Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Two Ways to Spin Physical Fitness
Here is an article exposing the hypocrisy of the mainstream media's negative treatment of President George W. Bush's focus on physical fitness compared to the way they are responding to President-elect Barack Obama's equally strident diligence in his own exercise regimen.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Bald Assertion Reported as Scientific Finding
At first it was called human-induced fossil-fuel burning CO2 produced "global warming." Al Gore got a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar. Draconian laws to limit industry and fossil fuel usage as well as a punitive tax on the raising of cattle began to become the forced policy directives of many countries. [Update: Since this article was posted, we have learned that some in the U.S. government are trying to do the same thing!]
But then the facts began to fall apart. Glaciers began to grow faster in one year than anyone thought possible. The world began to cool or at least hold steady both in global averages and also to the personal experience of millions of people in different areas. But CO2 emissions still saw an increase. Surely CO2 was not causing the global cooling! Then the Goddard Institute of Space Studies left in its climate models bogus data from Siberia (summer numbers transmuted to fall figures) that vastly increased the purported global temperature averages. Anyone with common sense could tell you that Siberia would be much hotter in the summer than in October. And over the year the phrase changed from "global warming" to human-induced "climate change."
But even that turn-of-phrase could not help the defense of climate-alarmists' perspective. Not only the present, but also historical evidence began to mount that pre-industrial age temperature -- the era before any fossil fuel industry -- had fluctuated significantly from temperatures as warm or warmer than the 1990's, to very cold "little ice age" type climates. And so how could it be cause by human-induced fossil fuel emissions? Evidence of a balmy Greenland around 1000 A.D. suddenly gave a concrete reason for the Vikings' choice of name. No matter; advocates are so sure it must be human-induced. There is an often unspoken (and also unshakeable) belief that our great civilizations have always overused resources and raped environments -- not merely on a local level but on a global scale.
And so now we begin to observe in the media the push to produce evidence that historical climate fluctuations were also human-induced. Witness the Discovery article "Falls of Empires Hastened Little Ice Age." People who see the title of the article without reading closely will be bolstered in their beliefs about global warming. At the very least Discover News should have put the word "claimed" in there because the article is merely assertion occasioned by the weakest situation of a possible correlation.
But note the end of the article: "Nevle and Bird admit that volcanic activity and a decrease in the sun's intensity probably both played roles in triggering the Little Ice Age. Still, Bird said, human activity was undeniably important."
"Human activity was undeniable important." Bird's statement is simply bald assertion with no evidence. Indeed in the same breathe he is forced to admit that volcanic activity and solar cycles probably played roles. These two natural causes have proven causal connections to climate change. But to claim that empires falling must have caused an increase in the rain forest and that must have been so huge that global temperatures fell ignores perhaps hundreds of confounding variables. Could it be that falling temperatures actually influenced the failing of empires? Perhaps the anarchy that result meant more forest fires? Do we really know whether there was a net increase in rainforest coverage? What of the evidence that many rain-forest civilizations did not depend on clear-cutting but rather used forest management strategies? [see 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles C. Mann.] Could whatever increase in rain forest in one area have been offset by the destruction of trees in another area of the world? The list of other explanations and variables could go on.
These authors pretend objective science when they -- as if with religious fervor -- actually merely assert something founded on nothing but assertion and a few vague possible correlations. Speculation is not science and should not be reported as such. When policies are made on the basis of speculative pronouncement, governments could unjustly destroy people's ways of life, take away their freedom, and cause economic depression.
With regard to The Little Ice Age, there is already evidence for a pattern of cooling caused by natural forces: Along with the bubonic plague mentioned in the article, instead of a reduction in population which somehow caused cooling, the evidence for one major outbreak in the 6th Century is that a major volcanic eruption in 535 A.D. then led to a climate change that then led to movement in wild rodent host populations that led to cross species infection that ultimately led to the human associated rodents carrying plague across the trade routes. For more information, see: Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization Indeed the decline of the Teotihuacan Mayan civilation correlates to the same time.
So you have strong evidence that in the 6th Century global cooling (or climate change) induced plague in Asia and Europe as well as major droughts and collapse of civilizations in Central America was very probably caused by non-human volcanic activity of an enormous eruption from a region in Indonesia.
Then despite this evidence in the 6th century that should at least have some weight in understanding the 16th century, the writers brazenly assert that somehow in the situation in the 1500's had to be caused by the reduction of human activity instead of natural non-human causes.
-- Joel Linton
[more...]
================
Links --
Catalogue of things for which some prominent media have blamed global warming
Thoughts by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel
Manhattan Declaration of the International Climate Science Coalition
But then the facts began to fall apart. Glaciers began to grow faster in one year than anyone thought possible. The world began to cool or at least hold steady both in global averages and also to the personal experience of millions of people in different areas. But CO2 emissions still saw an increase. Surely CO2 was not causing the global cooling! Then the Goddard Institute of Space Studies left in its climate models bogus data from Siberia (summer numbers transmuted to fall figures) that vastly increased the purported global temperature averages. Anyone with common sense could tell you that Siberia would be much hotter in the summer than in October. And over the year the phrase changed from "global warming" to human-induced "climate change."
But even that turn-of-phrase could not help the defense of climate-alarmists' perspective. Not only the present, but also historical evidence began to mount that pre-industrial age temperature -- the era before any fossil fuel industry -- had fluctuated significantly from temperatures as warm or warmer than the 1990's, to very cold "little ice age" type climates. And so how could it be cause by human-induced fossil fuel emissions? Evidence of a balmy Greenland around 1000 A.D. suddenly gave a concrete reason for the Vikings' choice of name. No matter; advocates are so sure it must be human-induced. There is an often unspoken (and also unshakeable) belief that our great civilizations have always overused resources and raped environments -- not merely on a local level but on a global scale.
And so now we begin to observe in the media the push to produce evidence that historical climate fluctuations were also human-induced. Witness the Discovery article "Falls of Empires Hastened Little Ice Age." People who see the title of the article without reading closely will be bolstered in their beliefs about global warming. At the very least Discover News should have put the word "claimed" in there because the article is merely assertion occasioned by the weakest situation of a possible correlation.
But note the end of the article: "Nevle and Bird admit that volcanic activity and a decrease in the sun's intensity probably both played roles in triggering the Little Ice Age. Still, Bird said, human activity was undeniably important."
"Human activity was undeniable important." Bird's statement is simply bald assertion with no evidence. Indeed in the same breathe he is forced to admit that volcanic activity and solar cycles probably played roles. These two natural causes have proven causal connections to climate change. But to claim that empires falling must have caused an increase in the rain forest and that must have been so huge that global temperatures fell ignores perhaps hundreds of confounding variables. Could it be that falling temperatures actually influenced the failing of empires? Perhaps the anarchy that result meant more forest fires? Do we really know whether there was a net increase in rainforest coverage? What of the evidence that many rain-forest civilizations did not depend on clear-cutting but rather used forest management strategies? [see 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles C. Mann.] Could whatever increase in rain forest in one area have been offset by the destruction of trees in another area of the world? The list of other explanations and variables could go on.
These authors pretend objective science when they -- as if with religious fervor -- actually merely assert something founded on nothing but assertion and a few vague possible correlations. Speculation is not science and should not be reported as such. When policies are made on the basis of speculative pronouncement, governments could unjustly destroy people's ways of life, take away their freedom, and cause economic depression.
With regard to The Little Ice Age, there is already evidence for a pattern of cooling caused by natural forces: Along with the bubonic plague mentioned in the article, instead of a reduction in population which somehow caused cooling, the evidence for one major outbreak in the 6th Century is that a major volcanic eruption in 535 A.D. then led to a climate change that then led to movement in wild rodent host populations that led to cross species infection that ultimately led to the human associated rodents carrying plague across the trade routes. For more information, see: Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization Indeed the decline of the Teotihuacan Mayan civilation correlates to the same time.
So you have strong evidence that in the 6th Century global cooling (or climate change) induced plague in Asia and Europe as well as major droughts and collapse of civilizations in Central America was very probably caused by non-human volcanic activity of an enormous eruption from a region in Indonesia.
Then despite this evidence in the 6th century that should at least have some weight in understanding the 16th century, the writers brazenly assert that somehow in the situation in the 1500's had to be caused by the reduction of human activity instead of natural non-human causes.
-- Joel Linton
[more...]
================
Links --
Catalogue of things for which some prominent media have blamed global warming
Thoughts by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel
Manhattan Declaration of the International Climate Science Coalition
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Real Story w/out the Emotional Spin on Cluster Bombs and Land Mines
Here is the real story about the international ban on cluster bombs and land mines. Banning them is a good thing, right? Everyone assumes so. This article explores some unintended devastating consequences of the ban.
When enemy combatants do not follow the rules of war but embed themselves in civilian areas as Hezbollah does when fighting Israel, the use of cluster bombs would allow civilians to live if they take refuge indoors, particularly in cellars. The forced alternative because of the ban would destroy their homes and their lives.
When enemy combatants do not follow the rules of war but embed themselves in civilian areas as Hezbollah does when fighting Israel, the use of cluster bombs would allow civilians to live if they take refuge indoors, particularly in cellars. The forced alternative because of the ban would destroy their homes and their lives.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Changing "Bailout" to "Recovery" Program
Here is an excellent analysis from Brit Hume about how word choice is deliberately employed to manipulate people's feelings about policy:
====quote
Democrats, who almost never call themselves liberal anymore (preferring to be known as progressives), have apparently decided that the terms "bailout" and even "stimulus" won't do either. Such efforts will now be called economy "recovery" programs.
The New York Times reports Democrats worried that "bailout" conjured up images of suspects sprung from jails and "stimulus" combined a "bureaucratic wonkiness with the concept of shock therapy."
However, "economic recovery" sounds optimistic and, to them, reminiscent of New Deal initiatives. Incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says, "'Stimulus' is Washington talk, and 'economic recovery' is how the American people think of it."
[Special Report, November 26, 2008]
====
====quote
Democrats, who almost never call themselves liberal anymore (preferring to be known as progressives), have apparently decided that the terms "bailout" and even "stimulus" won't do either. Such efforts will now be called economy "recovery" programs.
The New York Times reports Democrats worried that "bailout" conjured up images of suspects sprung from jails and "stimulus" combined a "bureaucratic wonkiness with the concept of shock therapy."
However, "economic recovery" sounds optimistic and, to them, reminiscent of New Deal initiatives. Incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says, "'Stimulus' is Washington talk, and 'economic recovery' is how the American people think of it."
[Special Report, November 26, 2008]
====
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Losing the trust of readers
With prominent print media organizations losing circulation and some even having to close down their magazine or printed newspaper division, you would think editors, reporters, etc. would do some soul searching.
Here is an article about how owners', editors' and reporters' complacency, condescension and contempt for the reading public have led to the current difficulty in this industry.
Here is an article about how owners', editors' and reporters' complacency, condescension and contempt for the reading public have led to the current difficulty in this industry.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Spinning acceptance.
For many years now, there has been an agenda among many groups to have homosexuality accepted on an equal level with heterosexuality. All of the "gay" marriage controversies hinge around this push for acceptance. But there are other sexual behaviors deviating from the standard of one-man one-woman in marriage of traditional societies and religions. Proponents do not stop at acceptance of homosexuality. In the universities, many are pushing the ideas of "transgender" and "post-gender" existence.
For instance in Columbia University's core curriculum that all students must take, often topics in Logic and Rhetoric or Contemporary Civilization or Western Literature will disproportionately include works and assignments related to sexual behaviors and identity. In the late nineties, also, there was a push for a BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism) student group to be recognized by the religious student union. This group could have applied through the regular student societies organization, but in particular seemed to want to force the religious groups to recognize it. During its campaign to force acceptance on campus, all of the Psychiatrist Diagnostic and Statistic Manuals that specified standards of practice for psychiatry were stolen from every single library on campus, probably because the DSM-IV (4th edition) continued to classify sadomasochism as a mental disorder.
Others are exploring opening up "freedoms" for polygamy and polyandry. Still others try to push the boundaries of adult-child sexual interaction: for instance the North American Man-Boy Love Association. All of these groups often will lump together to try to push the envelope of what is accepted.
To bolster support for behaviors deviating from the previous societal sexual norm, different news reports and medical and scientific research studies will be reported with headlines in ways that somehow seem to "prove" that these behaviors are natural. You'll hear reports about "gay genes" in fruit flies, or studies of statistically significant brain morphological differences
in practicing homosexuals. [We'll put up more links here.]
Recently there has been a big issue made about the "pregnant man." The headlines, such as in this ABC News Story will say "Pregnant Man is Pregnant again," or something like that. To further support the headline, pictures of the topless "man" with a bulging stomach will be shown. No woman's breasts can be seen! Proof?
In this case, it is probably done more for the sensational value, but the result is that it distorts the facts and affects people's understanding of the biological reality. The biological reality of this "transgender" man is that she is not a man. Her genes still specify two XX chromosome that make a woman. She still has a uterus. She still has all the biological functions of a woman except perhaps anything surgically removed like her mammary glands so that the child born will not be able to nurse.
The biological reality is that men have an X and a Y chromosome pair in every cell of their bodies. Women have an X and an X chromosome pair in every cell in their bodies. In some extreme cases where the sex cells were abnormal, you might get an XXY where there is more than a pair. This is a result of a cell division error.
One can do surgery to remove sexual organs, and one can artificially take hormones like testosterone that makes a women grow facial hair, but one cannot replace one of the X chromosomes in every cell with a Y chromosome.
But one's thinking that "I've always felt I was not a girl, but a boy," can only be the result of psychosexual developmental problems, or environmental factors. That cannot change the genes.
---
for further reading, take a look at chapter 4, Acquiring Tastes and Love: What Neuroplasticity Teaches Us About Sexual Attraction and Love -- in The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, M.D. of Columbia University; also you can refer to his paper submitted to a conference at Princeton's Witherspoon Institute.
For instance in Columbia University's core curriculum that all students must take, often topics in Logic and Rhetoric or Contemporary Civilization or Western Literature will disproportionately include works and assignments related to sexual behaviors and identity. In the late nineties, also, there was a push for a BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism) student group to be recognized by the religious student union. This group could have applied through the regular student societies organization, but in particular seemed to want to force the religious groups to recognize it. During its campaign to force acceptance on campus, all of the Psychiatrist Diagnostic and Statistic Manuals that specified standards of practice for psychiatry were stolen from every single library on campus, probably because the DSM-IV (4th edition) continued to classify sadomasochism as a mental disorder.
Others are exploring opening up "freedoms" for polygamy and polyandry. Still others try to push the boundaries of adult-child sexual interaction: for instance the North American Man-Boy Love Association. All of these groups often will lump together to try to push the envelope of what is accepted.
To bolster support for behaviors deviating from the previous societal sexual norm, different news reports and medical and scientific research studies will be reported with headlines in ways that somehow seem to "prove" that these behaviors are natural. You'll hear reports about "gay genes" in fruit flies, or studies of statistically significant brain morphological differences
in practicing homosexuals. [We'll put up more links here.]
Recently there has been a big issue made about the "pregnant man." The headlines, such as in this ABC News Story will say "Pregnant Man is Pregnant again," or something like that. To further support the headline, pictures of the topless "man" with a bulging stomach will be shown. No woman's breasts can be seen! Proof?
In this case, it is probably done more for the sensational value, but the result is that it distorts the facts and affects people's understanding of the biological reality. The biological reality of this "transgender" man is that she is not a man. Her genes still specify two XX chromosome that make a woman. She still has a uterus. She still has all the biological functions of a woman except perhaps anything surgically removed like her mammary glands so that the child born will not be able to nurse.
The biological reality is that men have an X and a Y chromosome pair in every cell of their bodies. Women have an X and an X chromosome pair in every cell in their bodies. In some extreme cases where the sex cells were abnormal, you might get an XXY where there is more than a pair. This is a result of a cell division error.
One can do surgery to remove sexual organs, and one can artificially take hormones like testosterone that makes a women grow facial hair, but one cannot replace one of the X chromosomes in every cell with a Y chromosome.
But one's thinking that "I've always felt I was not a girl, but a boy," can only be the result of psychosexual developmental problems, or environmental factors. That cannot change the genes.
---
for further reading, take a look at chapter 4, Acquiring Tastes and Love: What Neuroplasticity Teaches Us About Sexual Attraction and Love -- in The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, M.D. of Columbia University; also you can refer to his paper submitted to a conference at Princeton's Witherspoon Institute.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Quick to print lies -- no fact checking for Newsweek -even simple logic would have been enough
Here is an analysis of a "news" article by Newsweek that logically is proven false by simply analyzing the report itself.
It takes just a limited knowledge of policy positions of some well-known politicians to expose how ridiculous are the allegations in this story on Sarah Palin. But Newsweek ran the story anyway.
It takes just a limited knowledge of policy positions of some well-known politicians to expose how ridiculous are the allegations in this story on Sarah Palin. But Newsweek ran the story anyway.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A journalist writes on media bias
Here is a good article by a journalist about media bias.
Michael Malone: In past years "I always wrote [bias in news reports] off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy."
"But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign"
"no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press"
Michael Malone: In past years "I always wrote [bias in news reports] off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy."
"But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign"
"no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press"
Looking at headlines over time
When you see the headlines coming out of the Associated Press with stories about Palin, and if you line them up over several months, you can see clearly the bias of the media.
It would be good to track this on any issue that you think the media is biased. Line up the headlines about that issue over several months coming out of the particular news organization and you might just see a very clear trend that exposes the agenda of that particular news organization.
It would be good to track this on any issue that you think the media is biased. Line up the headlines about that issue over several months coming out of the particular news organization and you might just see a very clear trend that exposes the agenda of that particular news organization.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Truth or Smear?
Here is an article considering the "smears" against Obama, and the claims by Obama's website to answer them. What is interesting is to note how the presumed-smears are answered -- As you look ask yourself, are they answered with concrete facts or prevarications and red herrings (*)? But note, as one argument falls or is exposed, it gets taken down off the Obama website and another gets put in its place. So unfortunately the information on it will always be changing. For now you can take a look at the logic or logic fallacy of the answers.
* If you are not familiar with the expression, "red herring," keep your eye out for a future post that outlines logic fallacies and false-reasoning or avoidance.
* If you are not familiar with the expression, "red herring," keep your eye out for a future post that outlines logic fallacies and false-reasoning or avoidance.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
What's Wrong with this AP title?
What's wrong with the title of this story:
McCain Criticizes Obama's Promise of Tax Cuts
McCain: "Criticizes"
Obama: "Promises Tax Cuts"
What if the article were titled,
"McCain expresses doubts about Obama's promise of tax cuts" -- relatively neutral
"McCain raises doubts about Obama's tax-cut promise" -- slightly more positive about McCain, slightly more negative about Obama
"McCain exposes leaks in Obama's tax-cut promise" -- strongly positive of McCain and more negative about Obama.
The problem is that many people only read headlines and not the content. And organizations like the AP are deliberately choosing words in the headlines to give readers a positive feeling about Obama and a negative feeling about McCain.
That is a very powerful and very subtle type of ongoing manipulation that America's voters are faced with.
McCain Criticizes Obama's Promise of Tax Cuts
McCain: "Criticizes"
Obama: "Promises Tax Cuts"
What if the article were titled,
"McCain expresses doubts about Obama's promise of tax cuts" -- relatively neutral
"McCain raises doubts about Obama's tax-cut promise" -- slightly more positive about McCain, slightly more negative about Obama
"McCain exposes leaks in Obama's tax-cut promise" -- strongly positive of McCain and more negative about Obama.
The problem is that many people only read headlines and not the content. And organizations like the AP are deliberately choosing words in the headlines to give readers a positive feeling about Obama and a negative feeling about McCain.
That is a very powerful and very subtle type of ongoing manipulation that America's voters are faced with.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A New Counter to the Sound-Bite Culture...
Media L.S.D. applauds the efforts of Public Discourse at getting beyond soundbites to careful, reasoned thinking on important issues. Their full name: Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good. This site originates from Princeton University's Witherspoon Institute.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Newsweek's Negative Manipulation with One Cover Shot presentation...
With one cover picture, Newsweek is able to create a negative impression about Sarah Palin that will be seen around the country in every newsstand, supermarket checkout, and airport. They just blew up the picture of her face to minute detail and put it at a jarring angle, so they turned someone who is considered beautiful and nice to look at into someone whose face you have a negative feeling about.
NBC edits SNL skit that is critical of Democrats
Here's an interesting article about how an Saturday Night Live skit that parodied Democrat corruption got taken down, then edited. It is interesting to note what was edited out.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Neutralizing the Sting
A surprisingly balanced piece from CNN. But note the focus of Anderson Cooper's questions to the reporter. It is not on the distortion of Obama's campaign regarding his past, but a stronger focus on the McCain camp trying to make the association. So it in effect disarms the piece's impact on Obama by being more like a sports commentary on strategies instead of an exposure of LiesSpinDistortion perpetrated by the Obama camp. This is an example where the effect might not have been intentional, but rather a result of a media whose focus and priorities are off.
How different would have been the impact if Cooper had asked: "So in your opinion, is Barack Obama trying to deceive the American people?"
How different would have been the impact if Cooper had asked: "So in your opinion, is Barack Obama trying to deceive the American people?"
A Special Kind of "Guilt by Association" -- Associated Press Style
The two vice presidential candidates and their spouses released their tax returns, both on Fridays, three weeks apart.
What does the Associated Press do? When the Palins released their tax returns on a Friday, the AP led with a story of how releasing them on Friday was the time people do it if they have embarrassing things that will be exposed. But the AP never mentioned that when the Bidens released their tax returns on a Friday. Despite this lead, the AP did not have any concrete embarrassing information in the Palins returns to report. No matter. Just throwing in the line about embarrassing Fridays already could create a negative impression on the candidate.
By leading with discussing Friday as a time for "embarrassing" info to be released, one is left with the impression that the Palins had embarrassing info. Again, the AP casts a negative pall around one candidate but is silent about the other.
That Fridays are used by the government some times to release embarrassing information may be a fact.
That the Palins released their tax return information on Friday is a fact.
To say that because sometimes Fridays are used that way, therefore the Palins must have been doing so for that reason is a logic fallacy.
Because all that is needed is to ramp up negative feelings about a candidate to manipulate voter opinion, the Associated Press writer just threw in the Fridays=embarrassing info for Palin, but was silent about Biden.
Src:
"When Todd and Sarah Palin released their 2006 and 2007 tax returns Friday, the Associated Press reported, "The McCain-Palin campaign had said the tax returns would be released Monday, but it suddenly put them out Friday afternoon — a time long used by government to reveal embarrassing news because few people watch TV or read newspapers Friday evening and Saturday."
But the AP never said why the Palins' tax returns were embarrassing. A later dispatch noted the Palins owe the IRS some interest but that's all.
What's more, when Joe and Jill Biden released their tax returns three Fridays earlier, the AP said nothing about Friday being the release date for embarrassing information" -- Brit Hume, Special Report, October 7, 2008
What does the Associated Press do? When the Palins released their tax returns on a Friday, the AP led with a story of how releasing them on Friday was the time people do it if they have embarrassing things that will be exposed. But the AP never mentioned that when the Bidens released their tax returns on a Friday. Despite this lead, the AP did not have any concrete embarrassing information in the Palins returns to report. No matter. Just throwing in the line about embarrassing Fridays already could create a negative impression on the candidate.
By leading with discussing Friday as a time for "embarrassing" info to be released, one is left with the impression that the Palins had embarrassing info. Again, the AP casts a negative pall around one candidate but is silent about the other.
That Fridays are used by the government some times to release embarrassing information may be a fact.
That the Palins released their tax return information on Friday is a fact.
To say that because sometimes Fridays are used that way, therefore the Palins must have been doing so for that reason is a logic fallacy.
Because all that is needed is to ramp up negative feelings about a candidate to manipulate voter opinion, the Associated Press writer just threw in the Fridays=embarrassing info for Palin, but was silent about Biden.
Src:
"When Todd and Sarah Palin released their 2006 and 2007 tax returns Friday, the Associated Press reported, "The McCain-Palin campaign had said the tax returns would be released Monday, but it suddenly put them out Friday afternoon — a time long used by government to reveal embarrassing news because few people watch TV or read newspapers Friday evening and Saturday."
But the AP never said why the Palins' tax returns were embarrassing. A later dispatch noted the Palins owe the IRS some interest but that's all.
What's more, when Joe and Jill Biden released their tax returns three Fridays earlier, the AP said nothing about Friday being the release date for embarrassing information" -- Brit Hume, Special Report, October 7, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Turning Good News into Bad News
News report writers prefer to report bad news if it can contribute to two outcomes: (1) make people anxious so they desire to read more and buy more newspapers or watch more TV, (2) cause a bad impression on a candidate or administration whom the writer opposes.
But what happens if the news is actually good?
Not a problem. There is always a way to turn it into a "bad news" story. Here is a short little exposé catching the Associated Press doing the very thing:
"Despite the current credit crisis, consumer confidence actually ticked up in September. The Conference Board announced Tuesday the consumer confidence index jumped from 58.5 percent in August to 59.8 percent last month. That is higher than economic analysts had predicted.
This is how the Associated Press reported the news: "With the holiday shopping season about to start, consumer confidence is hovering near the lowest it's been since President Bush's father was commander in chief."
Not until the end of the second paragraph does the AP acknowledge that consumer confidence was up. And it took 10 paragraphs to note the expectations index, which measures consumer outlook for the next six months, also increased."
- Brit Hume, Special Report, Fox News, October 1, 2008
Notice the AP's subtle double attack on Bush, Republicans in general, and therefore McCain: 1. emphasizing low consumer confidence 2. singling out "President Bush's father". This added comment again works to Obama's favor when it is not really relevant. If they wanted a bad economy to compare too, they could have picked part of Clinton's term, or even Jimmy Carter. But both of those were Democrats, with whom they did not want to cause anyone to have a negative association with a bad economy.
But what happens if the news is actually good?
Not a problem. There is always a way to turn it into a "bad news" story. Here is a short little exposé catching the Associated Press doing the very thing:
"Despite the current credit crisis, consumer confidence actually ticked up in September. The Conference Board announced Tuesday the consumer confidence index jumped from 58.5 percent in August to 59.8 percent last month. That is higher than economic analysts had predicted.
This is how the Associated Press reported the news: "With the holiday shopping season about to start, consumer confidence is hovering near the lowest it's been since President Bush's father was commander in chief."
Not until the end of the second paragraph does the AP acknowledge that consumer confidence was up. And it took 10 paragraphs to note the expectations index, which measures consumer outlook for the next six months, also increased."
- Brit Hume, Special Report, Fox News, October 1, 2008
Notice the AP's subtle double attack on Bush, Republicans in general, and therefore McCain: 1. emphasizing low consumer confidence 2. singling out "President Bush's father". This added comment again works to Obama's favor when it is not really relevant. If they wanted a bad economy to compare too, they could have picked part of Clinton's term, or even Jimmy Carter. But both of those were Democrats, with whom they did not want to cause anyone to have a negative association with a bad economy.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Who "killed" the bill?
“I’m very disappointed,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a statement after the vote. “The Republicans killed this.” -- Bloomberg News
Did they really?
What about the 95 Democrats who voted against the plan? All Nancy Pelosi needed to do was get a few more Democrats to vote for the plan. Why couldn't she do that?
Here's a different view of what happened:
You can make your own conclusions.
---
The way the media might use this to manipulate voter opinion is to run a story with a headline: Barney Frank: "The Republicans killed this." Technically that is reporting the news -- who is blaming whom. But if they do not also run a headline of some Republican blaming a Democrat, then they are basically by omission making it look like Barney Frank is right. If they used just added one word, "Barney Frank claims the Republicans killed the bill." That at least makes it a slightly more emotionally neutral so as not to present Frank's opinion as accepted fact. But still, the way it is written in the story can lend weight to the claim and create the impression that it was the Republicans fault. How different the story about the failed bailout bill would sound if the headline were: "Nancy Pelosi's Colossal Failure" which again technically would be correct since she is the Speaker of the House and she should have been able to get the Democrats to vote with her. But this headline would leave a negative impression on her.
Did they really?
What about the 95 Democrats who voted against the plan? All Nancy Pelosi needed to do was get a few more Democrats to vote for the plan. Why couldn't she do that?
Here's a different view of what happened:
You can make your own conclusions.
---
The way the media might use this to manipulate voter opinion is to run a story with a headline: Barney Frank: "The Republicans killed this." Technically that is reporting the news -- who is blaming whom. But if they do not also run a headline of some Republican blaming a Democrat, then they are basically by omission making it look like Barney Frank is right. If they used just added one word, "Barney Frank claims the Republicans killed the bill." That at least makes it a slightly more emotionally neutral so as not to present Frank's opinion as accepted fact. But still, the way it is written in the story can lend weight to the claim and create the impression that it was the Republicans fault. How different the story about the failed bailout bill would sound if the headline were: "Nancy Pelosi's Colossal Failure" which again technically would be correct since she is the Speaker of the House and she should have been able to get the Democrats to vote with her. But this headline would leave a negative impression on her.
Award: The Best Forum so far in the 2008 Campaign
By far the best forum for hearing from Obama and McCain without spin or distortion is the Saddleback Civil Forum. There was one hour with Barack Obama with questions covering many issues. (During this hour, McCain was kept in a room so he would not be able to hear any of the questions ahead of time.) And then there was a second hour with John McCain with the exact same questions. Neither candidate knew what would be asked before they came on.
MEDIA L.S.D. wants to make a special note of this excellent and fair format that provides clear information to Americans for use in comparing and evaluating the two candidates. Much thanks to Rick Warren for hosting this forum.
Check Youtube and follow the related links to hear the complete number of interview segments:
NOTE: If you have the time, listen to the entire 2 hours without cuts or compilations. That will give you the clearest picture.
By the way: Please don't be influenced by the fact that Obama's picture is in the video. He was interviewed first simply by a coin toss. One way the media attempts to manipulate people's feelings is they label a negative sounding word or title next to picture of one candidate, and a positive sounding word or title next to another candidate.
If someone were reporting this blog post, they would try to manipulate things this way: "MEDIA L.S.D. gives Award to Saddleback Presidential Forum" and then put the picture of the candidate of their preference being interviewed instead of showing both candidates and the moderator in a joint picture. That way the good feelings would go to their preferred candidate. The words "presidential" and "award" would then be associated with the one candidate over the other.
MEDIA L.S.D. wants to make a special note of this excellent and fair format that provides clear information to Americans for use in comparing and evaluating the two candidates. Much thanks to Rick Warren for hosting this forum.
Check Youtube and follow the related links to hear the complete number of interview segments:
NOTE: If you have the time, listen to the entire 2 hours without cuts or compilations. That will give you the clearest picture.
By the way: Please don't be influenced by the fact that Obama's picture is in the video. He was interviewed first simply by a coin toss. One way the media attempts to manipulate people's feelings is they label a negative sounding word or title next to picture of one candidate, and a positive sounding word or title next to another candidate.
If someone were reporting this blog post, they would try to manipulate things this way: "MEDIA L.S.D. gives Award to Saddleback Presidential Forum" and then put the picture of the candidate of their preference being interviewed instead of showing both candidates and the moderator in a joint picture. That way the good feelings would go to their preferred candidate. The words "presidential" and "award" would then be associated with the one candidate over the other.
The Cause of the Crisis 2008
Obama claims that it is McCain's "deregulation" that is too "risky" and contributed to the crisis.
But who refused to have tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? (See article) The Republicans were warning of the danger of lack of accountability in Fannie and Freddie; they warned about a huge amount of lobbying and political contributions coming from Fannie and Freddie; they warned about the disproportionately high executive bonuses. The Democrats who controlled the Congress refused to allow tighter regulations and now in 2008 we have seen the result of that intransigency:
-----
Here's another good analysis of the record:
-----
Following is a pro-McCain video. But it is worth watching because the facts of the connections between Obama and Fannie May and Freddie Mac stand up to scrutiny.
Jim Johnson former CEO of Fannie Mae. Franklin Raines, also a former CEO for Fannie Mae. Both are advisors in Barack Obama's Campaign
It is also undeniable that 3 years ago in 2005, John McCain already was very concerned about the lack of regulation and accountability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Take a look at what he wrote about it -- shown in this video.
But who refused to have tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? (See article) The Republicans were warning of the danger of lack of accountability in Fannie and Freddie; they warned about a huge amount of lobbying and political contributions coming from Fannie and Freddie; they warned about the disproportionately high executive bonuses. The Democrats who controlled the Congress refused to allow tighter regulations and now in 2008 we have seen the result of that intransigency:
-----
Here's another good analysis of the record:
-----
Following is a pro-McCain video. But it is worth watching because the facts of the connections between Obama and Fannie May and Freddie Mac stand up to scrutiny.
Jim Johnson former CEO of Fannie Mae. Franklin Raines, also a former CEO for Fannie Mae. Both are advisors in Barack Obama's Campaign
It is also undeniable that 3 years ago in 2005, John McCain already was very concerned about the lack of regulation and accountability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Take a look at what he wrote about it -- shown in this video.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)