Where should I put John Stossel?

[Smart_Cookie]

I just finished reading John Stossel's new book: "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. Get Out the Shovel - Why Everything You Know Is Wrong."

I was quite impressed. He is definitely a skeptic in the true JREF sense of the word. He has sections in the book on Monster Government, Stupid Schools, The Lawsuit Racket, The Power of Belief, and more. He even quotes our beloved Randi and Michael Shermer.

So...my questions are:

Has anyone else read this book yet? What did you think?

I was so impressed, I keep thinking that maybe, maybe he would be a great guest for TAM5. Especially because I understand that the theme is media. Or is that idea out to lunch?

So that's also why the thread title - I couldn't decide where the heck this thread should go. It could belong in so many sections.

Thanks, all!

ETA: to fix spelling

[Piggy]

Personally, I'm not that impressed with Stossel.

Spinsanity: Stossel resorts to rhetoric
(http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-5.html#30)
Spinsanity: John Stossel and the "liberal media orthodoxy" (http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200107-2.html#09)

He's plugging books just like everybody else. Sure, he's not as unabashedly mendacious as, say, Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore, but he's out there hawking it like every other girl on the street.

[T'ai Chi]

His books read like puff pieces to me, IMO.

[NobbyNobbs]

I've only seen his schtick on TV a few times, and the one report he did made me laugh/so upset, I don't like him anymore.

It was his "Give Me A Break" bit on Nightline, I think, and he was reviewing toys that don't live up to their advertising. One of the things he featured was K'Nex, and his problem with them (I'm serious here) is that you have to put them together.

I couldn't believe it. He was actually complaining that there was some assembly required before you could make the Ferris wheel run.

Seems to me you could have the same complaint about Legos or Erector sets, but they seem to have sold well......

[shecky]

His "Give Me A Break" bit always seemed really hokey to me. But I enjoy some of his stories when he's not spinning too much BS.

[Raphael]

It's all relative. Stossel is far from perfect, but when compared to other TV talking heads he's a pretty good skeptic.

[rdaneel]

It's all relative. Stossel is far from perfect, but when compared to other TV talking heads he's a pretty good skeptic.
I would agree, when I read the book, my only reservation with it was that he seemed a little too convinced that his libertarian ideals were the ONLY alternative to the "Myths, lies, and stupidity" he talks about.

Seems to me that it makes him no worse than a certain libertarian skeptic who has posted on this board.

[Gravy]

The Nation ran an interesting article (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020107/dowie/3) several years back about how Stossel's power at ABC sometimes translates into reporting that's heavily biased towards his Libertarian politics. Of course, that's the Nation saying that...

[RSLancastr]

I saw him speak at the Skeptic Conference recently, and was not impressed.

[Mercutio]

I saw him speak at the Skeptic Conference recently, and was not impressed.
Agreed. Where to put him? "An airtight box" springs to mind...

[shecky]

I saw him speak at the Skeptic Conference recently, and was not impressed.

I'd be interested to hear your take on his talk. I missed it and thought it might be worthwhile.

[Rustle]

Generally, Stossel is an idiot. However, he's given some airtime to skeptical thought, and for that I'm very appreciative.

[Smart_Cookie]

My positive review was largely inspired by the fact that I agreed with so many of his conclusions in the book. For instance: (chosen at random)

Myth: Lawsuits increase safety by getting companies to post warning labels.
Truth: Lawsuits decrease safety by creating meaningless warnings.

Myth: Public Officials are role models for other citizens.
Truth: Public Officials are often hypocrites.

Myth: Washing with antibacterial soap helps keep you healthy.
Truth: It's unlikely to make a difference.

He also details occasions where he (and I guess his crew) actually went out and tested assertions. And he admits he was wrong in the past about certain conclusions he came to.

However, I do understand and agree that the work isn't terribly deep.


I saw him speak at the Skeptic Conference recently, and was not impressed.

Mr. Lancaster: I'd like to hear more. What were you not impressed by?

Thanks!

[senorpogo]

I like the guy and what he's done, but it's bothersome how he interjects his own political leanings into the reporting that he does. To generalize: he'll make a very observant point about something and then immediately follow it up with how less government (or some other libertarian-type solution) would solve the problem. And maybe it would. And maybe he's right. Or maybe there is an even better solution to the problem. But if that idea doesn't jive with his political point of view then you won't get to hear about it. Which is dishonest and not good reporting.

You should win converts by strength of argument, not by slight of hand.

[grunion]

I think he is demagogue with a political agenda, that uses skepticism as sophistry. By posing as a skeptic he substitutes fact for his libertarian politics, like when he states with certainty that school voucher programs would be fairer than public education, or that outsourcing is good and minimum wage and unions are bad. Skeptic or not, and agree with them or not, you can't say that opinions like these are "factual."

At least Moore and O'Reilly don't make a pretense at objectvity. Well, on second thought, maybe O'Reilly does, "fair and balanced" my toe.

[Nyarlathotep]

Agreed. Where to put him? "An airtight box" springs to mind...

I was thinking a the bottom of a six foot deep pit, filled with well-used kitty litter.

[Piggy]

Myth: Lawsuits increase safety by getting companies to post warning labels.
Truth: Lawsuits decrease safety by creating meaningless warnings.

Myth: Public Officials are role models for other citizens.
Truth: Public Officials are often hypocrites.

Myth: Washing with antibacterial soap helps keep you healthy.
Truth: It's unlikely to make a difference.
I don't think myths 1 or 2 even exist, at least not as widely-believed truisms. Truth 1 is a meaningless generalization, and truth 2 is merely obvious. He's correct on 3, but this is something I've also seen reported by "Reader's Digest" and "Prevention".

1 out of 3 ain't... well, it ain't good.

[Scott Haley]

Lawsuits increase safety by making companies more careful not to hurt people. How can meaningless labels make us LESS safe?

[Smart_Cookie]

Could be because we see so many irrelevant, pointless warnings (like the hairdryer warning that states "Never use while sleeping") that we don't actually pay attention when there IS an important warning.

And...warnings (and those lawsuits) cost everyone more money, because companies must comply with some pretty silly requirements. In the book, Stossel's example is a company that made fishing lures. They had to comply with a regulation that made them put a "Harmful if swallowed" warning label on a 5 inch fishing lure!
It cost the company between $10,000 and $15,000.

[Earthborn]

Could be because we see so many irrelevant, pointless warnings (like the hairdryer warning that states "Never use while sleeping") that we don't actually pay attention when there IS an important warning.How do you differentiate between "irrelevant pointless warnings" and "important warnings" ?

They had to comply with a regulation that made them put a "Harmful if swallowed" warning label on a 5 inch fishing lure!
Probably because for someone it wasn't obvious that this wasn't a good idea. Sounds like a good warning to me.

[clarsct]

Probably because for someone it wasn't obvious that this wasn't a good idea. Sounds like a good warning to me.

WHAT?!

Sounds like a BAD warning to me. If not putting a fishing lure that has rather sharp fishhooks attached to it down your throat isn't obviously a bad idea to you, then perhaps we're better off if you do so, hmmmmm?

At some point we must take responsibility for our actions, stupid though they may be.

As for Stossel, hell, Penn and Teller have heavy Libertarian leaning, too. Are they bad skeptics for putting politics into their BS shows?

[Scott Haley]

Is Mr. Stossel sure that it was the government that made them put "harmful if swallowed" on their fishing lures? Did he quote the government department and the regulation numbers involved? I ask this because a lawyer friend told me about clients he had who did much more than they had to to protect themselves from lawsuits. They did things that he, as their attorney, told them they absolutely did not have to do to avoid being sued.

[Renfield]

I haven't read the book, but I've seen some of his "specials". He's not above completely inventing studies, outright lying, and missrepresenting people in interviews. It almost has to be deliberate in some cases, and not just the result of carelessness. Look up how he treated John Kenneth Galbraith, or his specials on organic food or public schools for some examples of his methods.

[Smart_Cookie]

Is Mr. Stossel sure that it was the government that made them put "harmful if swallowed" on their fishing lures? Did he quote the government department and the regulation numbers involved? I ask this because a lawyer friend told me about clients he had who did much more than they had to to protect themselves from lawsuits. They did things that he, as their attorney, told them they absolutely did not have to do to avoid being sued.

Well - from the book (he's referring to the company that makes Dardevle lures): "...politicians in California decided to require businesses to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before exposing anyone to any one of 700 chemicals, including lead. ...."We had to very quickly have labels printed up," Karen told us, because Wal-Mart was being sued. Cabela's and Bass Pro were being threatened with lawsuits because the bass lures going into California did not have a warning label to not eat them." As you can see, [refers to a diagram of a lure], I doubt that you could get one of these things down your throat. But even if you could, Karen's lures contain only a tiny trace of lead, so you'd have to swallow lots of them to get enough lead to hurt you."

Yes, so the labels were because of a fear of being sued.

Interesting, because Stossel also comes down hard on lawyers. Stating lawsuits, and fear of lawsuits, cost everyone lots of money.

[Smart_Cookie]

How do you differentiate between "irrelevant pointless warnings" and "important warnings" ?


My guess is that is might have something to do with what a reasonable person would consider a danger. The classic case would be the person who sues the fast food restaurant because the coffee in the cup was hot. A reasonable person might just assume that if they spilled a hot liquid on themself, they might get burned.

However, would a reasonable person need the following warning on a power drill?: "not intended for use as a dental drill" (another example from the book).
You would hope that a reasonable person wouldn't be doing dentistry at home! At least not with a power drill.

[Earthborn]

My guess is that is might have something to do with what a reasonable person would consider a danger.Please explain how you differentiate between a "reasonable person" and an "unreasonable person". Also explain why warning labels should be designed for such "reasonable persons"; don't "unreasonable persons" deserve protection?

[Chaos]

I was thinking a the bottom of a six foot deep pit, filled with well-used kitty litter.

Remind me never to make you mad at me...

[Nyarlathotep]

Remind me never to make you mad at me...

Never a good idea.....

[Mercutio]

My guess is that is might have something to do with what a reasonable person would consider a danger. The classic case would be the person who sues the fast food restaurant because the coffee in the cup was hot. A reasonable person might just assume that if they spilled a hot liquid on themself, they might get burned.
A reasonable person might assume that "hot coffee" from McDonald's was roughly the same temperature as "hot coffee" from other establishments, and act accordingly. Does a reasonable person automatically know that this coffee is 20 degrees hotter?

The famous case in question (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm) is perhaps one which is better evidence against Stossel's views than for them.

[Piggy]

Is Mr. Stossel sure that it was the government that made them put "harmful if swallowed" on their fishing lures? Did he quote the government department and the regulation numbers involved? I ask this because a lawyer friend told me about clients he had who did much more than they had to to protect themselves from lawsuits. They did things that he, as their attorney, told them they absolutely did not have to do to avoid being sued.
Yup. This is a negotiation I've seen go on at my current job and the previous one. And it cuts both ways. Management consults legal, keeps most of their findings, tosses out some opinions which appear to them unjustified, and get tighter in other areas where they see higher risk for whatever reasons.

Sometimes, common industry practice can serve as a benchmark, and in those cases you might have companies chasing each other's tails once one company -- with or without legal requirement -- adds a disclaimer.

These labels are just the kruft of our legalistic society, a culture which produced (and spends millions of dollars annually on) American football, a sport which spends more time on the field in meetings and ajudication than in moving the damn ball.

[Roadtoad]

In reading through this, I'm reminded of an incident involving a co-worker of mine from several years ago.

He was hauling a tank load through Stockton, CA, late one night, when a car ran a stop sign, and at 60 mph, plowed into the side of his trailer. The trailer was flipped onto its side, and the whole load (which was fairly low at the time) spilled onto the road.

The driver of the car was not only loaded up on booze, (BAC content was somewhere between "inflammable" and "self-immolating"), but she'd been doing Meth for the better part of the day. Her license had been revoked several months before for the same nonsense on her part, plus, the car had no current registration, and no insurance. She had no headlights that worked on the car, and, as I said, she ran the stop sign at the intersection at 60 mph.

So, this should have been a slam-dunk, right? My fellow driver cleared, the stupid b**** gets sent to the San Joaquin County Jail, everything cool, right?

The fumb-ducks at the DMV saw it otherwise. They wanted to hit my bro for two points because, hey, he was the professional! It took an attorney threatening to haul the state to court to get it all cleared up.

Sorry, I've seen too much stupidity in Government. I don't always agree with Stossel, but he has a point.

[Smart_Cookie]

A reasonable person might assume that "hot coffee" from McDonald's was roughly the same temperature as "hot coffee" from other establishments, and act accordingly. Does a reasonable person automatically know that this coffee is 20 degrees hotter?

The famous case in question (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm) is perhaps one which is better evidence against Stossel's views than for them.

I stand corrected after reading the details of that case. Thanks, Mercutio. That wasn't the best example.

Too bad, though, that more people don't know all of those details. Wonder why McD's has never changed their process for coffee after all these years.

[Mercutio]

I stand corrected after reading the details of that case. Thanks, Mercutio. That wasn't the best example.

Too bad, though, that more people don't know all of those details. Wonder why McD's has never changed their process for coffee after all these years.Thank you, Cookie. Too many people make up their minds having just heard the urban myth. It is the rare person (ok, around here it is not as rare...still is rare, though) who can follow the evidence.

Kudos to you , S_C! Another example of what I really like about this place!

M

[Smart_Cookie]

Please explain how you differentiate between a "reasonable person" and an "unreasonable person". Also explain why warning labels should be designed for such "reasonable persons"; don't "unreasonable persons" deserve protection?

"Unreasonable persons" don't necessarily deserve protection. If they're that far gone, it might be better for the gene pool if they don't reproduce. :D

(I'm talking complete and utter idiots and fools.)

[Roadtoad]

"Unreasonable persons" don't necessarily deserve protection. If they're that far gone, it might be better for the gene pool if they don't reproduce. :D

(I'm talking complete and utter idiots and fools.)

In other words, Republicans and Democrats.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

A reasonable person might assume that "hot coffee" from McDonald's was roughly the same temperature as "hot coffee" from other establishments, and act accordingly. Does a reasonable person automatically know that this coffee is 20 degrees hotter?

The famous case in question (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm) is perhaps one which is better evidence against Stossel's views than for them.There is a "rebuttal" of sorts at Overlawyered (http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html). They have a definite bias, but some of the facts contradict the trial lawyers' version of the story. Specifically, McDonalds coffee was served at industry standard temperatures. Starbucks is currently serving hotter coffee. They also note that the 700 complaints "translates into a complaint rate of 1-in-24-million." Kind of a toss-up if you ask me. :con2:

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

As for Stossel, hell, Penn and Teller have heavy Libertarian leaning, too. Are they bad skeptics for putting politics into their BS shows?No, they're bad skeptics when they let their politics supercede their skepticism. Libertarians seem to believe it is their solemn duty to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Libertarian: "Hey, look at these silly regulations! We should get rid of all regulations!"
Joe: "Ummm. Why not just get rid of the silly ones?"
Libertarian: "Commie!"

[Mercutio]

There is a "rebuttal" of sorts at Overlawyered (http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html). They have a definite bias, but some of the facts contradict the trial lawyers' version of the story. Specifically, McDonalds coffee was served at industry standard temperatures. Starbucks is currently serving hotter coffee. They also note that the 700 complaints "translates into a complaint rate of 1-in-24-million." Kind of a toss-up if you ask me. :con2:
Thanks for the link--my world is full of defense lawyers, so this one is new to me!

[RandFan]

It's all relative. Stossel is far from perfect, but when compared to other TV talking heads he's a pretty good skeptic.Agreed, and Randi gives him some credit for objectivity.

[RandFan]

No, they're bad skeptics when they let their politics supercede their skepticism. Libertarians seem to believe it is their solemn duty to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Libertarian: "Hey, look at these silly regulations! We should get rid of all regulations!"
Joe: "Ummm. Why not just get rid of the silly ones?"
Libertarian: "Commie!"Great strawman, may I use it?

[RandFan]

I think he is demagogue with a political agenda, that uses skepticism as sophistry. By posing as a skeptic he substitutes fact for his libertarian politics, like when he states with certainty that school voucher programs would be fairer than public education, or that outsourcing is good and minimum wage and unions are bad. I'm not sure I understand, are you saying that Stosell should not have an opinion or that he should forgo any claims of skepticism?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Great strawman, may I use it?It's a fair cop. We all get caught with our hands in the Hasty Generalization Cookie Jar at some point. D'oh, I did it again!

[RandFan]

It's a fair cop. We all get caught with our hands in the Hasty Generalization Cookie Jar at some point. D'oh, I did it again!That is exactly why I said "can I use it"? It isn't without a point though.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

By all means!

[Roadtoad]

Great strawman, may I use it?

You've forgotten Shanek, haven't you.

[RandFan]

You've forgotten Shanek, haven't you.:D You've got a point.

[slingblade]

Never mind; I didn't see the retraction.

Edited again to add:

I'd still use Stossel in class...with the right preparation, I could use him as an example of both why you should question what you think you know, and how/how not to do it. :)

[hgc]

Uh oh. Stossel in full woo mode...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/29/stossel-attacks-gore-were-all-socialists/

Apparently, if you state the facts on global warming (as opposed to claiming you've talked to some scientists), then you're "Socialists who hate Capitalism."

[Scott Haley]

I just installed a new version of iTunes, and the user agreement had my favorite part:

THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

I love it when they say that. You're not allowed to run a nuclear power plant with RealPlayer either. It's a good thing that they told me, since I was thinking of doing it :-)

--Scott

[Roadtoad]

Hmmm. So much for using it in my Peterbilt.

[UserGoogol]

I just installed a new version of iTunes, and the user agreement had my favorite part:

THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

I love it when they say that. You're not allowed to run a nuclear power plant with RealPlayer either. It's a good thing that they told me, since I was thinking of doing it :-)

--Scott

Apple probably has a standard boilerplate text which they use in all their programs, even when it does not make a whole lot of sense. But strictly speaking, that paragraph does not seem to say "You're not allowed to use this to run a nuclear power plant." It says "if you run this to run a nuclear power plant, we are not liable if the plant goes critical." Of course, strictly speaking, the legal validity of end-user license agreements (EULAs) is a bit iffy.

But at the same time, EULAs and warnings are not exactly the same thing. EULAs are something you have to agree to, whereas with warnings, they merely warn you and hope that keeps them safe.

(I am not a laywer, of course.)

[brooklyn44]

I, too saw Stossel at the Environmental Wars conference last month. He and Michael Crichton were supposed to take opposing views. And although Stossel did stipulate to global warming being a product of much human-caused carbon-monoxide emissions, he said that the Gore hypothesis was all hype. He thinks that private economic forces will bring about new technological advances to combat global warming.
I really don't know about his skeptic bona fides. He just came across as an arrogant publicity hog.
Renee

[hgc]

I, too saw Stossel at the Environmental Wars conference last month. He and Michael Crichton were supposed to take opposing views. And although Stossel did stipulate to global warming being a product of much human-caused carbon-monoxide emissions, he said that the Gore hypothesis was all hype. He thinks that private economic forces will bring about new technological advances to combat global warming.
I really don't know about his skeptic bona fides. He just came across as an arrogant publicity hog.
ReneeFrom what I have seen, he will shape any argument to support his foregone, libertarian conclusion: private economic forces will <solve whatever problem>; government will not.

I don't see why private forces would be motivated, individually, to make any short-term sacrifice to the bottom line to provide long-term solutions to this problem.

[grunion]

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying that Stosell should not have an opinion or that he should forgo any claims of skepticism?Neither. Simply that he should be called out when he hides behind the "Skeptic" moniker to say that his opinions are "facts" simply because they may go against what he claims to be "popularly held beliefs."

Great to cite facts to back up your opinions. Not great to claim your opinions are therefore "factual."

[JLam]

I've got his latest book. While I certainly don't agree with him on everything, the criticisms he has of the mass media are spot on, IMO.

[RandFan]

Neither. Simply that he should be called out when he hides behind the "Skeptic" moniker to say that his opinions are "facts" simply because they may go against what he claims to be "popularly held beliefs."

Great to cite facts to back up your opinions. Not great to claim your opinions are therefore "factual." I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I don't remember where he states that his opinions are facts? I'll keep this in mind the next time I watch his show.

[grunion]

I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I don't remember where he states that his opinions are facts? I'll keep this in mind the next time I watch his show.Stossel styles himself "the ultimate skeptic" and a "Myth Buster" in the same mold as Adam and Jamie who do experiments to test what they think of as commonly-held beliefs. Instead of experiments he uses anecdotal data to assert facts such as:

Myth: Sweatshops hurt people.
Truth: Sweatshops help people.

Myth: A higher minimum wage helps workers.
Truth: A higher minimum wage helps some workers but hurts more.

Myth: Government makes rules to protect us from business.
Truth: Competition protects us, if government gets out of the way.

Don't you think there is reasonable debate to be had over whether government has a role in regulating certain business practices, or whether sweatshops or the Minumum Wage are postive or negative influences on society? Regardless of your opinions on these issues I hope you will agree that it is not a "truth" along the lines of some of the other "truths" such as "full moons don't make people crazy."

To be clear, I like the fact that John Stossel states his opinions clearly, and makes arguments to back them up. He needs to position them as "opinions."

I've got his latest book. While I certainly don't agree with him on everything, the criticisms he has of the mass media are spot on, IMO.These kinds of claims always strike me as disingenuous when coming from powerful Mass Media personalities.

[RandFan]

To be clear, I like the fact that John Stossel states his opinions clearly, and makes arguments to back them up. He needs to position them as "opinions."

These kinds of claims always strike me as disingenuous when coming from powerful Mass Media personalities.Ok, I can buy that. Thanks. I don't know about disingenuous but I'll agree with the rest.