Arlo -
I don't think Democracy! Now purports to be 'just the facts' - while
of course they wouldn't say they /distort/ the truth, mostly they are
devoted to news and interviews about left-leaning topics, or
civil/humanitarian rights in general. Fox News, on the other hand, is
equally focussed on conservative viewpoints, and occasionally makes
stuff up. CNN is going for whatever draws viewers (controversy)
without angering them (any perception of sidedness, even where it is
an inapplicable concept).
I generally agree with your analysis, and in fact appreciate it's
insightfulness.
I limit my "push" media to DN! but with a fairly good awareness that it
is very *selective*. I listen to it *for* it's strong progressive
voice. I am fairly confident in their honesty and accuracy within the
limits of their bias. I cannot say the same for Fox News. I am
pretty sure that they are strongly in the camp of "the ends justifies
the means" and "say anything". Their 2008 mascot, ms. "I can see
Russia from here and they ARE coming, let's go shoot some wolves from
helicopters, I'm a Maverick" was such a huge caricature of that kind of
"form over substance" that I gag when I see their talking heads and
banners (who *IS* that woman commentator with the constantly flaring
nostrils?).
CNN is a very commercial beast as you point out... my confidence in them
fell 25 years ago when my sister and brother-in-law moved from Spain
(where all media was government controlled) to Chile (where they had
access to Satellite media from the US and Europe). This was during some
of the big unrest in Santiago. My brother in law drove past the
Capital building *every day* and then would come home to watch Riots and
other things happening on CNN *at the Capital* that had patently NOT
happened. WTF?!
He and I were roughly crossing poltical/ideological paths at that
point. He was a young (but older than I) highly charged
progressive/liberal and I was somewhat caught up in the rhetoric of the
conservative/libertarian world. This was about the point where he (who
had become a successful exploration geologist) was starting to believe
in the message his International Corporate (backed by the US, UK, etc.
govts) bread-provider was telling him and *I*, was starting to *doubt*
the nationalistic/patriotic truisms of the National Laboratories, Big
Government, and Mutual Assured Destruction rhetoric. His TV now runs
Fox News 24/7, and of course, I spend all my time and attention
yammering on FRIAM and up to an hour a day listening to Amy Goodman's
voice reel off all of the horrors against humanity (sometimes even
including white males) of the day.
Ultimately it is up to the viewer to attempt to perceive, intuit, and
presume biases and to gestalt multiple sources to try to construct an
accurate view of the world. So if one wants 'just the facts', they
will have to go where facts are generated - firsthand sources and data.
Absolutely. *this* is what makes the internet as powerful (for me) as
it is. I have *half a chance* of getting within one or two degrees of
separation of *source material*. I have regular correspondence with
several people who live in the middle east (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan)
who are variously US ex-pats and Westernized Muslims. I *can* find raw
data from many sources (though it is always hard to be sure how "raw" or
"cooked" some sources are) and I *can* find others who have the
expertise to help me "cook" it to my own liking whilst at least
acknowledging their own biases.
For example, in the so-called 'Climategate' issue, why not find a
general journal you have access to, and sample papers that have been
published about climate change - do most of them have data showing
causes as being anthropogenic, or not? And because papers cite other
papers, you can see what responses have been to any given study. This
is a lot of work if done properly and does not guarantee you a fairer
worldview but it certainly helps.
It is a bit trickier than that. Up until about 2000, even though I had
fairly direct access to a variety of climate scientists (LANL, NOAA,
NCAR, etc.) I was not convinced of anthropogenic climate change. I
was *inclined* to believe it, but I wasn't convinced by the "facts" I
could find that anyone knew for sure. And it seemed pretty arrogant to
assume so much power for our puny little selves.
I don't remember a specific "factoid" that broke this camel's back, but
I did notice that when I was standing on the beach in New Zealand on
Boxing day December 2000 and got a *sunburn* in less than 10 minutes
(having come from 7000 ft elevation, I am used to humid sea-level
locations giving me *much* more time to frolic without bubbling skin).
This experience didn't make suddenly *believe* in the ozone hole, it
just made it *palpable*! I already had an abstract belief in the
(anthropogenic) ozone hole (by that time already "healing"), but with
it's *palpability* I felt a sudden rush of acceptance that the pile of
factoids I'd been juggling about (anthropogenic) climate change were
probably sufficient to *act as if* the basic theory were true. After
that the facts just started lining up for me (confirmation bias?) like a
self-organizing crystal. I noticed that early reports on the topic
were more convincing (in particular Bill McKibbin's work in the early
1980s)... and I felt a bit of an idiot for not giving over sooner.
On the other hand, I think my *resistance* was partly a result of the
"the messenger". Too many people I'd been hearing screaming "The Sky
is Burning! The Sky is Burning!" were the same ones (or had the same
affect) as those saying (in Doug's mock-voice) "Chemtrails!" or "Elvis
LIVES!" or "Crystals Heal!" or "Pyramid Power!".
It wasn't that I fully disbelieved in anthropogenic climate change, I
guess I was just feeling more humble about humanity than to find it easy
to believe we could tilt the earth on it's axis (or burn up it's
biosphere) through our puny activities.
The scientists studying aspects of this who I talked to were *very*
reluctant to suggest they *knew* that such things were happening. Some
were skeptical ("it is hard to make that correlation") and some were
guardedly supportive ("I'm afraid it might turn out to be true... I'm
working hard to learn all I can, because if it is, we have a
problem!"). I heard none (NONE) say "that is all left-wing
fearmongering, don't worry, drill baby, drill, burn baby burn!". I
*did* hear many right wingnuts however, saying roughly that... while the
(other) loony toons danced about naked chanting "the Sky is Burning, the
Sky is Burning!".
Today, I'm pretty sure we have a problem and I'd rather face the
problems of slowing our growth and our (all forms) energy dependence and
girding our loins for more significant environmental problems than to
stick my head back into the fracking tar sands whilst sucking entire
cities into sinkholes with crude spilling muckily from the bottom of the
barrel all over the baby seals (wait, I think I got carried away).
I'd rather apologize to my grandchildren's children for having erred
just a bit on the thoughtful and nurturing side than on the greedy and
willfully ignorant side. But then, maybe that is just me.
Carry on,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
