Ok, this is really starting to piss me off. It's the media's job to report news, to inform--not to pretend to deliver a balanced story, all Fox News-style. Take Global Warming. I know there are still people who think GW and Climate Change are nothing to be concerned with ("Remember back in the 1970's when Global Cooling was the rage?" Um, I don't, actually) but I'm getting tired of hearing varying views on bloody well everything including GW. In fact, just this morning, JUST when I was starting to feel like there actually is a consensus that GW and Climate Change is accepted fact, I stumble across [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/|another article] on how GW is no big deal, this one from Newsweek's site. It tells us that our GW concerns are based on an innaccurate assumtion that there is such a thing as a "perfect temperature" and that we shouldn't expect to see dire predictions of weather in 40 years come true since predictions of the weather in four days aren't reliable. This is such horseshit. All this article does is serve to confuse. The fact of the matter is that predicting weather day-to-day, on a small scale, is difficult. Everyone knows that the weatherman is some times wrong. The thing is comparing what he does to what climate scientists are doing is a falacy of argument--that is to say, the argument is based on a false premise, that predicting general climate shifts is akin to predicting clear skies next Tuesday. Sure, the opposing viewpoint is important. However, in the case of GW, there isn't an opposing view point. If you look at the average temperatures over the last century, you can see a general increase in temperature. This argument has no required "perfect" temperature and is generally accepted as the truth. So, if you've got an opposing view, great, but make sure your argument is based on solid ground because there's a serious mess of confusion out there regarding most important issues. It's articles like this one that make me wonder if there's an intentional effort to discredit EVERYONE as a reliable source for news. Or perhaps the effort is directed at leaving us confused and frustrated. It's working. Check out [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html|this other article] I found at http://guardian.co.uk for another example of what I'm talking about. The article defines "flashmobs" as "groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorist groups". Uhhh, flashmobs are mobs of people that are formed when each person gets a text message telling them where to go and when. A flashmob is like any other mob--not inherently good or evil. In fact, I've only heard of flashmobbing used for protests or impromptu parties, never have I heard them used by terrorists. Obviously, this article isn't about confusing, it's just about scaring. I don't know if there's a solution to this problem--I certainly want people to speak their minds. I guess I just wish people would use their brains before they write something in the mainstream media. I certainly think we, the readers, should be using our brains before, during and after reading just about anything--especially something from the mainstream media.
Orignal From: MEDIA PRESENTS OPPOSING BUT FAULTY VIEWS
No comments:
Post a Comment