The best article on the idiot media, ever

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote03.html

1. Tendency to excess.

2. “Crisisization” of everything possible.

3. Superficiality as a norm. Gotta go fast. Hit the high points.
Speculation adds to the superficiality. That’s it, don’t you think?

4. Endless presentation of uncertainty and conflict may interfere with
resolution of issues.

5. The interminable chains of speculation (paves the way to litigation about breast implants, hysteria over Y2K and global warming, articlesin the New Yorker about currents of death, and a variety of otherresults that are not, by any thoughtful view, good things to happen.)

Because the media-educated public ignores and forgets past claims,these days even authors who present hard data are undamaged when thedata is proven wrong.

One of the most consistently wrong thinkers ofrecent years, Carol Gilligan of Harvard, once MS Magazine's Scientistof the Year, has had to retract (or modify) much of what she has everwritten. Yet her reputation as a profound thinker and importantinvestigator continues undiminished. You don't have to be right, anymore. Nobody remembers.


In closing, I’d remind you that while there are some things we cannotknow for sure, there are many things that can be resolved, and indeedare resolved. Not by speculation, however. By careful investigation,by rigorous statistical analysis. Since we’re awash in thiscontemporary ocean of speculation, we forget that things can be knownwith certainty, and that we need not live in a fearful world ofinterminable unsupported opinion. But the gulf that separates hard fact from speculation is by now so unfamiliar that most people can’t comprehend it.


Believe it or not, the above quoted is a tiny tiny bit of it.

Kick back, it's a good read :)

[Otther]

While it's not an article and it isn't solely about the media, The Image is an incredibly good read when you're angry at the media.

Written decades ago, like wine the book gets better with time.

[Eos of the Eons]

That's true. It's very interesting. It outlines all my frustration with the media, particularly in the numbered points.

[CapelDodger]

Tis guy has something to say, but I think he's saying it too loud. His first example, for instance - the NY times story - is more a problem of style than speculation. Too much equivocaton. "... is likely to send the price of steel up" - rather than "will send ...", since the tariffs were intended to do exactly that. "Would almost certainly challenge ..." rather than "will challenge". "... is likely to hinge ..." rather than ...

Nobody knows the future but some things are certain. Pointing out the implications of events is surely part of the press's duty to inform.

[CapelDodger]

Looking a little closer:
There was a well-known series of excellent studies by Stanford researchers that have shown, for example, that children take media literally. If you show them a bag of popcorn on a television set and ask them what will happen if you turn the TV upside down, the children say the popcorn will fall out of the bag. This result would be amusing if it were confined to children. But the studies show that no one is exempt.
What age are the children? There's a bit of a difference between 3 and 5 years old. Is this guy being ironic?
But over the years the punditic thrust has shifted away from discussing what has happened, to discussing what may happen. And here the pundits have no benefit of expertise at all. Worse, they may, like the Sunday politicians, attempt to advance one or another agenda by predicting its imminent arrival or demise. This is politicking, not predicting.
But they might also, if such is their wont, advance a particular agenda by their selection of past events to raise while punditing. Pundits can have benefit of expertise in that they may be able to point out parallels with past events and their repercussions. It's the integrity and intelligence of the pundit that matters.
Futurists don't know any more about the future than you or I. Read their magazines from a couple of years ago and you'll see an endless parade of error.

Frankly, a futurist who deals with the next couple of years is no futurist in my book. Maybe an analyst. Myself, I don't put my cock on the block for any prediction pre-2300.
The first is the Clinton welfare reform, harshly criticized by his own left wing for caving in to the Republican agenda. The left's predictions were for vast human suffering, shivering cold, child abuse, terrible outcomes
...
This failure to predict the effects of a program was mirrored by the hysterical cries from the Republican right over raising the minimum wage.
Isn't this article supposed to be about the media? What does the opinion of a bunch of politicians have to do with it? Reporting what these opinions are is obviously something the media should do. The important point is to keep the distinction between news and opinion. Opinion columns - and advertising - should be clearly distinguishable from news stories, which is sadly not always the case.
So we elected Johnson ...
Again utterly out-of-place, since this is about the decisions that people made in casting their votes. Not about the media. The idea that votes should be cast without any attempt to distinguish between the policies offered - since no-one knows the future - is absurd.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Tis guy has something to say, but I think he's saying it too loud. His first example, for instance - the NY times story - is more a problem of style than speculation. Too much equivocaton. "... is likely to send the price of steel up" - rather than "will send ...", since the tariffs were intended to do exactly that. "Would almost certainly challenge ..." rather than "will challenge". "... is likely to hinge ..." rather than ...

Nobody knows the future but some things are certain. Pointing out the implications of events is surely part of the press's duty to inform.

Thank you for your critical review CapelDodger. You raise some interesting points.

My complaint is more directed about what facts are and what is silly speculation on implications of events.

Why can't the media stick to being objective and factual?

Journalists should be made to specialize for certain topics (but how realistic is that). Or at least run facts of the story by someone who is educated on the topic.

Heck, the Edmonton news had stories on MMR and autism. sheesh. They had that one item nearly a year ago, but that had been debunked for years before that.

Then there's mad cow.

The canadian mad cow was never buthered and stamped "inspected". Yet everyone stopped importing any beef.

The america mad cow was butchered and marked "inspected". Now they are finding more cases in the states.

What does the news go on about? The cow in question may have come from Canada. That's redundant since it only matters where the cow got the disease...what it was fed.

How long does the disease take to kill an animal once it is exposed? The darn cow in question was shipped to the USA in 2001.

The question isn't where the cow originated from, but what was it eating.

If I can learn these things, then why don't reporters? Who cares if the cow came from Canada if it picked up the disease in the USA? Canada has not had another cow die of the disease, or show signs of it. But we fixate on where the cow in the USA came from. Yeesh.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Eos :
"My complaint is more directed about what facts are and what is silly speculation on implications of events.

Why can't the media stick to being objective and factual?

Journalists should be made to specialize for certain topics (but how realistic is that). Or at least run facts of the story by someone who is educated on the topic. "

Jeeze You seem to be leading with Your idealistic chin Eos.

Ed Murrow is dead and W.Cronkite is sure to follow, along with neutral investigative reporting.. You should realize from your experience and intelligence that "news" is now entertainment and "stories" that are carefully crafted to be a reflection of not just the editorial stance but the parent company line and it's financial interests. There is no really"unbiased" "objective" reporting, even the indies on the net have an editorial ax to grind. I have co-opted my daily bird dropping wrapper, the Tampa Tribune's " motto to be "all the news that's print to fit ". News is big business, ABC ( parent Disney ) has done ..Oh my God what a wunnerful picture" crap in the middle of Evning News . All are guilty Fox Ect. Bread and circuses Eos, bread and circuses.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

Jeeze You seem to be leading with Your idealistic chin Eos.

Ed Murrow is dead and W.Cronkite is sure to follow, along with neutral investigative reporting.. You should realize from your experience and intelligence that "news" is now entertainment and "stories" that are carefully crafted to be a reflection of not just the editorial stance but the parent company line and it's financial interests. There is no really"unbiased" "objective" reporting, even the indies on the net have an editorial ax to grind. I have co-opted my daily bird dropping wrapper, the Tampa Tribune's " motto to be "all the news that's print to fit ". News is big business, ABC ( parent Disney ) has done ..Oh my God what a wunnerful picture" crap in the middle of Evning News . All are guilty Fox Ect. Bread and circuses Eos, bread and circuses.


Yeah I know, that's why I loved the article. Thanks for that, as depressing as it is :) :( :)

[CapelDodger]

from TillEulenspiegel:
I have co-opted my daily bird dropping wrapper, the Tampa Tribune's " motto to be "all the news that's print to fit ".
The motto I know of is "All the nudes that are fit to print, and all the news printed to fit".

I haven't yet been able to put my finger on the Golden Age we've lost. When newspapers got going in, say, London in the 19thCE they were mostly of the "'Orrible murdah, read all abaht it" type or establishment gazettes like The Times. Right from the advent of European printing it was a means of propaganda, via pamphlets. Before that news was carried by story-tellers and song-writers who naturally spiced things up to please the audience, and also spread propaganda. There is good journalism around if you search it out, but there's always been a load of populist crap out there.

[Supercharts]

"News" in the media is entertainment. Factual reporting isn't going to sell commercials on laxitives or Citrical.
Dan Rather is enough of a looney that he's entertaining. So's Limbaugh. And Imus. And Hannity and combs

[Regnad Kcin]

For an always interesting (and yes, entertaining) analysis of the media punditocracy, I recommend the Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/). (The archives are a must!)