Wait, remind me again: which one is the fake news organization? The Onion, or Fox?
Sheesh.
Tip o’ the Kukulcan to Javier Pazos and Jeff Witmer.
About Bad Astronomy
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. 
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Subscribe to BA using an RSS Feed
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
Between The Onion and The Daily Show, I find myself turning to satire for an intelligent take on the news. Why? Because the actual news shows aren’t doing the job.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 am
I would’ve thought you’d be a little more, um, scientific in your approach than to use a screenshot to judge a news story without bothering to see for yourself what was said. The segment in question was an interview with a Mayan expert who was Debunking the end-of-the-world nonsense. That you should attack Fox for such a segment, based on a screengrab from someone just looking to misrepresent Fox’s coverage, is a disappointing slippage in your usually high standards of accuracy.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Haaa! gotta luv The Onion. They did one on Levar Burton a couple of weeks ago… hillllarious!
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Trick question, Phil. We all know Fox isn’t a news organization, not even a fake one.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
I can’t see the Twitpic from my office – they blocked it because it’s considered ‘personal storage.’
What’s it of?
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
BTW you can see the actual video of the segment. I’m not sure about this, but I think that watching the coverage gives a better idea than not watching it, but I could be wrong on that.
Video: http://tinyurl.com/yk6boec
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
All right, let’s get it all out of the way here: “THIS ISN’T ASTRONOMY YOU’RE JUST A LIBROOL WHO HAETS FOX FAIR AND BALANCED EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE IS BIAS YOU DON’T EVEN WATCH FOX SO SHUT UP”.
There. That covers every regular whiny comment that pops up in these threads. Now no more are necessary.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
@Zucchi: Diddo. In fact, I have no idea what has been happening in the new this week while Daily Show and Colbert Report are on vacation…
All of this reminds me of a local news station that up dated their website several years back. After they did so, they asked users about the site and all. One of the questions had to do whether you felt that the news team was doing a good job and if you felt that the new reported was balanced – or something like the important of balance in the news. I remember responding that balance was overrated. You can present two “balanced” view and still be wrong. Whatever happened to objectivity?
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Re: World ends in 2012. Did you note that your up-the-road neighbor Richard Heene (of the balloon boy hoax) wanted to make a lot of money quickly to build himself a shelter “so he would be safe when the sun exploded in 2012?” Must be one hell of a shelter!
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
It’s a sad commentary on the state of TV news that “Developing… Will the world end in 2012? Many people believe so.” is acceptable as a headline. Fox has clearly scraped the bottom of the barrel, but I wouldn’t for a moment think that NBC, ABC & CBS wouldn’t do the same in a New York minute.
The Weekly World News would’ve approved of the headline, though. Maybe that’s where the “journalists” that wrote this mess came from before they worked at Fox.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
@Richard Drumm:
Oh, is that what the Twitpic is about? I saw that piece, cause I thought it was ridiculous, but actually it was acceptably done. They kinda talked about the movie, then to a professor of Mayan studies who basically said ‘the Mayans never said anything about the world ending in 2012. It’s just a calendar change, like your calendars on your desk. Don’t get all bent out of shape.’
That said, I still think there’s not any reason to talk about it, but meh… who am I to call out Fox News.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Many people DO believe the world will end in 2012. Some think a week from next Thursday. Must be a slow blog day, Phil…
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
The Onion is supposed to be funny. Faux News is just tragic political extreme right wing, lies and racism.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Aerimus – wow, that’s like the second dumbest thing regarding journalism I’ve heard all week. Amazing. Fair and balanced IS objectivity. Presenting both sides? What a concept.
Funny how most of you here make fun of Fox because they don’t present the news as YOU want it presented. Sort of like the President. Isn’t the essence of the scientific method to NOT have bias? To examine all sides of an issue? Skip the commentary if your delicate sensibilities are offended, but try watching their regular news programming sometime and you’ll find that it is a real news organization and a damn fine one.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I think Phil may be a victim of confirmation bias: he remembers a fluff piece on Fox but forgets the ones from other orgs:
CNN: Apocalypse in 2021? …
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/27/2012.maya.calendar.theories/index.html?iref=newssearch
ABC News (from AP): Next Apocalypse? Mayan Year 2012 Stirs Doomsayers
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=8800185
LA Times: Many gather to ponder end of Maya days; Ancient calendar ends in 2012. Does calamity await? Or a rebirth?
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1587736621.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+3%2C+2008&author=Louis+Sahagun&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=B.3&desc=Many+gather+to+ponder+end+of+Maya+days%3B+Ancient+calendar+ends+in+2012.+Does+calamity+await%3F+Or+a+rebirth%3F
[Of course, I'm probably also suffering from confirmation bias too: I notice Phil's post about Fox but ignore other posts about other news orgs...happens to the best of us.]
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
FWIW, search this blog (and my Twitter stream) for me making fun of CNN and other news orgs. I don’t like any of them anymore; they tend to try to give “balance” between “both sides”, when in fact, with issues scientific, there aren’t two sides.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
And Gadfly misses the point that “balance” means nothing.
By the way, I already covered that and the “HURR U JUS DUN WATCH FOX” canard, so you’ve wasted time and bandwidth with your whinery.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Gadfly,
Balance is not objectivity. It is two biased view points presented simultaneously (at best). Objective would be to present the facts without the bias at all.
Also, the poll that I was talking about was actually a local ABC affiliate – not Fox News at all. But since you asked, yes, I still make fun of Fox News. Like I said, I want objective reporting – give me the facts, let me decide if they are for good or ill. Fox is not objective, even if you claim that balance is object – because they are not balanced. No one disputes that at lest two shows/host – Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity – are conservatives. So where are Fox’s liberal shows and host – you know, “balance” and all?
Finally, I’m not pro Obama. I’d like him to do good works in office, but I didn’t vote for him – I voted Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. If the election were held again today, I’d do the same. Personally, I don’t watch Fox news any more than I watch MSNBC. Honestly, I get my news some several sources, mostly print media, because they are the last bastion of objectivity (and even so, they often aren’t objective anymore either.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Fox.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Phil, very true, you have made fun of other organizations. But you seem to be especially biased against Fox. Perhaps just my perception.
However, one thing that everyone needs to understand is that these are private companies that need to pay for their reporting efforts with advertising dollars. Yes, they need to accurately represent the news as much as possible. They are charged with a sacred trust — informing the public. But they also need to pay the bills. If the headline is a bit “over the top” but the content is reasonably accurate (Yes, SOME people DO think the world will end in 2012) then the eye-catching headline should be forgiven.
What CANNOT happen is suppression of the news outlet. Something this administration, to its lasting shame, attempted to do. I may not agree with the editorial staff of the mainstream media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, etc) but they stood up the White House and supported Fox’s right to access within the administration. Bravo to them.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
@BadAstronomer: Yup–I stand corrected.
And I agree that debate about scientific issues is not symmetric: the anti-scientific point of view should not be given equal weight.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Victor, If I’ve wasted your time I’m glad. Clearly you are more prejudiced than any Fox commentator ever could be. Balance means nothing? You win the prize — that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard this week.
Aerimus, Balance does NOT mean presenting two views that agree. How is that balanced? You’ve made it clear you don’t watch the programming or you wouldn’t say something so ridiculous. THe news programming DOES present the facts. And while some of the EDITORIAL programming is biased — so what? Show me the conservative programming on the other channels. It’s the NEWS we’re discussing. And those programs, as well as all of the commentary programs, present OPPOSING viewpoints. Show me an O’Reilly epsiode where he doesn’t have liberal views represented. You won’t find one.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Gadfly, you’re not getting this very simple formula:
balance <> objectivity
or, if you use different notation,
balance != objectivity
Presenting a biologist and a creationist in a discussion of evolution is balanced, but it is not objective. See the difference?
BTW, the current administration has done nothing to suppress any news outlet. You’ve been getting too much “balance” and not enough objectivity in your news sources. When Fox starts being a news organization, they can play with the big boys. Until then, they are shunned. For the slow:
shunned <> suppressed
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
The way to tell the difference between Fox news and fake news is fake news is more accurate.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Funny how Christianity expressly forbids consulting psychics and fortune tellers (it’s in the Bible somewhere). Also, all other religions are false religions.
Yet when it suits them, they can consult Nostradamus, Mayan tables, clairvoyants and Sylvia Browne.
Not to mention believing in Blessed Virgin tree stumps and dancing suns.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1012/1224256437842.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0710/1224250387596.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCVmc885-ns
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
@Gadfly:
Who said anything about two views that agree? But since you bring it up, yes, balance is NOT presenting two viewpoints that agree. So again, if Fox’s motto is “Fair and Balanced”, how is presenting Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck “balanced” if, as you say “Balance does NOT mean presenting two views that agree”?
Secondly, when you are a 24 hour news net work, the line between editorial and news get blurred beyond recognition.
As for other the other channels (1) There motto is not “Fair and Balanced” and (2) I already said that I don’t watch them either, for much the same reasons.
Finally, my argument is that objectivity should be about the presentation of the facts, not two equally bullhead blabbermouths spouting intelligible crap at each other who disagree on everything. Of course, we could stick with your agruement and say that since you and I have presented these two view point, this post, no matter how biased someone may have originally though it to be, is now objective.
[Edit: Every arguement needs a good quote:
"The belief in objectivity is a faith in 'facts,' a distrust in 'values,' and a commitment to their segregation." - Michael Schudson]
On another note, I did want to say concerning an earlier post that I can completely understand that Fox, or any “news” organization must get the ratings and pays the bills. And honestly, I have issue with that. My response to that is simply that I don’t watch it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
— alleged comment by David Boylan, station manager for Fox Tampa Bay (WTVT Ch 13), to two reporters who are currently suing the network for firing them and censoring a story about the use of bovine growth hormone in Florida cows.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
I wasn’t worried about the world ending in 2012 until I saw it mentioned on Fox News. Now I am worried because if Fox says it then it must be true.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Obama should have never waded into the Fox issue. It’s a sucker’s bet. He doesn’t have much to gain but a lot to loose (and with his approval polling cratering he needs to be careful).
From Krauthammer’s article today -”Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House “pool” news organizations — except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.”
Fox gets to make a huge issue out of this, the other news organizations actually boycotted the White House in defense of them(wow), and it looks like the latest fumble for the White House. I’m not defending Fox – I’m saying this was a bad decision on the part of the White House.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
@Gadfly
Balance is an excuse to not report the truth. Balance is an excuse to bring up a flat-earth or young-earth creationist and give them equal weight as an Astronomer.
That’s the problem, news should have never been about balance. It should be reporting the truth. Now we have the modern US News industry which decides to always tell two sides to every story OR just be a PR mouth/Dictaphone.
It’s ridiculous that news reporters will report every word spoken by a Politician but never say that the Politician lied the entire time. They won’t because they want to “balance” truth with lies and let us decide. That’s not what news is for, that’s a business model for a press relations company, not a news organization. Sadly all of our media seems to love it, and label it news.
There’s a reason why Roger Ailes fought all the way to the supreme court to prove that they are allowed to lie on a news station, freedom of speech allows fox to call themselves news.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
From #14 – “…Isn’t the essence of the scientific method to NOT have bias?”
Scientific Method is, as I understand it, based on forming a hypothesis (guess), perform a series of tests that would tend to prove or disprove the hypothesis, collecting the results of the tests, and determine if the accumulated results prove or disprove the hypothesis.
I hypothesize that you favor Fox News. I “test” each of your responses and mark “yes” or “no” if your words reflect a positive attitude towards Fox News. After counting up the responses, I see that you tend to respond more times with a positive attitude towards Fox News than negative. That ’s the scientific method in action.
Applying the same method to Fox New’s coverage, I’d like to make two hypotheses:
1) I hypothesize that their news coverage tends to reflect a negative attitude (expressed by verbal and non-verbal language cues) towards Democrats, self-described and host-attributed Liberals, and the U.S. Bill of Rights (excluding the second half of the 2nd Amendment). Any scientists care to follow up on the test by combing through their coverage from day one and posting the results?
2) I also hypothesize that any such testing would be dismissed as ‘biased’ by those who support Fox News.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I have to say, I’m really surprised to see a post this shallow on BA. Whereas Phil usually illuminates situations by providing a voice for the under-represented scientific community, here he is caught echoing the sentiments of the barely-informed junior college crowd. I get my news from a variety of sources including the left-leaning Baltimore Sun, the right-leaning WBAL radio, CNN, FOX, Real Clear Politics, Politico etc. and all of them require that the reader be skeptical and assess their content based on their perceived agenda. Gathering my news from such a breadth of sources has made it very clear to me that there are stories that, due to the light their information sheds on the subjects at hand, the mainstream media is perfectly content to avoid and yet FOX still address. I recall that when the ACORN scandal broke only FOX gave the story top billing. FOX has also been the only agency to probe with any depth the disconnect and double-talk between the administration and military command in Afghanistan. No matter which administration is in charge, there needs to be a media that is capable and willing to critique their actions.
Now, regarding this whole 2012 thing, it makes my stomach turn as much as anti-vaxers, creationists, holistic healers, Holocaust deniers, moon-hoaxers, 9/11 truthers and all of the other narcissistic sociopaths who like to walk around congratulating themselves for being “in the know,” but to be fair, some other current “headlines” are:
cnn.com – Seeking lost love? Better think twice.
msnbc.com – Red wine with meat not fish? It’s science!
newyorktimes.com – For some parents, shouting is the new spanking.
What really concerns me, however, is not the fluff headlines on major news sites, it’s the fact that the Obama administration is actively attacking a news organization (read about that on CNN?) and that his compatriots have batted around the idea of reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” and regulating political conversation on private news stations. That, frankly, is much more chilling.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
While I agree there is little to gain from Obama making a big deal of the Fox issue, he really isn’t in much danger of blow back from it in terms of “polls cratering”. None of the people who watch Fox News would vote for him anyway, and those who like Obama fully understand what Fox News is all about. Fox News is the only “news” organization that has openly and proudly organized political opposition rallies against a sitting president. The voting public aren’t fools.
BTW: it’s worth nothing that President Bush didn’t give a single interview to the New York Times in his entire eight years — which included 9/11, when New York bore the brunt of the pain and suffering inflicted.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
As if Fox News is the only station reporting this drivel. Phil obviously has a political agenda here, otherwise, his post would contain screen shots of other news organizations’ similar idiocy regarding this topic.
Instead, he takes a jab at Fox on the front page, then comes in the combox and comments “oh, well, I don’t like any of the news stations.” But, of course, he won’t change his blog post – he’s got a political agenda to push.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Can we all at least agree that the Onion article is perfect?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Interesting to read the “fair/balanced vs objective” discussion here. I’m currently reading Ken Miller’s “Only a Theory” about ID vs evolution. He makes an interesting point that the ID movement’s political success is due to appealing to “fairness” and “balance”. And people have swallowed it up without realizing that it’s a complete red herring because science is about objectivity, not balance. It’s curious that Faux News’s slogan uses the same erroneous (but highly effective) tactic as the ID movement.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Phil, it’s your site and all, but you really need to be less lenient against these people. If all they’re going to do is spew the same tired-out talking-point crap, you have no responsibility to give them a platform. It’s your site – act like it! If they want to eat up your bandwidth calling you an idiot, then don’t let them.
Or are you more the “give them enough rope…” type? Because that’s cool, too.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
18. Aerimus Says: “I voted Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. If the election were held again today, I’d do the same.”
Finally, confirmation that I am not alone on this blog.
And for the rest of you, “Libertarian” is not a synonym for “anarchist.” We believe in minimal government, not no government. Some sort of authority is necessary to regulate your civilization, especially one that has as many disparate elements as ours. However, the complete intrusion into all facets of daily life that the current system has is quite onerous and should be reversed wherever possible.
- Jack
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
The reporting of News has never been about objective truth. From the first story telling around a fire to the modern age the news has always been biased and sensationalized. You either want to make money, get famous or cheer for your side. That is why long ago there were several newspapers in each town, because each had a different political slant. Quiet a few political speeches from the 19th century were reported very differently depending on which newspaper you read. Now newspapers are dying and cable TV and the Internet are doing the same thing. You want to watch “the news” that confirms your own biases. FOX is no worse than any of these other channels. They just come from a political standpoint that most of you don’t like. I honestly don’t watch FOX either (I will be watching John Stossel on FOX Business channel), but I can’t stand many of the overtly liberal news sources either.
As for this 2012 Business, I find it irritating but no more so than Y2K was a decade or so ago. All the news channels are jumping on the band wagon. I especially like the ones where Nostradamus is linked to 2012. The one observation I have though is that New Agers, who tend to be on the left politically, are more apt to believe the 2012 end time garbage than devote Christians. Something about having a pagan religion predict the Second Coming of your lord and savior that just doesn’t sit well with them I guess. That means FOX’s target audience is probably less appreciative of the 2012 coverage than your average TV viewer. Of course I could be wrong. And if it bugs you a lot you could just change the Channel.
Benjamin
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
The fact that we even have to ask the question speaks volumes about the news media…
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
20. Gadfly Says:
However, one thing that everyone needs to understand is that these are private companies that need to pay for their reporting efforts with advertising dollars. Yes, they need to accurately represent the news as much as possible. They are charged with a sacred trust — informing the public. But they also need to pay the bills.
Just a bit of history:
Until the Networks changed the News Division to be part of their Entertainment Division, it was expected that News would be a money loser. The income from Entertainment would cover the losses, allowing News to be separate from the rest of the Network, meaning that advertisers could not influence reportage.
Then, as the ‘bean counters’ came into control, all News was subsumed into Entertainment.[quote: Edison Carter - since when has news been Entertainment? Murray, his 'editor' - since it was created? from Max Headroom]
That means that the Advertisers gained (some) control over the content and presentation of News – look at local stations who do ‘reports’ on businesses who advertise on the station – which has handicapped reporters and journalists. [BTW, the control of content and presentation by editors is one of the important items left out of the 'the Media is Liberal' reports, if a reporter is a Democrat but his editor is a Republican, the report will most likely show more of the editor's view than the reporter, as a general rule]
Oh, and I did reporting from 1977 until last year, so I have seen this exact situation.
batted around the idea of reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” and regulating political conversation on private news stations.
Except they aren’t ‘private’, they (broadcast stations, which are the only ones affected by the old FD), they are using the public airwaves and are required to meet certain criteria, including a Public File of comments mailed/called in to the station. Cable stations (e.g. Fox, MSNBC, CNN) are not subject to any regulation (unless a new version of the FD were to include them) by the FCC. *
Also, the ‘equal time’ provision is usually misunderstood.. no one has the right to take 3 hours and rebut everything Rush Limbaugh (e.g.) says during his show. A specific claim or comment made by the broadcasted commenter can be rebutted, with sufficient time to make the case against the specific “misinformation”. That could be half the time or twice the time, though most cases will be limited to an equivalent (say, five minutes) length of time.
Learned this in Broadcast Law.. when the FD was still in effect.
J/P=?
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Yeah, its really fun to bag on Fox, but I note that CNN has done the same thing. Yet Phil ignores that.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/27/2012.maya.calendar.theories/index.html
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
#38 – You’re not alone, but many of us got bored with the responses after commenting on posts like this. Good to see the echo chamber is alive and well, though. If guys like #37 Victor have their way, the echoes will go on much longer…
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
At the risk of starting another flame war about libertarianism (and I am conveniently going out for the next 8 hours!), even minimal government would be license for disaster. For all their flaws (and there are many) government entities like the FDA and EPA are the only checks against private corporations that have enough power to see that they behave themselves. Dismantle the oversight and you immediately give companies the license to do just about anything they like in order to turn a bigger profit. Using the courts to fight them is a non-starter since you’re pitting people with pennies against companies with billions of dollars, and the damage has already been done.
In an ideal world, I can see how libertarianism could work, but in a corporate world driven by selfishness and greed, it is a recipe for disaster on a scale we haven’t experienced.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
@Gadfly:
Balanced reporting only applies where *opinion* is being reported upon. This means things like political stories. “Fair and Balanced” makes perfect sense when reporting on politics.
However, when you’re reporting on a car accident, where is the “fair and balanced” approach suppose to fit in? Clue: it doesn’t, because you aren’t reporting on opinions. When you’re reporting facts, that is *all* should should be doing. You shouldn’t be attempting to twist the facts in any fashion. You deliver the facts, and that’s it.
This is suppose to apply to most science journalism too. When consensus has been reached among the scientific community, for the purposes of news distribution that counts as “fact”, with fact meaning “this is the best knowledge we have at the current time”. Before you go off about what “fact” really means, think about how a news agency would report on a car accident: “At least 4 people killed. More as it comes in”. That is facts-based reporting. Just because you don’t know everything doesn’t mean that you don’t report on the available evidence as it arrives.
Unfortunately facts-based reporting rarely happens. Consensus has been reached that Luna is not made of green cheese, that Earth is not flat, that Sol is not the centre of the universe, and that continents do in fact drift. Yet (often mentally unstable) nutjobs are brought in and used to try and artificially insert balance into a story where no balance exists.
(Note that it doesn’t apply to things like “string model vs quantum loop gravity”, because that’s not based on available evidence, but is rather a strictly opinion based situation, so fair&balanced would apply there instead.)
Unfortunately every major news organization has canned their entire science journalism department and replaced it with political journalists. Because all they’ve ever reported on in the past is politics, they apply the fair&balanced mantra to stories where it isn’t applicable. IE, reporting heavily on what is basically a SINGLE nutcase’s fear that the LHC will destroy the world (cause it’s a 50-50 chance, of course! Either the world will be destroyed… or it won’t. See? 50-50), or reporting some people’s idiotic belief that the moon would be destroyed by LCROSS as if it were a real possibility.
That’s “fair and balanced”, but it’s not proper reporting because it’s an inappropriate application of fair and balanced. I don’t understand why the MSM can’t understand this simply simple concept.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:38 pm
And for the rest of you, “Libertarian” is not a synonym for “anarchist.” We believe in minimal government, not no government. Some sort of authority is necessary to regulate your civilization, especially one that has as many disparate elements as ours. However, the complete intrusion into all facets of daily life that the current system has is quite onerous and should be reversed wherever possible.
No one asked. Or are you trying to start a flame war?
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Watch Faux News at your own risk. The shorter version if you are lazy and don’t want to read the body of text.
Biased against Faux, damn straight they are not interested in the truth, just pandering to one particular partisan group and they won’t let a little thing like the truth get in the way.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
46. The Chemist Says: ” No one asked. Or are you trying to start a flame war?”
Actually, I was trying to deflect one since the very mention of the big L usually starts the reflexive response of “libertarians want to abolish all government.”
- Jack
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
44. tacitus Says: “At the risk of starting another flame war about libertarianism, even minimal government would be license for disaster.”
In the current environment, I’m afraid I must agree with you. People have forgotten how to be responsible for their own actions and altruistic towards society. There is great comfort in a nanny government where you don’t have to worry about consequences since there is always someone else to blame and some agency to protect you.
> For all their flaws (and there are many) government entities like the FDA and EPA
> are the only checks against private corporations that have enough power to see that
> they behave themselves.
As always, the argument reduces to where to draw the line. Obviously you have never worked for a company that has to perform under the auspices of the FDA. I have. The FDA has the power to show up, unannounced, and demand you turn over all your operating documents. If you hesitate or show any hint of non-cooperation, they can shut you down on the spot without due process. Or have you ever met a landowner whose property rights have been stripped because their back 40 is a potential habitat for some endangered species. Not that they’ve found the critter or plant there, but they want to keep it untouched, at your loss and without compensation, just in case they find some somewhere and need a place to transplant it.
And do I even need to use the example of the IRS where, if they accuse you of wrongdoing, you’re guilty until you can prove yourself innocent? And even if you decide to fight them and you manage to win, there is no recoupment of your expenses.
> Dismantle the oversight and you immediately give companies the license to do just
> about anything they like in order to turn a bigger profit.
Apparently you subscribe to the mindset that the goal of business is to maim and kill its customers and destroy the environment in the pursuit of making money. Are all businesses ethical? Of course not, but just ask yourself what you are giving up for all this “protection” from the government.
> In an ideal world, I can see how libertarianism could work, but in a corporate
> world driven by selfishness and greed, it is a recipe for disaster on a scale we
> haven’t experienced.
So in exchange you put your well being in the hands of people whose lust for power is at least as great as any businessman’s greed, and whose behind-the-scenes machinations to maintain that power is the very definition of “selfishness.”
- Jack
October 24th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Actually, I was trying to deflect one since the very mention of the big L usually starts the reflexive response of “libertarians want to abolish all government.”
So… yes?
Far be it from me to police Phil’s blog for him, and he generally lets comments run off topic a little anyway, but I’m sick and tired of Libertarians inserting themselves into every thread and comments section as soon as they can finagle a segue into Their Favorite Subject (TM). I don’t care if you’re a Libertarian and you just state it as a point of fact, but the details of your philosophy is not relevant in 99.9% of the threads I see it come up in. You want to bring it up anyway? Fine, but don’t get hot and bothered when people start telling you you’re an annoying git, or are peeved that you forced a discussion to take a wild irrelevant turn to be all about your pet issue because nobody cares about it otherwise. It’s pathetic and insecure.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Fox also spelt “faux” news is the fake.
Clearly. The ‘Onion’ is quite reliable by comparison!
October 24th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Look out Phill you may be on foxs hit list they will now be demanding that your book be taken out of school libarys and if you speak at a school fox will scream your brainwashing our kids and all the parents will complain . The world won’t end in 2012 it will end billons of years form now a red sun growing larger and the earth geting hotter will be the sings also mercury and venus will be gone and the moon will be farther [the end of the world according to astronomy]
October 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The only Fox channel that says the truth is Fox Sports, I think
October 24th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
White House Attacking Fox Because It Is News, and That’s the Problem
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ylg738x
October 25th, 2009 at 12:22 am
50. The Chemist Says: “So… yes?”
If you say so.
“I’m sick and tired of Libertarians inserting themselves into every thread and comments section as soon as they can finagle a segue into Their Favorite Subject (TM). I don’t care if you’re a Libertarian and you just state it as a point of fact, but the details of your philosophy is not relevant in 99.9% of the threads I see it come up in.”
1) I believe this is the second time in four years on this blog that I’ve mentioned my political affiliation.
2) I hope you are as vocal and insistent about relavance when the “big L” is “Liberal.”
- Jack
October 25th, 2009 at 11:04 am
There are three “Fox Fanatics” where I worked who insist the TV in the break-room must ALWAYS be tuned to Fox. Any attempts to watch others channels; not just other news channels, but ANY other channels is met with the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing.
The usual squall is always how everyone else fears “THE TRUTH” and is trying “SUPPRESS THEIR FREEDOM”!
It is the most fascinating PSYCHOSIS I’ve ever seen.
Then I remember Fox Fanatics also believe Terri Schiavo was a chained ballerina and Nuclear Bombs aren’t used enough.
So all you FF’ers here, which world wide conspiracy of Nations do you believe hid Saddam’s Nukes?
October 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
FOX “NEWS” made up the whole “denied access” story. Its more fake news from faux news.
Some sources:
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/10/it-is-official-fox-fabricated-denied.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/10/fox-war-on-wh-update-now-the-white-house-lost-me.html
October 25th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Sheesh. I’m a J major, but also jobless because we know where print journalism is going. Has gone. But I still have my brains. I think all the anchors need to ask the followup questions and not end with “we have to leave it there.” Jon Stewart noticed that even, & that’s why he might be the best newsman out there & he’s a comedian. I have a hard time watching FOX for very long because they wouldn’t know one true fact if it jumped up & bit them on the ass. Really. Oh yeah, news is what the editor says it is.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Look, no president in the history of this republic has less reason to complain about mistreatment in the press than Barack Obama. Liberals have academia, they have mainstream media, they have Hollywood. They’re all for diversity in everything but thought. And out here is this, this one channel, Fox, and they’re all up in arms because, in the words of Miss Dunn of the White House, “It is opinion journalism masquerading as news” which some of us would say describes the New York Times and certainly MSNBC.
- George Will