Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Media

  • Dan Wallace is Angry

    … about the New York Post “chimp” cartoon. While he and I wouldn’t see eye to eye on many things (though his Greek Grammar beyond the Basics is brilliant!) I particularly appreciate this coming from him.

    I don’t regard printing this cartoon as responsible, but I want to make sure to note that I think newspapers have the right to be irresponsible, just as the rest of us have the right (and one might say duty) to call them on it.

  • The Press is No More Intelligent

    I just watched the initial White House press briefing. I was watching on MSNBC, and immediately afterwards one of the reporters commented that the briefing was quite contentious, that the press corps was “feisty” and that this should lay to rest any idea that the press, which was pretty negative on President Bush, would fail to be vigilant in challenging the Obama White House.

    Now I think that a free press is very important in a democracy. I believe that one of the few things on which I can be said to take an extreme position is freedom of speech and of the press. But if the press that is free is also lazy and stupid, that freedom will do little good.

    In this case, the majority of the questions were stupid. While they may have put the briefer (Robert Gibbs) on the spot because they were unexpected, they also were unlikely to elicit any valuable information or pressure any substantive change. The questions on the retaking of the oath of office and the concerns over how it was covered by the press were particularly inane and childish. (I was going to write a short post on the oath thing, but Allan Bevere wrote a better one.)

    The frequent complaint about bloggers, however valid, is also often valid about the mainstream media. In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, there’s a scene in which a young reporter, carried away by the joy of reporting an important accomplishment says that he had always wanted to be someone who reports news. Our press should consider sharing that fictional young man’s ambition.

  • Rockets and Bombs Hamper Cease Fire!

    I’m working on some web stuff and have the TV on at the same time. I saw on the scroller for MSNBC that rockets and mortars are falling on southern Israel “hampering diplomatic efforts to revive a cease fire.”

    I guess one could say that things that go BOOM! might “hamper diplomatic efforts.” Somehow I think those living where they go BOOM! might not consider that to be the most serious consequence of the rockets.

    It’s weird what gets emphasis in news headlines!

  • Measuring Media Fairness

    A corollary of the fundamental idea of a free market is caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. I look at that from a slightly different angle than usual, not as an indictment of the free market, but rather as a statement of its driving force–the decisions of buyers. As a buyer, you vote every day on what will succeed and what will not.

    Regarding the media, both Republicans and Democrats seem unwilling to accept this necessity, and to believe that it works. To their credit, the Republicans do not seem to be advocating new regulations at the moment; they are simply complaining as buyers that the product is not to their liking. Some Democrats, on the other hand, are calling for the fairness doctrine to be re-enacted especially to deal with talk radio, which is an area that tilts strongly to the right. This is one of the many reasons that, while I left the Republican party some years ago, I never became a Democrat. I do not think either party favors freedom in a reasonably consistent manner.

    I might as well pick on two bloggers, though the information is all over the blogosphere right now. Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. wrote in his election Post Mortem that:

    . . . In fact as a recent Pew Research Report showed, the only major network that showed any sense of balance was actually the nemesis of the left Fox News, which had equal percentage of negative stores on McCain and Obama, and slightly higher percentage of positive stores for Obama. On the other hand on MSNBC over 70 pecent of the McCain stories were negative, compared to only 14 percent for Obama.

    On the Stones Cry Out blog, Doug wrote:

    The adulation given to Barack Obama was far more than can be accounted for by his historic run for the Presidency. . . .

    Now my gut feeling is that the coverage was not fair and even, but I have serious problems with the manner in which that fairness is being measured. Counting positive, negative, and neutral stories does not seem, without much broader context, to be a very accurate method. One would first have to establish a base as to what was the correct ratio, and I think it is very difficult to find an unbiased way of establishing that base.

    My gut feeling depends on my idea of what fairness would be, what stories would be relevant and what would not be. I then compare that to the portion of the media to which I listen more, which is admittedly more left leaning (more MSNBC than Fox, for example, and no talk radio at all), and as a result I get the strong feeling that the sources I watched didn’t balance it out all that well. Most commonly, I watch via the internet clips of the stories I regard as relevant. After watching a number of shows from start to finish, I’m very much convinced these clips are the only way to go with news stories–then I get to set the ratio according to my prejudices!

    The question is just what is the correct ratio of stories. Let me illustrate. If a reporter were writing about the Alaska senate race, in which one candidate was convicted of multiple felony counts and the other was, well, not so convicted, what is the proper ratio of stories? If we come back to the McCain/Obama race, another accusation is that the media favored process stories over substance (which is also my gut feeling).

    Assuming for the moment that the numbers and my gut feeling are correct, out of those stories, what was the proper ratio? I would suggest that the Obama campaign provided much less “process” fodder than did the McCain campaign. Bluntly, I was interested in almost none of it, but that doesn’t answer the question about the ratio.

    Besides talk radio we now have the blogosphere to try to bring various stories to our attention, but again, in most cases where I looked, while blogs bring in material that doesn’t make the mainstream media, very often it is less vetted, and less relevant than the mainstream media’s material. Since Republicans seem to have been on the short end of the stick, let me note that most of the stories of which they wanted to see more coverage, would have simply gotten me as a viewer to change the channel. I already knew about the abortion votes, Ayers, Rezko, and Wright during the primaries.

    I was also uninterested in stories of book bannings at the Wasilla library, unless someone could produce something more than an alleged conversation. I wasn’t concerned about who prayed for Governor Palin in her church. I’ve had people lay hands on me and pray who hold views I would certainly oppose, and I’m sure it will happen again.

    In other words, there was a great deal of material in the election that I found quite irrelevant. One thing of which I am quite certain is that two categories of stories got way more mention than they deserved: 1) Candidate associations, and 2) Political process.

    But why was this? I’m going to suggest that very few voters are willing to watch through a serious dissection of the policies of one candidate or another. Republicans who have talked to me wonder how I could favor Obama over McCain. Invariably they will bring up several topics such as government spending, redistribution (the socialism charge), and freedom of speech (campaign finance being an example). Those issues were a wash as far as I was concerned.

    The problem here is simple. The Republicans do not represent responsible fiscal policies. They do not oppose redistribution, and their candidate is one of the great proponents of campaign finance reform. A solid examination of the issues would bring all of those points out. One of my greatest objections to President-Elect Obama is the combination of his support for public financing of campaigns with his decision to opt out of the system. He practiced what I preach, but he didn’t practice what he preached.

    But the specifics of such a discussion are not the most important thing here. There was information available on all of these things. People complained that they didn’t know what candidates, especially President-Elect Obama, stood for. I don’t believe we have any major reason to doubt the general outlines of the policies espoused by each candidate. You would have a hard time finding out, however, if your only source of information was television news.

    And a note to my Republican friends (and enemies). If you think Joe the Plumber and the whole related discussion constituted discussion of the issues, you’re in trouble. But there were a bunch of people who wanted to watch that, so there it was.

    Which is where I get back to the free market. I think the media, and the television media in particular, do a much better job of reflecting the votes of their customers than we give them credit for. Debating the fairness of the various outlets is an appropriate exercise in order to try to change the market share of the various outlets, but not in order to pretend that it is the fault of the media that one candidate loses or wins.

    The media coverage is the fault of the market, and in this case I think the market is doing quite well. Barack Obama’s campaign with its internet driven fundraising, however, will point the way not only to a greater freedom in terms of political money, but also to a greater variety in the media. The weakness in the market is that minority positions can be driven out simply because they don’t have a large enough constituency–yet. That’s true of physical products as well. An inventor of a device that is only intended for a tiny percentage of people has to find the right outlet to reach those people who will listen.

    On that basis third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens have much more to complain about. Or not. You can’t have market share until you have market share, just as you have to have money in order to make money.

    I think it’s a good idea to look at media fairness, as long as it doesn’t turn into advocacy of government control, such as the fairness doctrine. It’s a good way to try to persuade people to vote with their channel changers–the one appropriate way in which to control expression.

  • Police Can’t Afford to Jump to Conclusions

    . . . but reporters apparently can. I’m going to embed the fox video that set this off. I saw it on the TV while eating my lunch, and then looked it up for your viewing pleasure (or not).

    I’m pretty tense about any government official overstepping the bounds of their authority. Police face great danger for our sakes, but they also receive great trust, and they should be careful to merit that trust. Most of the time they do. When they don’t, I’ll speak about that.

    But very often I think the media doesn’t take the time to determine facts before they start pushing. Now the video I’m embedding isn’t horribly offensive. It’s just a reporter trying to push a spokesman for the Phoenix police department to say more than he knows. The death in question is very suspicious. But you see, I can afford to jump to conclusions and decide that a college professor in whose home an unconscious teenager was found is a pervert and possibly a murderer. I can, even though I won’t. If I did, however, the consequences are very minor, because I lack any form of authority to act.

    The reporter has more power than I do, based on the size of his audience. In my view, that should make him more responsible. Why should we come to conclusions before we have all the facts? Of course the answer is “ratings.” It’s much better for one’s ratings to announce the actual result first.

    The police spokesman, representing the Phoenix police department, has a much greater responsibility, one that he is carrying out quite well. He and his department can’t afford to jump to conclusions, however obvious those conclusions appear on the surface. He and his department are quite right to wait till they get all the facts, such as the coroner’s report and the tox screen. That is the best thing for justice. They’re doing that, as far as I can see. If the reporter had any evidence available that was not made public, he failed to make use of it, thus I would say that the “I don’t know” and “wait until the evidence is in” approach is the correct one.

    I feel for the police and prosecutors in a situation like this. If they go too far, too fast, they face the possibility of lawsuits, they ruin reputations perhaps needlessly, and they may muddy the waters so that justice will never be done. If they hold back, they face accusations that they aren’t working hard enough or are missing the obvious.

    I’m firmly on the side of caution. If we think things go too slowly in investigations, perhaps we should remember this at election time when tax issues are voted or candidates are elected who will decide on the budget. We must hold public officials, including police, accountable, but accountability minus appropriate resources is just bullying.

    I’m firmly on the side of letting them have the time to do their job. I sympathize with a family that is hurting. But the course of action that will most probably result in justice is to let the facts come in, be sorted out, and be taken care of. I certainly cannot be certain that their choice to hire a detective is wrong. I’m commenting strictly on the interview between the police spokesman and the Fox interviewer and their respective attitudes.

    And the interviewer should realize that when he jumps to conclusions, the worst consequence is a retraction by the network. If the police jump to a conclusion, many lives may be irreparably harmed.

  • XVIVO Claims Copyright Violation in Expelled!

    As has been previously reported by a number of bloggers, XVIVO believes that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has infringed on their copyright by using portions of their video The Inner Life of a Cell.

    In a letter demanding that this material be removed prior to the movie’s release, and threatening legal action if it is not, David Bolinsky, XVIVO LLC partner and medical director, said:

    It has come to our intention that Premise Media and Rampant Films has produced a film entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which is scheduled for commercial release and distribution on April 18, 2008. To our knowledge, this film includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled The Inner Life of a Cell. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in this video, and has not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of this material.

    It looks like there is enough copying just in the promotional material that XVIVO believes it has grounds for this action.

    It is just too ironic that a movie produced to tell us about the moral problems of atheism and “Darwinism” includes plagiarized material. Just amazing.

    Stay tuned. Perhaps folks were expelled for plagiarism, and not for creative ideas!

    Note: As I was putting in the link to the earlier article from ERV above, I note that ERV also has the full letter posted. So if you want more than my snippet go there. Come to think of it, go there anyhow. It’s a great blog.

  • Suppressed and Talking about it Everywhere

    After reading this review of Expelled!, (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) based only on the 10 minute trailer, I decided to go view the various trailers for myself.

    This is a movie that I have very little interest in seeing. Let me explain that. It’s not that I don’t want to hear about ID, but I need something that at least purports to provide some sort of information, some sort of argument in favor of it. I might reject that argument after reading, but I’m not going to be attracted to the material unless such an argument is made. For me to read something, or even more for me to view something, I require some sort of reason, and since I dislike watching informational videos in general, I need an extraordinary reason to go watch one. In the case of something like Expelled!, I also rest in the knowledge that I have friends who are attracted to these things like motorists to wrecks, and they will write about it.

    Having watched the trailers I can now tell you that not only do they not give me any reason to watch the movie; they give me numerous reasons not to bother. I certainly won’t shell out money for it, and I like the energy to arrange to get my name on the list for a free showing as PZ Myers did (unsuccessfully) and Richard Dawkins did (successfully). Incidentally, I should mention that I don’t accept the explanations of the Expelled! crowd that Myers and Dawkins were gate crashers. I fully support what they did in that case. More importantly, I think it is indicative of the mindset of the producers that they did not welcome people whom they interviewed to see the finished product. Both men should have gotten in to see the movie and without such effort on their part. Myers more recent telephone escapade, on the other hand, falls outside my ethical boundaries. I confess that I laughed when I read about it (shame on me), but still, I could not do it with good conscience.

    Why did the trailers have such a negative impression on me:

    1. Misrepresentation of evolution
      It’s difficult to explain a theory properly in a short period of time, but there was no attempt made to correctly represent the theory of evolution. References to a totally random process or to lightning hitting some mud are misrepresentations intended to ridicule, not to inform. The ridicule is in no way surprising. This is constant in creationist materials on evolution. It was, in fact, one of the major elements that drew me away from creationism. This problem is especially egregious in a movie that complains about the way intelligent design (ID) advocates are ridiculed in science.
    2. First amendment issues are badly confused
      The first amendment doesn’t provide you with the right to have a particular scientific magazine publish your article, nor does it protect editors from the consequences of not following the rules (Sternberg). Peer review exists for a purpose, and that is to exclude articles that do not provide sufficient fodder for study by those who will read the journal in question. It assures readers, not that the material is all true, but that the material has enough scientific merit to be considered. Further, the first amendment doesn’t guarantee you a job at a particular university, or tenure, nor does it protect you from ridicule. In fact, the first amendment protects the right of others to ridicule you.
    3. Academic freedom doesn’t guarantee you a job or tenure
      Tenure is given to people who uphold certain standards and will advance the university. Personally, I’m not all that excited about the tenure system, but that’s because I think freedom is better protected by the variety of institutions of higher education than by a fight at a particular one. A person denied tenure is not automatically denied free speech. He can go down the road. I’m fairly sure the Expelled! crowd could find reasons that someone should be denied tenure; they just don’t think their particular silliness is a good reason.
    4. The problem for intelligent design is not that it hasn’t been considered
      In fact, it hasn’t even truly been presented yet, and I don’t mean that the meanies in the educational establishment didn’t allow it a hearing. Rather, it simply has never presented a scientific program that could truly be tested. The ID crowd want something for nothing. They want to be regarded as purveyors of a scientific theory without doing the work. Some want their theory to be presented in high school, without going through the process of consensus building.
    5. The connection of evolution with Hitler
      There are a very small number of things that deserve to be compared with Nazism. There are a variety of causes. Claiming that the theory of evolution is a cause of Nazi Germany and the holocaust is blatantly false. In a movie that complains of ridicule for ID advocates, this level of slander is incredible. Even in the trailer (and according to reviews the movie is worse), the implication of a Nazi connection is not at all subtle. It just goes to show the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of the film’s makers, and Ben Stein as a spokesman. They cannot possibly have any clue of how Nazi Germany suppressed people, and at the same time claim that there is a relationship between that and their claimed suppression here. That’s why I titled my post as I did. Intelligent design has provided us with the most heard, published, talked-about, and taught “suppressed” theory in history.
    6. Lastly, the one that annoys me most, is the lie that accepting the theory of evolution is the equivalent of atheism
      Repeatedly, Ben Stein equates the theory of evolution with atheism, and claims that all ID wants is to open the door to considering that God might have done something. Evolution may be incompatible with certain forms of Biblical interpretation, but it is in no way incompatible with basic theism.

    For people who claim suppression, these folks certainly act more like the liars and propagandists who help nurture suppression. If one were to propose a conspiracy in America, one might find more validity in seeing a conspiracy in the general removal of the word “evolution” from science standards so that now, when creationists push to get their view into the public school classrooms, few people really understand what evolution actually is. This facilitates the lies about it told in just the trailers to this movie.

  • What is a Level Playing Field?

    According to the New York Times, Dr. Richard Dawkins “withered” when confronted with questions in the screening of expelled:

    Mr. Mathis said in an interview that he had confronted Dr. Dawkins in the question and answer period after the screening and that Dr. Dawkins withered. “These people who own the academic establishment and who have great friends in the media — they are not accustomed to having a level, open playing field,” Mr. Mathis said. “I watched a man who has been a large figure, an imposing figure, I watched this man shrink in front of my eyes.”

    Check this post on The Panda’s Thumb for some more comments on the development of this story. It appears that “spin” in this case has involved some very creative retelling. Did security miss Dr. Dawkins? Did they let him in intentionally? Inquiring minds may find themselves challenged by the large number of alternate stories. Personally I suspect that they missed Dawkins (while recognizing PZ Myers) as was initially reported, then thought it would look better to have intentionally allowed him in. That is just an opinion, however.

    What is most revealing about this quote, however, is what Mathis must regard as a “level, open playing field.” As I commented in in an earlier post there is a child’s view of fairness that involves each person winning the same number of times, irrespective of skill. Normally, as people mature, they replace this with the idea that the playing field should be the same for all, but that the “best” person (most skilled, prepared, determined, etc.) should win.

    (more…)

  • Enabling Media Bias

    Walter Shorenstein is decrying media bias in favor of Barack Obama. The only surprising thing here, in my view, is that someone felt they needed to write a memo–and I favor Obama myself. The question is just how media bias works, and what the bias is.

    First, while I think there is a natural tendency to bias a story in favor of one’s own political views, and journalists tend to be more liberal than the overall population (I believe), I think the strongest bias in the media is towards the unusual and the exciting. What do the most people want to watch and hear about. For example, I suspect that many people who may well not vote for Barack Obama have been more interested in how he will perform. Here’s where Hillary Clinton’s experience and time in the public view works against her. We know more about her than about Obama. If she wins, though it’s historic, it’s what was expected originally. Obama, on the other hand, is unexpected.

    But second, I think there is a simple fact about media coverage that enables media bias. There are very few actual facts reported in the media. What actually happens is that we get claims, followed by hour after hour of analysis by different experts. Sometimes the position of these “experts” is entirely predictable; they are the spin doctors for the campaigns or parties. At other times they are more unpredictable, because they are from political science professors or unaligned political consultants.

    There is time to actually examine and analyze facts, but that time is instead taken up by getting more and more opinions. Why is this? Well, this comes down to my big objection to what I would call “practical postmodernism.” This is the view that all ideas are more or less equal, they are just part of someone’s story, and the way to be properly unbiased is to make sure that every opinion gets expressed.

    This results in a rudderless program, free of actual analysis, while filled with reams of apparent analysis. Now there are many things I can say about this, but my key point today is that this approach to journalism allows media bias to occur and to be concealed under the veneer of the balanced approach. Consider the headlines about various polls, for example. Is 46-44 a slight lead for candidate A, or is it a statistical tie. If the next day it’s 45-45 is candidate B moving up on candidate A, or is it statistically insignificant. (Statistically both are within the margin of error and one would best regard them both as a tie. There isn’t necessarily any trend here.) But what viewers want, and the media wants to supply is news, and that means they have to spin it in the direction of change.

    I would prefer more reporting of facts, and there are plenty of those missing. I’ve been researching health care plans, for example, and while there is a great deal to read, very little of it is in the mainstream media. Media outlets could do the voters a great favor by researching the numbers in those health care plans and seeing whether there’s any likelihood that the projected savings can occur and asking what will happen to things like experimental treatments, for example. I admit that in my part-time look at this I’ve failed to make heads or tails of it all. I just continue to have this feeling that the claimed savings are, to put it mildly, optimistic.

    I’d prefer to see media representatives admit their bias and report what they believe to be true. Then it’s out on the table, and I have a better basis for analyzing their statements. I’d prefer more experts producing information and analysis, and less expressing generalized opinions. In other words, I think we’d be better off with journalists researching what they believe to be facts, reporting those facts, and get our balance either by reading or watching other journalists, or by analyzing those facts for ourselves.

    The implied standard of media fairness seems to be whether each candidate or “side” gets a similar amount of time and attention. I think that if a candidate commits a whopper, that candidate ought to get disproportionately negative coverage, and vice-versa. I think most of us are aware that the idea of an unbiased media is an illusion. It’s an impossible dream. Let the fact wars begin instead.

    I can’t end a post like this without reference to two sites that are perhaps the strongest contrary evidence, Politifact.com and Factcheck.org, who seem to be managing to be the most unbiased folks I’ve encountered, and are doing fact checks. I do think that we need something like what they do, only that goes a little deeper, but they are providing a valuable service to the public, and I present them as evidence that maybe I’m wrong, and maybe it can be done. Note, however, that in doing their job, they definitely run contrary to the “all ideas are equal” camp.

  • Stump Speeches and Empty Rhetoric

    I’ve watched with some interest the debates over Barack Obama’s rhetoric. He has been charged with using empty rhetoric instead of presenting actual solutions.

    I have a bit of a problem with this. Stump speeches generally are mostly fluff. They’re designed to encourage and excite the faithful. They’re supposed to be emotional. I haven’t seen all that much substance in anybody else’s stump speeches either. I looked around, but I can’t find any sort of analysis, and I’m not certain how it would be done.

    I do think there’s about as much substance in this campaign as in any, and I believe with a number of tools on the internet that there it’s even easier this year to get at the candidates’ views and records, irrespective of stump speeches. It seems to me that all the complaints about Barack Obama’s words derive form the fact that he delivers low substance lines so much better than anyone else in the campaign.

    As I’ve said before I’m not 100% satisfied with Barack Obama as a candidate. As an independent in a closed primary state I didn’t have anything to say in the Democratic nomination either. But I see no reason to reject a candidate because he delivers a stump speech very effectively. I think his opponents should find something else to talk about.

    They could always try more substance themselves.