have noticed, but his stories make it clear that the problem is much more pervasive.

    It is, however, a very easy problem to spot and to correct for. The issue here is being able to distinguish between fact, theory, and opinion. As I’m using these terms here, that means between the data on which one’s opinions are based, theories that connect these facts together, and opinions, which are built on the previous two.

    Some might question my distinction of theory and opinion, but I would maintain it is a valid one. Theories provide a consistent way in which we tie various facts together. A theory can be checked against another one by how well each theory explains the facts at hand.

    Fact checking is important, and I think it is what an organization like Politifact should do. I do believe that in many cases they do check facts. But they also treat their own opinions as better facts than those of the people they “check.” There is a certain amount of journalistic arrogance involved in that. Who checks the journalists?

    Read the complete article. I found myself in agreement with this article in general. The one issue I have is one I have not myself done enough research on. The question is just how valid a favorable and unfavorable story count is in determining bias. I think it has to be corrected based on who is providing the most opportunities.

    For example, I would expect a greater number of fact checks done on Republicans right now due to the presidential debate. They are simply making more claims. This doesn’t mean that the balance is not biased. I haven’t made a count that would let me say something like that. It just makes me take the claim of bias with a grain of salt.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • When Robots Chat

    This is too much fun:

    HT: The Agitator, who suggests they should be hired as commentators by MSNBC and Fox News. I agree.

  • Of Olbermann, Fox, and Commentators

    I’ve been rather interested in the reaction to Keith Olbermann’s couple of day vacation. There was quite an outcry when Fox’s parent corporation donated money to the Republicans and at the time I wondered just who imagined that such a corporation would actually be neutral on such issues. Where they give their money is a substantially smaller issue, in my view, than the way they portray the news.

    But with Olbermann we have the rather humorous situation of MSNBC trying to pretend that there was some sort of objectivity left in their afternoon and evening lineup on cable. I’m not sure who might have thought there was such a thing, but apparently the company was determined to make sure whoever it was remained deceived.

    Of course, Olbermann daily does more for candidates and causes than his three donations would have done. I have no objection to MSNBC enforcing their rules. Let’s just not make the mistake of supposing that objectivity was anywhere on the playing field. Purely objective news is a myth, and always has been. There was no golden age when news reporters were purely neutral.

    What we need to do is recognize the biases, and learn to watch, read, and listen critically. That is the only defense against biased reporting. The issue, I think, is not balance. A scales may be balanced even when using false weights. The issue is truth seeking.

    Olbermann’s show was an opinion show before, and it’s an opinion show now. There was never any doubt about which way that show (and its network) was leaning. Nobody had any reason to be deceived.

  • PNJ Picks 2 for Governor

    Our local excuse for the press, the Pensacola News Journal, is in endorsements season, and like many papers, they pick one in each of the primaries. Thus they have endorsed one Republican and one Democrat for governor.

    I should note first that I have a problem with newspapers or media organizations endorsing politicians. I don’t mind individual journalists expressing their opinion. But newspaper endorsements have always seemed questionable to me. Of course, if it is a journal with an expressed political position, there may be some justification.

    But to pick one in each primary implies, in my view, that there is somehow a “best” candidate without consideration of ideas, the sort of good general public servant. But I would not want to vote for an extremely efficient administrator, for example, who would promote (efficiently, of course) ideas of which I disapproved.

    I think the news media should inform us about the candidates. They could list all the elements they use in their endorsements and then compare the candidates–without actually endorsing someone.

    I must confess that I only read the PNJ when someone forwards me an article, or when it turns up in one of my topic-based news searches. So perhaps I’m not entirely objective about them either. But this isn’t really just about the PNJ. This is a frequent practice by newspapers, and I don’t think it’s a positive contribution to the political system.

  • Michigan Messenger on Militias

    I’ve been very favorably impressed with the work of the American Independent News Network, of which the Michigan Messenger is a part. They seem to be about going out and researching and solid information gathering. As I’ve written many times, I’m less concerned about balance–an ephemeral concept in my opinion–than about thoroughness. If you gather good facts, I can correct for bias.

    In any case, the Michigan Michigan messenger is doing some reporting on militias, first here then here, and some of the content might surprise you. It sounds like these folks may be out of the mainstream, but the range of views is quite variable.

    I really don’t have any first-hand knowledge or anything to add. Just read the reports. I found them interesting.

    (HT: Dispatches, where you’ll find some additional commentary.)

  • Journalism vs Blogging

    I haven’t linked to Laura at Pursuing Holiness in some time, but this post regarding Helen Thomas’s comments on blogging got my attention.

    Whether one agrees on precisely how much bias there is in media and what the bias is–I happen to think the largest bias is to stupidity–one will surely note the concern that traditional journalists have with blogging and other means of public information exchange.

    Now doubtless bloggers do irresponsible and stupid things. People with cell phone cameras get pictures that might not be up to standards. Sometimes people can get the wrong impression. Journalists in the mainstream media point to this sort of thing as a good reason to lament the fading of “real” journalism and the rise of citizen reporting and commentary.

    That line runs into a problem. As I like to point out in Bible classes, if you read just one position, it will often sound convincing. Why? Because the author has presented the positive points. You won’t have the full picture until you look at the negative points. Usually I’m illustrating this with presentation of two competing interpretations of a text. After students have heard one, complete with references to well-known, credible interpreters who espouse it, they will be ready to settle down and go on to the next text. Then I present the second (or third or fourth) view, complete with similar references. Now the first view doesn’t look quite a unsullied.

    What journalists are trying to do here is to make themselves look good by running down bloggers. There’s plenty of fodder for them to use in this task. The blogosphere will provide you with examples of just about any sort of bad behavior you might find in writing or photography. The problem is that the journalists think that somehow this should make us revert to the default, their default.

    But you can also find examples of just about every lousy journalistic practice in the mainstream media as well.

    Well, someone objects, but there are less of them. OK, let’s make that assumption for a moment. If the mainstream media misbehaves what do I do? I can complain. I can sue. I can hope that some other media outlet will pick up the other side(s) of the story. But really, I have very little power as an individual reader or viewer.

    In the blogosphere I can get my keyboard in position and bat out a piece properly skewering whatever person committed the misbehavior. Does this solve all problems? No, it doesn’t. But if we’re looking for something approaching the ideal, then neither the blogosphere nor mainstream journalism is going to make the grade.

    I think there would be a great place in society for journalism–if we had real journalism. But that’s not what our newspapers and media are feeding us.

    For example:

    1. There are not just two sides to every issue
    2. If you get a Republican and a Democrat to comment, you have not necessarily covered the field
    3. Not everyone who provides a sound bite is an expert
    4. Reading press releases is not journalism
    5. The value of balance depends on what you’re balancing
    6. Just because a question is rude, doesn’t mean it’s penetrating

    … and many more.

    If journalists actually sought for information, researched their material, sifted it carefully, and the presented it logically and completely, there would be a point in paying more for it. In such journalism, accuracy of the data would be more important than the reporter’s personal biases. I’m willing to adjust for bias myself, if the information is accurate. As it is, too often news reports are actually less in-depth than blog posts about the same news. At least bloggers know how to read multiple stories on the same topic before they write.

    (Note: The material here tracks back through NewsBusters to The Daily Beast, where Lloyd Grove reports on Helen Thomas’s remarks to him.)

  • Death of Newspapers = Death of Objective Journalism?

    As if objective journalism was the rule before blogs came along to “steal” newspaper content. I agree with Ed Brayton, who also quotes Radley Balko on this one.

  • Private Censorship?

    While I am an advocate of as open of discussion as possible, I dislike the use of the word “censorship” for the actions of private individuals.

    There are many television shows, for example, that I either dislike or even think are simply bad. I not only don’t watch them, but I will also tell others why I think they are inappropriate and suggest they don’t. The key element of this behavior, however, is that it is private and voluntary. Not only are people free to ignore me, they often do.

    Today there’s an article on Christianity Today about boycotting Bloggingheads. I saw this incident via the blogs as it happened, but didn’t have time to post. I personally think it’s a bit over the top to get that angry about one interview in which an advocate of intelligent design is not fully challenged. I don’t think much of Michael Behe and his views on intelligent design. I don’t think they belong in a science classroom for the simple reason that they are not mainstream science, and we have enough mainstream stuff to teach.

    But in the public square I think the debate is quite appropriate. Scientists are certainly free to stay out of it because they feel it is simply not up to their standards or for whatever reason they prefer. As someone who is not a scientist, but nonetheless encounters this material constantly I am going to study it and publicly discuss it. If I’m going to talk about it I will also encourage people to study what its proponents say for themselves.

    But this is my key point. That is my voluntary decision. It is the voluntary decision of the scientists and science writers (such as Carl Zimmer whose science writing is outstanding) whether or not to support Bloggingheads after they present an interview such as the one with Behe. They’re choice not to support that project is not censorship.

    It seems to me that many people not only want to have their opinion, but they want someone else to finance the publicity. Today there are many ways to publicize a viewpoint. Incidentally, intelligent design advocates are masters of many of those ways, thus their views get publicized in spite of any unwillingness of various outlets to participate. I would contend that this is precisely as it should be.

    On the other hand, censorship by law is another matter. But that is not what is taking place with reference to Bloggingheads. It’s simply private people choosing what they will support and how. And that too is how it should be.

  • Liberal illiberalism: Olbermann on Banks and News Outlets

    Keith Olbermann, regularly angry about many things, is angry about the bank bonuses. (I blogged some about this here.) His answer?

    Break up the banks. Regulate the financial industries, to within an inch of their existences. Roll back corporate legal protections. Make liable the officers of corporations, for their debts, and for their deeds. Resurrect the rallying cry of a hundred years past: bust the trusts! (from MSNBC)

    It amazes me how quick people on either side of the political spectrum are to throw law, reason, and caution to the winds when they’re angry about something. If the Bush administration, for example, had gone after businesses in such a manner because of some security issue, doubtless Olbermann would have been shocked at their perfidy–rightly so. There are right and wrong ways to go about these things.

    But more importantly, the reason the banks are behaving badly with the money they were given is that:

    a) they behaved badly
    b) they got in trouble
    c) the government bailed them out without asking them to change their behavior

    In other words, our government has been rewarding just this behavior. We’re asking when who knew what. But my question is this: What reason did anyone have to expect anything different? The obvious result of a set of actions takes place, and people are shocked.

    But Olbermann, who is quite capable of recognizing something unconstitutional or illegal (or sometimes even stupid) when done by his opponents is unable to see it when he himself proposes it. What he suggests in that paragraph involves punishing the guilty with the innocent, destroying the very foundation of corporate law, and would certainly tromp right on across constitutional boundaries.

    But Olbermann is not finished. Because the media didn’t get out the information, we need to get the government to make sure that the media is fair and that good information get out. Remember, this is the same government that failed to provide any reason why these people should not behave in this manner. People who can’t even write a decent contract for a loan are then asked to make sure that the American people get accurate information.

    Never mind that he is now jumping all over the first amendment. He’s on a roll. If people don’t choose good information sources, make sure that they have to do so.

    Like this:

    Make sure both sides are heard. Re-regulate the radio and television industries to limit station ownership and demand diversity of management and product. Re-instate the old rules that denied one man all the voices in a public square. End all waivers of multiple ownership of television stations and networks and newspapers in the same market. (from MSNBC)

    He continues by calling for similar regulation for the cable industry.

    This is rampant stupidity. Olbermann wants to limit ownership to produce diversity. I think that was wrong even when there were limited broadcast outlets, but in the modern world, it is close to insane. People are not that limited as to what they can hear, but even more, there’s no reason to expect that having the government decide what is “in the public interest” and what the people need to hear is going to somehow improve the flow of information.

    Besides some folks in the corporate world, who is close to the information here? The government. And who is falling flat and lying to cover it up? Those very government agencies charged with the task of keeping it from happening!

    So let’s see. In order to improve the regulation, let’s give the people who failed more power, to “[r]egulate the financial industries, to within an inch of their existences.” Of course we have been told all along that these institutions must somehow be protected. But when the veneer is stripped off, we get down to the real idea–let’s destroy them.

    Having admitted that goal, Olbermann proposes similar treatment for media outlets. Can one doubt that destruction of even the value that there remains in our media would be the ultimate result?

    I am often called liberal, and I don’t argue. I am certainly libertarian. When it’s time to deal with issues such as the rights of the accused at trial, a willingness to provide every opportunity for exoneration if there is evidence, providing safety nets to the weakest folks in our society, or taming rampant militarism in foreign policy, I am rightfully called liberal. I don’t reject the label, even though I prefer “passionate moderate.”

    But there are plenty of liberals running around who don’t deserve the title. When “liberal” spells handing all the power to government, and none to the people, then it isn’t “liberal.” With the same passion that I want to make sure that someone accused of a crime receives due process and eventually receives justice, I also want to make sure that a trader on Wall Street who has broken no law should not be deprived of his lawful earnings. If they are undeserved (and these bonuses are) there are proper ways of dealing with it.

    The Republicans have been accused of having contempt for people who are from cities, or are part of the intellectual elites, or various other folks who are’t from the “real America.” The Democrats have been accused of despising small town America, gun owners, church-goers and so forth.

    Unfortunately, it appears to me that both accusations are absolutely right. To some on the liberal side of the spectrum the guy who does his ordinary job for an ordinary work week, and spends the weekend in a hunting blind with his rifle or his shotgun, then heads off to church on Sunday moring just isn’t real. To some of the folks on the right–and now on the left as well, if you work in investment instead of digging a ditch or being a university professor, you aren’t quite real and your rights don’t matter.

    It may be stupid for a company to give bonuses to those who produced catastrophe, but there is a proper forum for action on such things, and that is the shareholders’ meeting. What about the public money? If we didn’t want it used in that way, we should have specified that in the law, just as a lender might when making a loan.

    Now we have representatives and senators who presumably meant it when they swore to uphold the constitution, voting for a special law to tax certain people’s specific earnings. It’s ridiculous. They know better. They’re using the legislative process to make people believe they’re truly outraged, but in doing so they’re expressing contempt for the constitution they chose to uphold. (To those who are going to say “What did you expect of Keith Olbermann?” I will call attention to the actual lawmakers who seem to be singing from the same hymnal.)

    After my criticisms of Republicans over the years there have been some who wondered why I will not in turn register as a Democrat. Well, you can see it in action right now. My problem, a problem I intend to keep, is that I care about the rights of rich people and poor, ditch diggers and Wall Street investors, college professors, builders, waitresses–everyone who tries to produce at all.

    I believe they should have the opportunity to carry out their business under a rational set of laws. If the law isn’t rational, you need to blame the people who wrote it and pretended it was something different, not the people who did their best to work under it.

    But even more importantly, I believe that people must have the opportunity to seek their own sources of information, even if they choose Fox News, or newspapers of which Keith Olbermann doesn’t approve. You do not diversity the flow of information by limiting it.

    I try to accept it when I’m called a liberal, because it’s usually the result of beliefs I hold very dear. I think the fear of the label is silly. But when you call for regulating banks “to within an inch of their existences” or when you want the government to make sure the media is “fair” then either you’re not a liberal or I’m not.

    I won’t fight over the label. I’ll just call the ideas stupid and destructive.

  • Brothers at War

    Irrespective of one’s view on war, I think we should strongly support our troops and those they leave behind.

    While I was in the military I was single, but I had close friends who were married and left children behind. One of my best friends was away for the first gulf war for about three months longer than I was. I used to go over and play some with his kids. (Their main conclusion about me was that, unlike their dad, I couldn’t build any kind of sewer using building blocks–the teenage mutant ninja turtles was all the rage.)

    His wife told me that when their son saw a parade welcoming troops coming home he started crying and asked, “Why isn’t my daddy coming home?” Eventually his daddy did come home, and that was a happy ending.

    Today I saw Gary Sinise interviewed about Brothers at War. I haven’t had an opportunity to see more than the trailers, but this looks like a movie that is worth watching. I plan to see it as soon as I can.