Joe the Plumber Live in Gaza.

[Rye]

Even when I was a kid, and a Christian, I wouldn't have been able to say that. How can anyone look at the holy lands and say "my belief in God will protect me"? Almost everyone there believes in God and it doesn't do shit for them. It's fair to complain about journalists, but let's look at the Middle East correspondents for decent news outlets like the BBC or channel 4 news. These people aren't idiot meme repeaters like "Joe", they usually have a good grasp of the culture, the history and soforth in levels of detail I could never bring myself to understand. This guy's really set the limbo bar at its lowest for celebrity bullshit.

[HMS Vanguard]

I am saying that there are impartial standards of reporting that are taught to trained journalists, and to think that a person who has not had any training will provide reporting of the same standard as a trained journalist simply because he reaches an audience - an audience which chooses its reporters based on ideology, not merit - is extremely naive.

Well, I simply don't think it's true that a formal education is required to be a good journalist. Winston Churchill, for instance, had some of his journalistic works cited in his Nobel Prize presentation speech (eg. The River War) despite never having attended university. In fact, 'Journalism' programmes tend to have low entry requirements and are poorly regarded, at least in Britain, with most actual journalists being English or History graduates.

Nor do I think that education eliminates partiality. To the extent that it's deliberate, it's a character flaw not something that can be trained out of you, but to a large extent it's just the unavoidable result of people wanting more from journalists than just a string of facts with no analysis or description (and even then, how do we decide which facts to put on the front page, and which to put further back? what the journalist thinks is more important? that's subjective!). Everyone accuses people they don't agree with of being an ideologue - is there anyone who thinks that both The Guardian and the Telegraph are impartial?

Discourse in a free society works by allowing everyone to speak, and then each individual to make up his own mind on the basis of the evidence, not trying to eliminate supposedly 'sub-standard' viewpoints. If people don't want to listen, they won't. If they do, it's their right to do so.

Are you trying to say that if people try to impart views to others you disapprove of, they are 'dangerous' and ought to be suppressed?

Ah yes, the old nugget "he disapproves ergo he wishes it to be suppressed". I won't stop Joe from going into Gaza and reporting on the situation there; for all we know he'll turn out to be a natural. But that doesn't mean he should automatically be granted the same weight as a trained reporter simply because he has an audience.

Suppressed is the wrong word, perhaps, because you're right you didn't say he should be forced off the air, but you do seem to think that he shouldn't have been given a platform despite there presumably being an audience for him. For the reasons I explained above, I don't think that's good.

As an aside, I don't give 'trained reporters' the benefit of the doubt when they say stupid or things, or disregard 'amateurs' when they present what I consider to be good analysis. I think the fetishisation of cetificiates and licences tends rather to divert attention from what is actually relevant - the quality of what is being said.

[Rye]

Well, I simply don't think it's true that a formal education is required to be a good journalist.

No, but intelligence and a desire to tell the truth and some degree of rhetoric talent do. Do you think Wurzel has these things? Do you think he's going to go get some Palestinian's story in the face of Israeli embargos like that Al Jazeera guy did? Hell, do you expect him to do anything other than parrot the IDF/Republican line?

Nor do I think that education eliminates partiality. To the extent that it's deliberate, it's a character flaw not something that can be trained out of you, but to a large extent it's just the unavoidable result of people wanting more from journalists than just a string of facts with no analysis or description (and even then, how do we decide which facts to put on the front page, and which to put further back? what the journalist thinks is more important? that's subjective!). Everyone accuses people they don't agree with of being an ideologue - is there anyone who thinks that both The Guardian and the Telegraph are impartial?

No, they both have a decent standard of journalism, do you think Joe could stand up to that standard? If so, why?

Suppressed is the wrong word, perhaps, because you're right you didn't say he should be forced off the air, but you do seem to think that he shouldn't have been given a platform despite there presumably being an audience for him. For the reasons I explained above, I don't think that's good.

We might as well be asking Paris Hilton her views on the large hadron collider.

I think the fetishisation of cetificiates and licences tends rather to divert attention from what is actually relevant - the quality of what is being said.

And what has Joe said that's high quality?

[Knife]

Well, I simply don't think it's true that a formal education is required to be a good journalist. Winston Churchill, for instance, had some of his journalistic works cited in his Nobel Prize presentation speech (eg. The River War) despite never having attended university. In fact, 'Journalism' programmes tend to have low entry requirements and are poorly regarded, at least in Britain, with most actual journalists being English or History graduates.

I've already addressed this. It is one thing to put forth the energy and time to do an ad-hoc education yourself, even if it is not formal, and quite another to just wake up one day and say your a journalist and go out that afternoon and do it.

Nor do I think that education eliminates partiality.

No, but education can give you the tools and the practice environment to use those tools so that a person is able, if willing, to see their own bias in issues. That's not something most people will do on their own.

To the extent that it's deliberate, it's a character flaw not something that can be trained out of you, but to a large extent it's just the unavoidable result of people wanting more from journalists than just a string of facts with no analysis or description (and even then, how do we decide which facts to put on the front page, and which to put further back? what the journalist thinks is more important? that's subjective!). Everyone accuses people they don't agree with of being an ideologue - is there anyone who thinks that both The Guardian and the Telegraph are impartial?

I disagree. You can train it out of people, or at least give them the tools they need to train it out of themselves if they have a goal or objective they think is more important than their personal bias to do so. As far as institutional bias, most of it can boil down to money, a bias towards making the most cash, which has little to do with the bog-standard journalist.

Discourse in a free society works by allowing everyone to speak, and then each individual to make up his own mind on the basis of the evidence, not trying to eliminate supposedly 'sub-standard' viewpoints. If people don't want to listen, they won't. If they do, it's their right to do so.

Hence why I made this thread to call the totally unprofessional, untrained, glory seeking shit head a fuck nut. Good thing discourse in a free society allows me to do so. I'm sorry you find my view point sub-standard.

Suppressed is the wrong word, perhaps, because you're right you didn't say he should be forced off the air, but you do seem to think that he shouldn't have been given a platform despite there presumably being an audience for him. For the reasons I explained above, I don't think that's good.

As an aside, I don't give 'trained reporters' the benefit of the doubt when they say stupid or things, or disregard 'amateurs' when they present what I consider to be good analysis. I think the fetishisation of cetificiates and licences tends rather to divert attention from what is actually relevant - the quality of what is being said.

lol, a quick search of my posts will find you that I do not think University in and of itself makes a person better at all things, rather I view it as job training. As such, even something which I consider a bullshit job like reporting still has it's own skill sets needed. As such, a trained person, whether in university or someone who takes the time to actually learn them from some other means, is more proficient than some glory seeking fuck nut who thinks it is so easy he can go do it without any training at all.

The logic tree just doesn't make sense; Joe is a plumber who wants to be a businessman and own a plumbing business. One day he talks to a politician he has no intent on voting for and becomes a pocket celebrity. Because of so, he now wants to go to Gaza to be a war correspondent.

Makes no sense. Unless you add in the camera whore factor.

Now if he had done;

Joe was a plumber who wanted to be a businessman and own his own pluming shop. One day he talks to a politician he has no intent to vote for and gains a modem of fame. Joe, enjoying said fame decides he wants to now switch careers and continue being famous by being on camera as a reporter or talking head. Joe decides to go to school and get classes/training in journalism, rhetoric, public relations or some similar fields, so he can realize his dream.

I wouldn't have blinked an eye.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Discourse in a free society works by allowing everyone to speak, and then each individual to make up his own mind on the basis of the evidence, not trying to eliminate supposedly 'sub-standard' viewpoints. If people don't want to listen, they won't. If they do, it's their right to do so.

No. This is how it works for abstract idea and values. Not for information itself, the things people must take into account when making a decision about what their values are going to be, or how they are going to apply their values to solve problems. This must be objective. It must not be determined by people's subjective, aggregate wants. Why? Because if it is done that way, in a free market, you end up with "news" organizations that maximize profits by catering to the Confirmation Bias of niche markets. You will have Conservative news, which gives conservatives only the information that confirms their values and practices as being correct, you will have Liberal News, which does the same thing. Oh, look! That is exactly what we have.

In the end, there is no real discourse. The simple fact is, most people are actually incapable of separating out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the things that inform their values. This makes figures like Joe the Plumber insideous and actually destructive toward a free society.

[HMS Vanguard]

Rather heavily shortened because I don't have time to reply to all this stuff (plus I'm sure the 5 or 6 enormous posts waiting for me on the Public Works thread), but I hope I've covered most major areas.

No, but intelligence and a desire to tell the truth and some degree of rhetoric talent do. Do you think Wurzel has these things? Do you think he's going to go get some Palestinian's story in the face of Israeli embargos like that Al Jazeera guy did? Hell, do you expect him to do anything other than parrot the IDF/Republican line?

I think this post sums up the whole problem - you think that intelligence and truthfulness means being sympathetic to Palestine and attacking the IDF and the Republican Party. This view isn't 'wrong', as such, but it is heavily disputed. The only way we can have any confidence the truth will be arrived at is to have strong advocates for all sides.

We might as well be asking Paris Hilton her views on the large hadron collider.

According to the OP his objective is just to talk to people like him. I don't see why this would require him having extra technical knowledge on top of what he knows already.

Well, I simply don't think it's true that a formal education is required to be a good journalist. Winston Churchill, for instance, had some of his journalistic works cited in his Nobel Prize presentation speech (eg. The River War) despite never having attended university. In fact, 'Journalism' programmes tend to have low entry requirements and are poorly regarded, at least in Britain, with most actual journalists being English or History graduates.

I've already addressed this. It is one thing to put forth the energy and time to do an ad-hoc education yourself, even if it is not formal, and quite another to just wake up one day and say your a journalist and go out that afternoon and do it.

That's pretty much what Churchill did. His intentions were not at all 'noble', they were to get famous in order to boost his intended political career. He didn't spend years studying journalism textbooks (lol, as if they even existed in that more enlightened time...) in his room. Some people are simply better than the majority of others at things without really trying. Maybe it's unfair, but it's a fact of life.

To the extent that it's deliberate, it's a character flaw not something that can be trained out of you, but to a large extent it's just the unavoidable result of people wanting more from journalists than just a string of facts with no analysis or description (and even then, how do we decide which facts to put on the front page, and which to put further back? what the journalist thinks is more important? that's subjective!). Everyone accuses people they don't agree with of being an ideologue - is there anyone who thinks that both The Guardian and the Telegraph are impartial?

I disagree. You can train it out of people,

No, not if it's deliberate.

or at least give them the tools they need to train it out of themselves if they have a goal or objective they think is more important than their personal bias to do so. As far as institutional bias, most of it can boil down to money, a bias towards making the most cash, which has little to do with the bog-standard journalist.

Usually journalists have developed political views and agendas of their own that necessarily creep in. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, just don't kid yourself anyone is "unbaised" - it will lead you to blindly accept things you oughtn't.

Discourse in a free society works by allowing everyone to speak, and then each individual to make up his own mind on the basis of the evidence, not trying to eliminate supposedly 'sub-standard' viewpoints. If people don't want to listen, they won't. If they do, it's their right to do so.

Hence why I made this thread to call the totally unprofessional, untrained, glory seeking shit head a fuck nut. Good thing discourse in a free society allows me to do so. I'm sorry you find my view point sub-standard.

Sure, I never said you shouldn't be posting here.

Now if he had done;

Joe was a plumber who wanted to be a businessman and own his own pluming shop. One day he talks to a politician he has no intent to vote for and gains a modem of fame. Joe, enjoying said fame decides he wants to now switch careers and continue being famous by being on camera as a reporter or talking head. Joe decides to go to school and get classes/training in journalism, rhetoric, public relations or some similar fields, so he can realize his dream.

I wouldn't have blinked an eye.

Why? If he can't give people anything theyre interested in, he'll get fired. If he can do it, why waste years learning to do something he already knows how to do?

No. This is how it works for abstract idea and values. Not for information itself, the things people must take into account when making a decision about what their values are going to be, or how they are going to apply their values to solve problems. This must be objective.

To be clear here, you don't believe that a free forum of ideas with each person making up their mind on the basis of evidence has any place in, say, the natural sciences? I don't think you really do believe that, but if you do you'd better phone up the Royal Society because they've (apparently) been doing it wrong.

It must not be determined by people's subjective, aggregate wants. Why? Because if it is done that way, in a free market, you end up with "news" organizations that maximize profits by catering to the Confirmation Bias of niche markets. You will have Conservative news, which gives conservatives only the information that confirms their values and practices as being correct, you will have Liberal News, which does the same thing. Oh, look! That is exactly what we have.

If you have prescribed news, you will only have prescribed news. Some people wrapping themselves up in a bubble of only what they want to hear is hardly ideal, I agree, but it is better than everyone being wrapped up in a bubble of only what a state news board wants them to hear. At its worst, this sort of thing results in mass famines.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To be clear here, you don't believe that a free forum of ideas with each person making up their mind on the basis of evidence has any place in, say, the natural sciences? I don't think you really do believe that, but if you do you'd better phone up the Royal Society because they've (apparently) been doing it wrong.

What a wonderful little stawman you have constructed. Would you like to light the match or should I?

I happen to be a biologist, and I will tell you something. The sciences are not a free forum. Scientists dont get to spout out whatever bullshit they want. We have follow a certain prescribed method, report our findings in a particular fashion, and have a prescribed standard of evidence. Not only that, but it is subject to peer review, where our peers do their level best to find flaws in our papers. Oh, and you have to work for years before you are allowed to so much as touch data collection and experiment design. As opposed to Joe The Unliscenced Plumber shitt, who gets to go and report on a war with no formal training whatsoever.

How about you go and find out about what you are talking about before you make an idiot out of yourself. Oh shit, I was too late. You have already done just that by inserting your foot so far up your mouth that you can reach in and grab it through your prolapsed colon.

If you have prescribed news, you will only have prescribed news. Some people wrapping themselves up in a bubble of only what they want to hear is hardly ideal, I agree, but it is better than everyone being wrapped up in a bubble of only what a state news board wants them to hear. At its worst, this sort of thing results in mass famines.

Gee, that is yet another fun Strawman. Not only that but a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between; "FREE MARKET!!!1111oneone" where confirmation bias and profit motives dumb down all information content and reduce the voting public to uninformed morons, and a state news board where ideology and political expediency do the same thing. You do this by regulating not content, but methods.

Example.

Make it illegal to lie or willfully distort the truth either in individual stories or editorial policy. And not just a slap on the wrist either. I mean "Seize your assets" illegal. As it stands now, Fox News recently won a federal lawsuit that allows them to outright lie on air (in this case, in relation to the long term helath consequences of exposure to Bovine Growth Hormone). And dont worry, more left wing sources take advantage of the same thing by constantly playing up the "OMG! VACCINES LEAD TO AUTISM!!!!!1111" canard. These are matters of objective verifiable truth, and lying about them should be illegal.

[Rye]

I think this post sums up the whole problem - you think that intelligence and truthfulness means being sympathetic to Palestine and attacking the IDF and the Republican Party.

No, morality and integrity would mean being sympathetic to people in general, this would include Palestinians. I have no problem with people being sympathetic to Israelis who have their house bombed. Anyone with any sort of integrity would attack the Republican party and not just repeat the party line because it was the party line.

The only way we can have any confidence the truth will be arrived at is to have strong advocates for all sides.

This is merely a perversion of dialectics as it presumes all sides are equal. The only way we can have confidence is if all sides advocated are advocated out of empirical strength.

According to the OP his objective is just to talk to people like him. I don't see why this would require him having extra technical knowledge on top of what he knows already.

"People like him" are people who parrot party lines and repeat nonsense with no sense of critical thought. See him accusing Obama of being socialist. He is a fucking tool. He will go in with a prescribed outcome and paint things according to that rather than anything approaching objectivity. It's the same principle as pseudoscience.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, so professional reporting (no one said about "state board", by the way, merely about getting qualified) results in... Lysenkoism!? Our libertarian friend is awesome in the sheer thickness of his trolling.

The only way we can have any confidence the truth will be arrived at is to have strong advocates for all sides.

What? That doesn't lead to "truth" at all. That leads to a huge competition of lies, in which the most popular appealing lie gets told and retold. Truth is objective and verifiable, and since the world is materialistic, truth is in principle learnable. Therefore, a high standard of factology for reporting is a very dire requirement.

I am not saying that professional reporting is free from the "competition of lies" deadlock, but a professional will have a higher standard for facts even in biased materials (watch the professional historical community and the area known as "historical journalism" and be amazed at the difference in the factual density used in materials by either).

Professional reporters are not necessarily government-hired either, so your ridiculous strawman has no base at all.

[HMS Vanguard]

To be clear here, you don't believe that a free forum of ideas with each person making up their mind on the basis of evidence has any place in, say, the natural sciences? I don't think you really do believe that, but if you do you'd better phone up the Royal Society because they've (apparently) been doing it wrong.

What a wonderful little stawman you have constructed. Would you like to light the match or should I?

I happen to be a biologist, and I will tell you something. The sciences are not a free forum. Scientists dont get to spout out whatever bullshit they want. We have follow a certain prescribed method, report our findings in a particular fashion, and have a prescribed standard of evidence. Not only that, but it is subject to peer review, where our peers do their level best to find flaws in our papers. Oh, and you have to work for years before you are allowed to so much as touch data collection and experiment design. As opposed to Joe The Unliscenced Plumber shitt, who gets to go and report on a war with no formal training whatsoever.

Right, and I am studying physics at university, and I do know how this works. You're quite right that journals peer review, and reject obviously poor quality papers (the reputable ones, anyway). But you're still free to submit anything you want, or to set up your own publication if you believe your submissions are being rejected unfairly. There is no central authority that decides what can or cannot be a publication, or what a publication can or cannot publish, the poor quality ones simply lose prestige and are ignored (oh no, a "FREE MARKET!!!1111oneone"!). The same is true of news - services universally believed to be poor quality simply go bust, or at least are not watched. The problems come when some people view the same thing as poor quality and others as good quality. In these situations, science does not ban controversial papers or publications (indeed, it has no ability to do the latter).

How about you go and find out about what you are talking about before you make an idiot out of yourself. Oh shit, I was too late. You have already done just that by inserting your foot so far up your mouth that you can reach in and grab it through your prolapsed colon.

This forum really is quite unique as regards this sort of thing. It doesn't make you sound nearly as cool as you think it does.

If you have prescribed news, you will only have prescribed news. Some people wrapping themselves up in a bubble of only what they want to hear is hardly ideal, I agree, but it is better than everyone being wrapped up in a bubble of only what a state news board wants them to hear. At its worst, this sort of thing results in mass famines.

Gee, that is yet another fun Strawman. Not only that but a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between; "FREE MARKET!!!1111oneone" where confirmation bias and profit motives dumb down all information content and reduce the voting public to uninformed morons, and a state news board where ideology and political expediency do the same thing. You do this by regulating not content, but methods.

Example.

Make it illegal to lie or willfully distort the truth either in individual stories or editorial policy. And not just a slap on the wrist either. I mean "Seize your assets" illegal. As it stands now, Fox News recently won a federal lawsuit that allows them to outright lie on air (in this case, in relation to the long term helath consequences of exposure to Bovine Growth Hormone). And dont worry, more left wing sources take advantage of the same thing by constantly playing up the "OMG! VACCINES LEAD TO AUTISM!!!!!1111" canard. These are matters of objective verifiable truth, and lying about them should be illegal.

...which requires a state board to decide matters of fact once and for all. That doesn't solve your problem at all! The biggest problem is, journalists rarely investigate (or even understand) science themselves. What they're actually reporting are the opinions of other talking heads (particularly true of the autism thing, idk about BGH as it's always been illegal in Britain anyway). So do you want to ban the talking heads (ie. abolish the first ammendment, and have your state board prosecute anyone who says anything it determines to be scientifically inaccurate), or do you want to ban journalists from simply reporting what other people are saying? Either way, you do have the enormous regulatory problems that this entails everywhere.

Wait, so professional reporting (no one said about "state board", by the way, merely about getting qualified) results in... Lysenkoism!? Our libertarian friend is awesome in the sheer thickness of his trolling.


What? That doesn't lead to "truth" at all. That leads to a huge competition of lies, in which the most popular appealing lie gets told and retold. Truth is objective and verifiable, and since the world is materialistic, truth is in principle learnable. Therefore, a high standard of factology for reporting is a very dire requirement.

How do you decide what is true? In the natural sciences, there is a competition of ideas and those ideas which are disproved fall away. If you think there should be a legal requirement for journalists to report only 'the correct' viewpoint, you have to have some board with the power to enforce it decide what the 'the correct' viewpoint is, and the only body with that power is the state. But then the board itself must decide what is true, and the system itself requires you reject the free discourse method, because once the truth has been decided, it is fixed. Further investigation is very difficult when you can face legal penalties for saying anything contrary to it in public What, then, if the board makes a mistake, or is misled, or has a political agenda of its own? Lysenkoism is the outcome of just such a failing.

I am not saying that professional reporting is free from the "competition of lies" deadlock, but a professional will have a higher standard for facts even in biased materials (watch the professional historical community and the area known as "historical journalism" and be amazed at the difference in the factual density used in materials by either).

He might do, or he might not. On average, it may be better for a news org to hire a trained journalist than a randomer, but it's only an indicator, not something that is always necessarily the case.

Professional reporters are not necessarily government-hired either, so your ridiculous strawman has no base at all.

I didn't say they were :/

[K. A. Pital]

In the natural sciences, there is a competition of ideas

Which are peer-reviewed by exclusively qualified people, not the public. I have no problem with professional evaluation. Science is not decided by the popular opinion - otherwise, creationism would be as "true" as evolution for some. The problem is that it's objectively untrue, and therefore only the peer review by the qualified decides one way or other.

But then the board itself must decide what is true, and the system itself requires you reject the free discourse method, because once the truth has been decided, it is fixed.

Evolution vs. Creationism. It's clear which is true. It's clear that it is decided by the "board" of educated people who are scientists. No free "discourse" is allowed, because creationism is false, end of story.

I didn't say they were :/

In that case the government does not exise a direct control over the qualified people who are the basis of the professional community. Which is the case for natural science and reporting alike. Those communities are full of qualified people who can decide whether something is factual or bullshit.

What, then, if the board makes a mistake, or is misled, or has a political agenda of its own?

It corrects itself. The many exposures of fossil hoaxes have been done by professionals, not by Joe Amateur with a creationist agenda. The latter, of course, used those for his own gains.
What are you trying to argue? Science does not tolerate populism, science is not a democracy, and the "competition of ideas" in science takes the place within the community of the qualified (the scientists), not decided by the general public. The general public has no say over scientific theory, and it should stay that way.

You either don't understand your own example properly, or think that reporting should not be professional because it's fundamentally different from natural science. Pick your choice.

[ray245]

Vanguard, your example only make sense, if Joe the plumber has been educated as a Journalist, and in some sense, earned his approval from other Journalist.

What you are talking about is problem with existing Journalist. Which means the standard of Journalism should be set higher, not lower.

Approving Joe the plumber as a Journalist is setting the standards lower. Letting a person with even less clue than members of this board to report factual events is never a good thing. Hell, most people have a hard time trying to apply some sense of critical thinking when they are reading articles, and letting a person report ( and not writing an opinion column) is not going to help its readers at all.

To write a good article and report things in a meaningful way, is to be objective when you are reporting it. You have to learn in depth on the issue you are reporting, share facts that most people would not know about, and help them understand both side of the story and most important of all, let the audience decide for themselves based on the facts and evidences which you have gathered.

Letting Joe report is the same as using the bible or Genesis as your science textbook. How is that going to help in our understanding of the world?

Think about it.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Joe needs to consult with a good Rabbi. Rabbi Harold Kushner once asked, in this regard, “Should a pious person be able to go out on a freezing night without a jacket and not get sick?” Be it cold, fire, or bullets, the concept is the same.
The Helm of Ignorance grants complete safety until it doesn't!

[Mayabird]

Judaism has a long intellectual tradition spanning centuries, unlike American Protestantism (esp. Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism) which has a long anti-intellectual tradition which extends even to their own theology. Rabbis centuries before the modern scientific revolution were saying, "Hypothetically, if information about the natural world was discovered that contradicted the scriptures, well, those parts must be metaphorical. These texts were originally passed orally by illiterate and highly ignorant herders, after all." Among other things. We all know about today.

I'm not going to touch this journalist argument because frankly, journalism degrees are easy to get and any idiot can get one (including people I graduated high school with and a certain Governor Palin) which really weakens any argument about trained journalists doing actual good work. Yeah, in theory they should be trained to search out real truth and report it faithfully for the benefit of humanity or something, but in practice you get hacks who copy off press releases while "presenting both sides of the argument" though usually biasing the story in favor of one side (which is often the stupid side - oh, the poor creationists and anti-vaccinationists are being repressed by mean ol' Science!) But this might be me being bitter.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Right, and I am studying physics at university, and I do know how this works. You're quite right that journals peer review, and reject obviously poor quality papers (the reputable ones, anyway). But you're still free to submit anything you want, or to set up your own publication if you believe your submissions are being rejected unfairly.

Yes, creationists do that. And guess what, they dont get the respect of their peers. Generally journals are not set up because "waaaah, those means zoologists think my work is crap" they get set up by groups of scientists who specialize in a particular area. Completely different motivations and outcomes.

There is no central authority that decides what can or cannot be a publication, or what a publication can or cannot publish, the poor quality ones simply lose prestige and are ignored (oh no, a "FREE MARKET!!!1111oneone"!).

The difference here is that the competition of ideas takes place within a group of qualified professionals. The ones who know the material, and can evaluate it on its merits. There is a substantial barrier to entry, there are barriers to play, it costs money that people who dont do good work cant pay, and there are enforceable standards. Moreover moron... When Joe The Plumber submits something for publication, it gets published uncritically because it sells papers/advert revenue, whatever. If Joe the Plumber were to submit something to American Naturalist, the Editors (a centralized board?!) looks at it, farms it out to experts in what he is talking about, and then comes back with a bit fat rejection stamp before any more than 10 people ever see his manuscript.

The same is true of news - services universally believed to be poor quality simply go bust, or at least are not watched. The problems come when some people view the same thing as poor quality and others as good quality.

Remember the difference? Qualified professionals. People who are already informed are the ones that decide what is and is not publishable in science.They are also the ones that read the journals. The general public has little capacity to evaluate the truth or quality of news. How the fuck long did it take for people to finally calm down about the "secret muslim" bit?

...which requires a state board to decide matters of fact once and for all. That doesn't solve your problem at all! The biggest problem is, journalists rarely investigate (or even understand) science themselves. What they're actually reporting are the opinions of other talking heads (particularly true of the autism thing, idk about BGH as it's always been illegal in Britain anyway). So do you want to ban the talking heads (ie. abolish the first ammendment, and have your state board prosecute anyone who says anything it determines to be scientifically inaccurate), or do you want to ban journalists from simply reporting what other people are saying? Either way, you do have the enormous regulatory problems that this entails everywhere.

They dont have to understand science, but have you looked at what gets reported with the Autism thing? The scientific consensus right now is that no, there is no link between vaccines and autism. But if you read mainstream news, you would think that vaccines are causing an autism epidemic because every time some luddite menetions the two words in the same sentence the "controversy" gets reported, but they dont bother to interview the scientists that smack these idiots down. Why? Because it sells papers. Making people scared sells papers. It is also irresponsible and should be criminal because in the end, people can actually die from decisions made based upon the misinformation.

All it would take is to give professional organizations (Like the AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics etc.) the ability to file a civil or criminal complaint. You can justify it on first amendment grounds because it is essentially like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Dont go after the reporters, go after the editors.

In the BGH incident with Fox, it was the editors, not reporters who were guilty of malfeasance. The reporters did their diligence, they reported on a special on BGH, but Monsanto found out and sent a little letter saying "We dont like what your reporters have to say about our product" so the editors ordered a whitewash. The reporters refused on the basis of their professional integrity. They eventually got fired, and filed a whistle blower suit. They won. Upon appeal however it was ruled that it was perfectly OK for Fox to lie on the air and lie through their editorial policy.

A big part of fixing the problem would be to fix THAT. And you dont need a centralized board to do it. Just the legal ability to file a lawsuit.

[Patrick Degan]

Don't you just love the way HMS Pinafore here gets his knickers in a twist over the presumed menace of "the State Board™" swooping in to decide everything which, really, in what Denryle is outlining would simply require only a court of law and the operation of a Standards of Truth in Reporting law —which does NOT cancel out the 1st Amendment, BTW, since a reporter or would-be reporter trying to push an agenda despite the facts could still go on to publicise his quackery independently. He just couldn't do so for any network which has to observe a code of professional conduct and a truth in journalism standard.

[Knife]

Don't you just love the way HMS Pinafore here gets his knickers in a twist over the presumed menace of "the State Board™" swooping in to decide everything which, really, in what Denryle is outlining would simply require only a court of law and the operation of a Standards of Truth in Reporting law —which does NOT cancel out the 1st Amendment, BTW, since a reporter or would-be reporter trying to push an agenda despite the facts could still go on to publicise his quackery independently. He just couldn't do so for any network which has to observe a code of professional conduct and a truth in journalism standard.

I think it is more fundamental than that; HMS being fairly libertarian, is threatened by the notion that a large scale infrastructure (education) is needed for all the things he takes for granted. I mean if some smuck just can't up and become a reporter on a whim without formal or informal education than that means it takes more than a small town grit and American know how to run a society. Lets face it, most libertarians I've encounter, envision a bunch of small towns and hamlets with a church in the middle as their utopia. Free market is mom and pop stores and that is something that just isn't going to give them the infrastructure for high end professions no matter what bullshit they pull out.

[SirNitram]

This is hilarious on it's own.

"I'll be honest with you. I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I-I think it's asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for'em. Now everyone's got an opinion and wants to downer--and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you're gonna sit there and say, 'Well look at this atrocity,' well you don't know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

So no one should go in except as a fluffer for the military propaganda corps. Also, he has no business reporting on the war. Hypocrisy, the new GOP value.

The AP video: Link

[ray245]

This is hilarious on it's own.

"I'll be honest with you. I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I-I think it's asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for'em. Now everyone's got an opinion and wants to downer--and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you're gonna sit there and say, 'Well look at this atrocity,' well you don't know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

So no one should go in except as a fluffer for the military propaganda corps. Also, he has no business reporting on the war. Hypocrisy, the new GOP value.

The AP video: Link

Can't he tell that he is making an argument against himself?

Well, the Republicans is basically a party of simple and short term minded people. Extremely short-term minded.

I mean come on, Republicans love to day-dream about a idealistic world, however they never realise the fact that ideas are never absolute, and there can be opposing ideas in this world. The fact that everyone has a different idea of a idealistic world.

[Kanastrous]

We might as well be asking Paris Hilton her views on the large hadron collider.

I'm pretty sure someone did.

The answer was something along the lines of it's very shiny.

[The Spartan]

This is hilarious on it's own.

*snip rantings*

Is this fucker capable of anything other than parroting back talking points? That's exactly what I thought of when I read that, a parrot repeating back what it had heard with no real comprehension of what it was actually saying.

[Coyote]

So no one should go in except as a fluffer for the military propaganda corps. Also, he has no business reporting on the war. Hypocrisy, the new GOP value.

The AP video: Link

Can't he tell that he is making an argument against himself?

Well, remember, he comes from the Conservative realm, which has gay sex scandals by the same people who tout "conservative family values"; Rush Limbagh's stance about hard time for drug users while he's popping pills...

"Rules are for thee, not for me!"

[Spyder]

This is hilarious on it's own.

"I'll be honest with you. I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I-I think it's asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for'em. Now everyone's got an opinion and wants to downer--and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you're gonna sit there and say, 'Well look at this atrocity,' well you don't know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

So no one should go in except as a fluffer for the military propaganda corps. Also, he has no business reporting on the war. Hypocrisy, the new GOP value.

The AP video: Link

I don't understand why any normal media outfit wants to spend any time on this guy apart from a single ticker line reading "Man that has no idea what the fuck he's doing attempts Middle East report."

[Duckie]

I'm hoping he sticks to his principles, goes home, and lets the military do the reporting for the military like he wants his handlers told him to want.

Due to the hilarity of such stupidity, if he actually stick to his principles and just used a job to advocate abolishing his own job, I'd almost forgive him the phrase 'average joe' or 'joe the plumber' that is burned in my brain from the 2008 election season. Almost.


edit- by the way this forum needs strikethrough.
we need to start a et carthago delendum est thing.

[Darth Wong]

So no one should go in except as a fluffer for the military propaganda corps. Also, he has no business reporting on the war. Hypocrisy, the new GOP value.

The AP video: Link

Can't he tell that he is making an argument against himself?

Well, remember, he comes from the Conservative realm, which has gay sex scandals by the same people who tout "conservative family values"; Rush Limbagh's stance about hard time for drug users while he's popping pills...

"Rules are for thee, not for me!"

I don't know if he's even smart enough to realize he's being a hypocrite. Seriously, whenever I see him speak I am struck with the overwhelming impression that he has the intelligence of a turnip.