Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Media

  • Another Reason to be Involved with your Children

    MSNBC.com reports on a study showing that internet predators aren’t behaving the way people assumed they behaved. Instead in many cases they’re picking up teens by openly looking for sex, and there are some teens who are willing to go along.

    How can you actually protect your children? Even though I came into the parenting game a bit late (I became a stepfather in my early 40s), let me make a suggestion: Teach your children good social behavior either on the internet or off, and then be involved with their lives, on the internet or off. Without your parental guidance, your children are not safe. Automatic parental control systems are helpful. Law enforcement is necessary and helpful. But the final line for protecting children and grandchildren is being involved. It takes time, it’s not necessarily easy. Children, especially teenagers may act like they resent it, but it’s the one and only way you have to protect them.

    Studies like this suggest the possibility that we may close the door on 5% of the problem (or try!), while leaving it open on the other 95%. Involvement means that whatever the danger, there is some adult experience and hopefully wisdom there to evaluate it. You can’t be there all the time and cover everything, but the more you are there the better.

  • Numbers and Context

    This is way out of my field, but I want to link to it because it illustrates the way in which numbers can be used deceptively. I still heartily recommend the book How to Lie with Statistics from which the title is derived.

    I’m no economist, but I remember a fine discussion in a class “Public Policy toward Business” in which we were debating excess profits, and trying to define the word “excess.” One class member was busily arguing using a definition of profit as “sales – cost of goods sold,” which made the numbers substantially different. The problem is that when the public sees figures such as are used in Ben Stein’s article, they don’t know the definitions involved. They just see someone who supposedly either knows, or knows people who knows, throwing around large numbers. Propagandists in turn realize that most people won’t even remember the numbers themselves. They’ll just remember that they were big.

    If there is any one thing I would like to see journalists work on it is taking things like this apart and showing the public how it works. I know the arguments–the public won’t read that, they aren’t specialists and they don’t need to know. But if they’re being fed the propaganda, they also need to know how to understand it. Numbers don’t mean anything apart from the context and the definitions, yet spokesmen for various positions get by with point out that one number is much bigger than another, and then draw a conclusion, and people left with the impression that the numbers proved the point.

    If journalists want to truly be useful, they need to learn how to handle the information, and also how to relay it in human language to the non-specialists. C. S. Lewis once commented that every ministerial candidate needed to learn how to translate a serious work of theology into language understandable by the common people. I’m certain many who have to listen to sermons would agree! Journalists, as opposed to mere parrots for media relations folks, should know how to take a complex subject, find the lies, and clarify them to the public.

    (HT: The Panda’s Thumb)

  • On Being Moderately Sheeplish

    Joe Carter has had a salubrious encounter with the human mind, such as it is, and has discovered that conservatives are sheeple too. “I have to confess that I’d always associated sheeplishness with the Left,” he starts out, but then notes how, in his new role with the Huckabee campaign, he has found sheeplishness amongst conservatives as well. He thinks he should have known this all along.

    Well, give yourself a break, Joe. It’s easy to assume that people who agree with one’s well thought out opinions are obviously brilliant and agree only because, having thoroughly examined all the evidence, they are impressed with the brilliance of those opinions. Then one encounters the so-called “popular mind” in action, and one finds out that this isn’t precisely so. And I’m not trying to be particularly sarcastic here about Joe. It really is easy to do, and quite natural. (Oh, and I had considered writing something about Huckabee’s foreign policy, as I thought it was getting badly treated, but since I’m not a Republican I never got up the energy to do the necessary research.)

    The addiction to secondary and tertiary sources is becoming (if it hasn’t already become) endemic in our culture. For many of us the facts come from purveyors of opinion without regard to references, sources, context, and logic. It’s not a particular failing of the left or the right, no matter how much each side would like to think it is. Much of public discourse occurs without fact checking. We believe what is said by folks we regard as authorities and we choose authorities based on how sympathetic they are to our own viewpoint. Often we avoid reading those who may disagree, and thus reinforce our feeling of rightness. How could those other folks disagree, given the overwhelming array of authorities (the six people whose blogs I read and who agree with me) who support our position.

    Now since I call myself a moderate, I need to add here that moderates are by no means immune to the problem. There’s a particular form of the problem that afflicts moderates in which we look for the extreme positions on an issue, not so that we can study the evidence for them and determine our position without excluding any option, but for the purpose of avoiding the extremes. Moderate sheeple make sure that they can in no way be regarded as extreme. That doesn’t mean that they are resistant to following leaders. Rather, they look for leaders who stay well away from the edges on any issue, and follow them.

    It’s very difficult to avoid this problem. I know I have caught myself following someone’s lead on a point without checking a few times, and it’s embarrassing. The answer, of course, is to check your facts, then check your logic, then check them both again. The only way to avoid simply following one’s impressions and feelings is to explicitly look at the foundations of one’s positions. But this is hard work, and modern journalism and popular writing is not helping us carry out the task.

    The tendency now is to cite a number of viewpoints. Balance in journalism means that one gives the various views on the topic. In politics, you get a Republican and a Democrat to tell you what they think, and you have balance. You get a Christian and an atheist to express their views on religion, and you have balance. Evaluation of the issues involved don’t matter.

    I’m sure we’ve all seen documentaries such as those that come out just about every Easter on the historical Jesus. Several scholars are interviewed, and as the material is narrated, we get short clips of what those individuals may say. But we never get their actual evaluation of the evidence in enough detail to judge for ourselves what they are saying. I rarely watch one of those shows all the way through, because I become agitated. In general I will have read at least something by every scholar they cite, and as they take abbreviated quotes from those authors and charge forward I become more and more agitated until I must choose between changing the channel and damaging the TV when I throw something at the narrator’s head.

    We have people getting the impression that they know something about the search for the historical Jesus when most couldn’t identify a pericope, or define what is meant by form, source, or redaction criticism, or identify one or two criteria which any group of scholars might use to determine historicity.

    Of course, they believe the documentary is balanced, because they have shown a variety of viewpoints. We’ve gotten to the place where people don’t think it’s nice to evaluate ideas. But some ideas are really stupid. Some ideas are really dangerous. Are we to expect journalists to simply present all sides without giving any kind of evaluation? That seems to be the way that we’re going, and I hear these complaints from people all across the spectrum of political and religious beliefs.

    I would suggest that we don’t want neutral media. We want diverse media. These days we have no reason to believe we won’t get diverse viewpoints because there are many sources available. Of course, those sheeple who are looking for a leader to follow will get their information from the easiest source, but in the modern world it’s very difficult to actually exclude an idea from discourse. Just consider the intelligent design movement. Never has a “suppressed” idea been so loudly and constantly proclaimed.

    Many today seem to think that “all men are created equal” somehow means that “everything is equal.” We want equal results, equal time, and so forth. But not everybody deserves the same amount of attention. Not every idea deserves the same amount of exposure and proclamation. A few more facts, a few more references, and a little more evaluation would go a long way.

  • Journalism and Objectivity

    It’s pretty fashionable to complain about the main stream media, especially on blogs. We bloggers are, to hear us tell it, the answer to MSM bias. Now I do think that blogging has a positive impact by allowing expression of a greater variety of viewpoints. Often bloggers are quality journalists as well. (I don’t count myself here. I’m usually writing opinion based on facts someone else has gathered.)

    But it’s not the differences in types of journalism that interests me most. I believe we each need to evaluate information sources one by one for their reliability and double check even the most reliable. There are reliable and unreliable print journals, and reliable and unreliable blogs. There is no way one can avoid the need to think critically and to check facts.

    This morning when I first turned on the TV, I came across a show on a public access channel discussing a “different view” of the September 11 attacks. The narrator claimed to provide evidence that it was not civilian airliners that struck the twin towers, that the pentagon attack was faked, and that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania. The main stream media, left, right, and center, are apparently involved in a conspiracy to hide these “facts” from the general public.

    And there is fertile ground in which to sow doubt about the MSM, which the designers of the movie exploit with vigor. “They’re lying to you,” is a quite popular refrain. Unfortunately, the general feeling that “they” (however defined) are lying is not helpful to people in making decisions. A reasonable skepticism is useful. Cynicism is often destructive.

    This subject was also brought to my attention in the discussion of the NOVA program Judgment Day. Some people have brought accusations of bias against the producers of that show because it favors the anti-intelligent design (ID) side of the argument. And I will definitely concede that ID comes out of the movie looking worse for wear.

    So what do I want in journalism? Should I expect to have heard all possible viewpoints on the 9/11 attacks, even those that are clearly ridiculous? Should NOVA present ID and evolution as equal options, no matter how they evaluate them, or should they evaluate and present the results of their evaluation?

    I’m troubled that so many people have come to regard fairness as equal treatment of all ideas. If you have a spokesman for both sides (and we do seem to reduce so many issues to just two sides), and you give them equal time, then you have been fair. Now I suspect that few readers think that the idea that 9/11 was a massive conspiracy should get equal time with the well-established views based on a fairly open analysis of the evidence. Many more will believe that it would be appropriate to give equal time to ID and evolution.

    But what is the basis for either decision? There has to be some evaluation involved. What we do is informally evaluate ideas as “in” or “out” and then expect fair, or equal treatment for everything in between. I don’t think it is either possible or desirable to be fair in this way.

    Here’s what I would like from a good journalist:

    1. Careful checking of the facts (not the opinions, the actual data points on which they are based
    2. Evaluation of the evidence and views
    3. Proportional time in presentation
    4. Presentation of the pros and cons of each selected view
    5. Sufficient time taken on a topic to provide sources a user can use to follow up

    In other words, evaluation and not “fairness” defined as equal time.

    While people depend equal time, this type of journalism is not likely to predominate. That is because as much as we, the public, complain about the mainstream media, they are the mainstream because that is what we pay for and watch. If we truly demanded and then watched, listened to, or read more evaluative journalism, that is what we would get, over the long term.

    The problem, as I see it, is that our culture now seems to regard it as impolite to tell someone outright that their position is wrong, or is of less value than other positions. But ideas are absolutely not equal in reality. My views of physics are by no means equal to that of a physicist, on medicine they are not equal to those of a physician, and on biology they are not equal to those of a biologist. On the other hand, the views of a layman are not the equal of mine in terms of the meaning of a word in Biblical Greek or Hebrew. Some ideas are just plain wrong, and if we define fairness and objectivity in journalism so as to require that a journalist never points that out, we’ll pretty much guarantee that we will be misinformed.

    Let me use one last illustration from the political world. It’s election season. Suppose a group puts on a negative ad about a particular candidate. The ad may be true, false, or somewhat misleading. What is a journalist to do? Many people believe the journalist should just give time both to the ad and to the target’s response. I believe good journalism would do their best to get at the facts and then label the ad appropriately. (In the last election, I saw quite a number of cases of journalists doing just that, for which they are to be congratulated. May their number increase.)

    And how do we filter for bias? Frankly I don’t think that is a problem these days. There are so many sources of information that it is quite easy to double check, or at least find alternative views. If we, as the consumers of information, don’t take advantage of that opportunity, we have only ourselves to blame.

  • The Golden Compass – Two Views

    I haven’t read the books or seen the movie, and thus far I really haven’t been attracted to them enough to go out of my way and do so. So why am I commenting on this at all?

    Well, I’ve been asked, and I have to say that I can’t really comment on something I haven’t read or seen. But I’ve heard …

    I do have one comment, however. I hear too frequently amongst Christians about subtle things in movies, books, and popular culture and how they might influence one. I would suggest that there are certain things I wouldn’t want to spend too much time on, simply because they are not what I want to fill my mind with. But I don’t spend my time worrying about it.

    There are two great defenses. First, for you–think about what you read. Literature sometimes requires that you suspend disbelief, but it shouldn’t require that you suspend thinking. Subtle influences are disarmed when you notice them. Try this on ads sometime as well. If you actually think about the claims being made, you’ll find many, many ads are completely free of any content. They’re just filled with subtle hints to make you feel good about a product. Thinking about them defangs them.

    Second, for your children–read with them and talk. This is good for you and good for them. Then if there is anything that’s a problem you can discuss it. Come to think of it, you can discuss the good parts as well.

    Now, I’ve read many, many posts on this particular movie, and I’m going to just link to two, both from blogs I read regularly.

    First, Ben Witherington warns against the movie and these books. I’m concerned with his dependence on the Catholic League, which is not a group whose judgment I trust generally.

    Second, in response to that, from someone who has read the books, Metacatholic comments. He has good guidelines for reading as well.

    As you can probably tell, I’m much more comfortable with Doug’s logic on Metacatholic, which reflects my prejudices. So for those who have asked, this provides the opportunity to check it out.

  • Important Senate Business: Condemning Ads

    They took the time to condemn the [tag]MoveOn.org[/tag] Ad on General [tag]Petraeus[/tag] (LA Times story).

    Now I don’t like the ad, and I don’t particularly like MoveOn.org, and I think private groups and politicians should go ahead and do all the condemning that the ad deserves. Though I’m an opponent of the war in Iraq, I think the ad deserves a good deal of condemning. But all of that, like the ad itself, is simply part of the free exchange of ideas that we have in this country. MoveOn.org gets to act irresponsibly; that’s their right. I get to loathe them for it; that’s my right. I get to think General Petraeus is wrong even though I loathe the ad attacking him, that’s my right. None of it is a matter for the law.

    And of course one can point out to me that the Senate didn’t pass a law. It’s not binding. OK, fine. But if it’s not a law, it’s non-binding, and it just expresses their opinion, why bother doing anything about it in the Senate? This is not the only such resolution, of course, and they have varying relevance to the business of the Senate. But right now, our government lacks a coherent policy on terrorism, the president and congress are wrangling over just how to behave in Iraq, thus preserving the maximally nasty situation in which we hold on, but with no reason to expect success. At the end of the fiscal year, the Senate will be running out of time to accomplish important business like appropriations bills.

    And here they are condemning an ad. Let them condemn (or condone) ads on their own time out on the campaign trail. That’s where it belongs.

  • Like Us or Die

    Here’s another case: Leader offers $100,000 for cartoonist’s death.

    The head of an al-Qaida-led group in Iraq offered $100,000 for the killing of Swedish cartoonist [tag]Lars Vilks[/tag] over his drawing depicting the Prophet Mohammad.

    I’ll say again what I have said before. Blasphemy should not be illegal. I believe in [tag]free speech[/tag] when it’s engaged against my own faith. I don’t change my mind when it’s going against someone else. Muslim leaders who offer this kind of reward simply reflect badly on [tag]Islam[/tag]

  • Of Miss New Jersey and Stupidity

    No, not Miss New Jersey’s stupidity, the stupidity of anyone who thinks it should be news that a young lady, especially one involved in the performing arts, might horse around. Those pictures are supposed to be some kind of scandal?

    I don’t follow beauty pageants, but I was bothered by this, and then what do I find on RSS? Amanda Marcotte, whom I have previously used as a good proof that there are really such radical liberals as I’m occasionally accused of imagining (well, whenever the same accusers are not calling me liberal), wrote a top class article, Miss NJ discovered to be human being, Powerline distraught.

    Yep. That’s what I wanted to say about this, but didn’t quite have the words.

    Now I have two posts to generate complaints from the right. My moderate image may be shattered.

  • More on the Cheri Yecke Story

    Wesley Elsberry has posted some additional information on this story on The Panda’s Thumb, and on his blog in which he states he believes the story is confirmed.

    . . . As far as I am concerned, the Princeton Union-Eagle is vindicated in this matter; at the time that they reported, Cheri Pierson Yecke was indeed saying that teaching “intelligent design” was a decision that local school districts could undertake. Both the quote from the Princeton Union-Eagle and the subsequent criticism I made of Yecke’s position on the issue are upheld by this source.

    Wesley is quite right to point out that Yecke has only to hold a press conference and state her change of view if she no longer supports teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms. If she does still believe it should be taught, that is information the public has a right to know.

    Since this whole issue resulted from Yecke’s use of ReputationDefender to look for negative material, I would like to call attention to this article on MSNBC, which reports on the other side of such activity. There can be a problem with negative information overwhelming the positive. It’s also quite possible for positive information to overwhelm necessary and important negative information. Search providers such as Google are right to battle spammy methods that try to get positive information into the highest search slots.

    There is an apparent bias in the MSNBC story toward “cleaning up” negative information. But there is no guarantee that the negative information someone wants to clean up is actually inaccurate. Accurate negative information, especially for those involved in the public sector, is important. The search engines cannot guarantee accuracy; they can only aim for relevance.

    In an age when information can be readily disseminated by just about anyone, and accessed just as easily, each reader needs to beware of lies.

  • Media Interviews, With Scientists or Anyone

    There has been some discussion amongst the science blogs about dealing with interview requests, in this case specifically for scientists. I had thought about saying something from my non-scientist perspective, but hadn’t really come up with anything. Then this morning, going through my Technorati favorites, I saw this story from Carl Zimmer. Now since I really appreciate Carl Zimmer as a science writer, I expected some useful information. I wasn’t disappointed. Besides his own comments he has some excellent material from Kevin Padian, someone who certainly is familiar with being misrepresented.

    One part of the problem with interviewers and how they report interviews is simply perspective. Let me give an example that comes directly from Carl Zimmer’s work. I mentioned that I really like his writing, no? Well, here’s a quote from my notes on At the Water’s Edge, the first book of his that I read:

    I personally dislike the journalistic style with many intermissions talking about the author interviewing various scientists. Those kinds of things feel like interruptions to me. For many readers, however, I think this view of the scientists personally may well be of interest.

    You see, I would be very happy if he had just jumped from discovery to discovery, telling me about the importance and how it fit into the story. Fortunately for the advance of science literacy, Zimmer was doing the writing, and he knows what people are going to read. Had I chosen the contents, there would have been many less readers.

    I do think many journalists are very careless, and I could cite a number of stories. But science, and facts in general, need all the publicity they can get. In the absence of interviews with knowledgeable people, the media will print and/or show material of even less quality. As a layperson I appreciate those scientists who take the time to provide interviews, and those journalists and science writers who put out the effort to popularize their material.

    The level to which the non-scientist needs to comprehend the subject is much less than that of a specialist, and in general any popularized material is going to appear inaccurate from some perspective.