Facts and Bias in a Social Media News World

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/europe/20iht-letter20.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Spin vs. facts in a Twitter and Facebook era. Yes, electronic media complicates the traditional journalist's, editor's and government roles, but governments have always spun the facts into propaganda when they thought they could and the news media have always held biases. I believe a very important bias is what is chosen NOT to be reported by traditional media, either through deliberate choice or lack of resources. Social media, though often tough to fact-check, allow little to go unreported.

The burden is on us, the consumers of news, often ill-equipped to sort and sift often clouded by our own biases.

Ain't It the Truth!

Journalism and the truth: More complicated than it has ever been — Tech News and Analysis - http://gigaom.com/2012/10/23/journalism-and-the-truth-more-complicated-than-it-has-ever-been/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

The GOP Wins by Bruising - WSJ.com

Peggy Noonan's take on the OWS folks. Henninger's opinion is similar. Without commenting on the gatherings in other places in the U.S., my impression of the Zuccotti Plaza group matches Noonan's. These protesters are unhappy and disorganized but only as relevant as the media circus makes them.

"...They are not funneling their energy into the democratic process because there is no market for what they are selling: Capitalism should be overturned, I am angry that my college loan bills are so big, the government is bad, and the answer is more government. You can't win elections in America with that kind of message. So they will stay in the streets, where they can have an impact by stopping traffic, inconveniencing people going to and coming from work, and appearing to be an amorphous force that must be bowed to.

The difference between the occupiers and the tea party is the difference between acting out and taking part...."

'via Blog this'

Obama Deficit Plan Cuts Entitlements and Raises Taxes on Rich - NYTimes.com

Even without the partisan rancor surrounding this proposal, let's put TeamObama's deficit plan in perspective.

The Obama budget previously submitted to Congress for the ten years 2012-2021 totals $45.95 Trillion in spending which creates additional cumulative deficits of $7.2 Trillion. A $3 Trillion reduction amounts to a 6.5% reduction in total spending. The cumulative budget deficits would shrink to $4.2 Trillion and the national debt would rise to approximately $18+ Trillion.


Too bad the article didn't include this relevant information. But political rhetoric and often the media echo chamber fail to give us the full story in order to shape our views. 

'via Blog this'

T.S.A. Furor Gives Media a False Positive - The Media Equation - NYTimes.com

A lot to chuckle about in this story by Carr. The media, social and mainstream feeding on itself.

"The pat-down story was the equivalent of vaporware — it seemed as if something huge was about to happen, but it turned out that it was a story about a story, the noisy, fervent sound of a news system feeding on itself."

Gulf May Have Avoided Direst Predictions After Spill - NYTimes.com

Gulf May Have Avoided Direst Predictions After Spill - NYTimes.com

More opinion that the Gulf is recovering much better and faster from the BP mess than predicted when the well was still gushing oil. Nature has effective ways of repairing itself even when the situation is overblown by the media and the scientists they often feature who hold extreme opinions.

"...Separately, scientists are arguing heatedly about how fast a large plume of dispersed oil more than a half-mile below the surface of the gulf is breaking down and how great a threat it poses to sea life.

Yet as the weeks pass, evidence is increasing that through a combination of luck (a fortunate shift in ocean currents that kept much of the oil away from shore) and ecological circumstance (the relatively warm waters that increased the breakdown rate of the oil), the gulf region appears to have escaped the direst predictions of the spring.

While its findings were disputed by some, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported several weeks ago that the oil was breaking down and dispersing rapidly, probably limiting future damage from the spill.

And preliminary reports from scientists studying the effects on marshes, wildlife and the gulf itself suggest that the damage already done by the spill may also be significantly less than was feared — less, in fact, than the destruction from the much smaller Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989..."

At G-20 Summit Talks, Obama Lacks Strong Hand on Stimulus - NYTimes.com

At G-20 Summit Talks, Obama Lacks Strong Hand on Stimulus - NYTimes.com

The upshot of this G-20 meeting seems to be disagreement by the participants on the issue of stimulus spending vs. deficit reduction.

All seem to agree that economic growth is the goal in order for countries to prosper, but their dilemma is process and timing.

I'm persuaded that underlying all of the talk is a very real crisis of confidence by the people on 'Main Street.' They are deeply affected by the Great Recession and the lingering fear that it could even be a double dip recession.

Meanwhile, sovereign debt continues to pile up and deficits must be reduced to protect the integrity of many countries' bond ratings.

In the U.S. the mighty promises of TeamObama that the $787 billion stimulus spending would create or save 3.6 million U.S. jobs is a distant, unrealized projection. Below from the WSJ in February 2009:

"...Overall, the stimulus plan would create or save about 3.6 million jobs by the end of 2010, according to projections last month by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, economists in the Obama administration, based on early versions of the plan. They say a stimulus bill would mean an unemployment rate of 7% in 2010, versus 8.8% otherwise. The estimate doesn't detail how many jobs are saved, as opposed to created..."

The original stimulus jobs saved/created projection is here. These days we hear next to nothing on the present status of jobs created/saved despite the lofty pronouncements about tracking and transparency. TeamObama's stimulus spending has not fulfilled it's promise

I'm disappointed that the media has allowed this failure to fade into the background. A WSJ editorial on Friday concludes:

"What the world has now reached instead is a Keynesian dead end. We are told to let Congress continue to spend and borrow until the precise moment when Mr. Summers and Mark Zandi and the other architects of our current policy say it is time to raise taxes to reduce the huge deficits and debt that their spending has produced. Meanwhile, individuals and businesses are supposed to be unaffected by the prospect of future tax increases, higher interest rates, and more government control over nearly every area of the economy. Even the CEOs of the Business Roundtable now see the damage this is doing.

A better economic policy will have to await a new Congress, which we hope at a minimum can prevent punishing tax increases. But for now the good news is that voters and markets are telling politicians to stop doing what hasn't worked."

Op-Ed Columnist - General McChrystal and the Culture of Exposure - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist (David Brooks)- General McChrystal and the Culture of Exposure - NYTimes.com:

David Brooks' take on the sacking of Gen. McChrystal and the media culture of exposure. The underbelly of public and military service has become the target for media. Do Americans win or lose as a result?

Public servants should understand the salacious nature of today'smedia and not get caught in the trap. We can blame the media if we choose to for the sacking of Gen. McChrystal, but smart people ought to know better than vent to reporters, on or off the record.

"The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.

The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see."

A Fascinating Interview with the Rabbi Who Confronted Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas was an anachronism who should have disappeared as 'dean' of the White House press corps long ago. Her presence after she had outlived her usefulness is a black mark on the media establishment.

Climate change debate crowded with ignorance Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch

Climate change debate crowded with ignorance Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch

I couldn't have said it better. The nonsense that passes for argument about climate change deserves to be drowned out. The fact is the climate is changing, always has, always will. Those who believe mankind can change the future climate have a responsibility to describe what condition they would change it to...in all parts of the earth.

"...The skeptics say the snow disproves global warming. The believers say the snow proves extreme climate events associated with global warming. Both sides are being stupid about the cause and effects of climate change.

Climate is not the weather on any particular day, or week, or month. Climate is the accumulation of weather patterns over the course of years.

I know that we live in a world of Twitter feeds, blog reports, and real-time cable news, but immediacy has no place in climate talks. Hence, knee-jerk reactions to storms, disasters, and temperature readings -- whether you believe in climate change or not -- shouldn't be deemed credible evidence of much of anything..."

Economist Magazine Cites IPCC for Glaciers Error

Kudos to The Economist for exposing a glaring misstatement in the pronouncements of the IPCC.

"...The idea that the Himalaya could lose its glaciers by 2035—glaciers which feed rivers across South and East Asia—is a dramatic and apocalyptic one. After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said such an outcome was very likely in the assessment of the state of climate science that it made in 2007, onlookers (including this newspaper) repeated the claim with alarm. In fact, there is no reason to believe it to be true. This is good news (within limits) for Indian farmers—and bad news for the IPCC..."

The Way Forward for Traditional News Content Generators

Content generation and content search/distribution are severable, particularly in this Internet age, but this distinction has always been possible had content generators/publishers chose to make it so in their earlier business models. Now they under under the hammer of competition for the once lucrative advertising dollars.

Today and tomorrow, the game's best hand is held by the distributors or those who control the revenue streams associated with distribution and ease of consumption. I think the best hope for content generators is to cut deals with (or own) the distributors who create the channels and have the ability to bill and collect either micro or subscription payments.

I think device manufacturers' products will eventually commoditize so that a Kindle, an iPhone, a tablet or a Droid will be differentiated only by screen size and a few customer convenience features. The valuable distribution management and customer 'ownership' will reside with the electronic distribution and consumption channels, e.g., the wireline and wireless carriers and the cablecos. Content is necessarily king, yes, but managing its distribution and consumption will likely be the bigger revenue magnet.

Supreme Court Makes Correct Decision

The New York Times' view of the decision:

"With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding."

The Wall Street Journal's view of the decision:

"Freedom has had its best week in many years. On Tuesday, Massachusetts put a Senate check on a reckless Congress, and yesterday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political speech by overturning some of Congress's more intrusive limits on election spending.

In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time."

Without doubt, the gnashing of teeth has begun in earnest about the Supreme Court's politically earth-shaking decision yesterday. The 5-4 ruling upended a large number of unconstitutional restrictions on free speech by corporations, unions and other legal "persons" to speak freely and spend money espousing or castigating candidates for public office.

In 2006, here and here, on this blog I expressed the same fundamental opinion: our democracy requires free speech including the right to spend money promoting political opinions without government interference.

When all's said and done the Supreme Court is heavily influenced by politics. Liberals appoint/approve left-leaning jurists and conservatives appoint/approve more conservative leaning people when they are in power. Supreme Court decisions reflect that reality with shifts in judicial philosophy over time based on the composition of the Court.

I firmly believe that if a labor union or a corporation has the standing of 'a person' before the law, they should have the same Constitutional free speech rights as an individual, including spending money on political speech in elections. As a voter, I have a direct power at the ballot box that 'legal persons' do not have, but they should have the ability to freely express their opinions, including spending money, to promote those views. I will then make up my own mind.

If the Burlington Free Press (Gannett Corp.) has the right to endorse a political candidate under the First Amendment, then Seventh Generation, or Google or GE should have that same right as a legal "person." Whether a company is in the "news" business should not be only the determinant. News organizations have Constitutional 'free press' rights." So should all legal "persons," without government restraint. This decision affirms that fundamental Constitutional right.

Cheers for the Constitution and bravo for this Supreme Court decision!

Op-Ed Contributor - The Spies Who Got Left in the Cold - NYTimes.com

I missed this when first published on January 9, 2010. This piece by Robert Grenier, a former CIA Clandestine Service Officer for 27 years, is ‘must read’ all the way through to the end. It is well written and speaks volumes about what we owe to our intelligence specialists in the field for the work that they do on our behalf.

So many of our ‘professional politicians’ and their cohorts on staff and in the media are quick to castigate the intelligence community, as though their task was simple and risk-free. These self-serving politicians and camp followers are unworthy of our respect. Those in the intelligence community who most deserve our gratitude seldom receive it.

Please read Mr. Grenier’s musings and be thankful for his service and his willingness to speak out.

Op-Ed Contributor - The Spies Who Got Left in the Cold - NYTimes.com

The Climategate Dustup

I have learned that the news media does not report fairly or in an unbiased fashion. It was my belief in earlier years that they did, but learned differently when I became responsible for public relations for my company in Vermont. It's not true that media is unbiased and expecting otherwise is a mistake.

Reporters are often not very knowledgeable about what they report. Perhaps they're better in larger media organizations, where people have a 'beat' to follow and do so for years.

Even more bias is shown by editors who decide what stories to cover and how deeply. The greatest bias is deciding NOT to cover certain stories that have large implications. All media are guilty of these biased judgements.

We must always remember that all human beings, even scientists have biases. We are seeing this so very clearly in the Climategate dust up.

The blogosphere of skeptics is rightfully and diligently poring over the information made available by hackers of the servers at the Climate Research Unit. Mr R.K. Pachauri, head of the U.N. climate research group has released a statement that I believe is directed to the politicians of the world who have agreed with the conclusions contained in Summary for Policy Makers of the latest IPPC report. I have read his statement and it's mostly BS, IMHO, a sad attempt at damage control in advance of the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Andrew Revkin at the NY Times, obviously a true believer in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) issues a somewhat mild rebuke of the 'tribe' of true believers by publishing a statement on his blog from Judith Curry, a climate scientist apparently of the AGW tribe, who suggests that scientists of the AGW tribe in this mess should take the high ground.

"Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values."

Meanwhile, Steve McIntyre, a Canadian who is a long-time vocal leader of the skeptics group is digesting on his blog the data, emails and software from the hack. The results would appear to be very damaging to the AGW tribe.

Mr. Gore will find it difficult to avoid these inconvenient truths much longer.

Now, I wonder how Vermont politicians will react to these revelations? We'll soon know. I hope our AGW media will ask them hard questions. Is it possible?

Revelations from Alarmist Climate Change Server Hack

Mainstream media coverage is relatively light on the bombshell information that was revealed from a hack of the servers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England This release of information produced many megabytes of emails and files that reveal attempts to manipulate and/or withhold data by key scientists in the alarmist camp of man-made (Anthropomorphic Global Warming [AGW]) global warming.

The Burlington Free Press, which has a Sunday "Green Mountain" special section on the environment, failed to include any mention of this event, although it did run a short AP story .

Meanwhile, the blogosphere is full of coverage, some of the best of which is here in a (so far) five-part series on the hacked information by Thomas Fuller.

"But for The Team [ed note: The Team is a group of scientists in the 'alarmist' camp of global warming], frantically trying to retain a sense of urgency, trying to influence policy makers and major media outlets, drastic measures were needed. The released emails show clearly that political necessity caused them to cut displays of data series to eliminate evidence of a pause in global warming. A sense of paranoia (clearly shown in many of the emails) caused them to conspire to influence the scientific peer-review process, boycotting scientific journals and trying to get more skeptical editors replaced and urging colleagues not to submit to journals that didn't toe their party line.

They traded scientific discipline for message discipline. They acted like any of a number of Young Turks in a variety of professions, convinced that their goal--maintaining that sense of urgency amongst the public and politicians--was the most important thing they could do. In that, are they much different than the financial gurus who convinced us all that house prises (sic) would rise forever, or MBAs who missed their professional ethics classes before leading organisations like Enron to glory? Are they much different than the Blackberry wielding political consultants that have turned Western elections into a choreographed charade?"

NY Times published a story on November 21 by Andrew Revkin. Revkin says:

"The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists."

and...

"The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.'

Keith Johnson of the Wall Street Journal writes:

"The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as the IPCC's.

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views."

In exploring the blogosphere, I discovered that Bjorn Lonborg, one of the most reasoned voices in this climate change debate is making a documentary. Hopefully, it will be a response to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth which, IMHO, is a substantially undocumented call to questionable action based on dubious science.

Gore has consistently refused to debate credible opponents of his views. Lonborg's video response is a hopeful sign. I have read his book Cool It! and find he posits the most credible policy actions if one truly believes (I don't) that mankind can change the climate. But his policy views are right on the money relating to R&D for better energy sources in the future.

U.S. Newspaper Circulation Falls More Than 10% - NYTimes.com

U.S. Newspaper Circulation Falls More Than 10% - NYTimes.com

It's a grim future for print media. It would be fascinating to correlate the home Internet penetration rates with the decline in subscriptions in the coverage areas of the non-national papers.

It's painfully clear that the traditional business model for daily print media is near the point of collapse. It's rate of decline is very similar to the loss of POTS landlines in the telecom industry.

I certainly don't have any magic bullets, but what the country cannot afford to lose is high quality news gathering and reporting. The media outlets need to find a business model that leverages the rapid development and deployment of electronic reading devices.

While print publications will have an audience that desires a tactile reading experience, that audience will die off and the reading (and advertising) experience of the future will be on portable devices. These must be very easy to use and have some built-in serendipity factors that emulates what print media offers as the eyes wander through the content.

Otherwise, the future is not healthy for traditional print newspapers and magazines.

Behind the War Between White House and Fox - NYTimes.com

Behind the War Between White House and Fox - NYTimes.com

While some Fox News commentators may in fact be anti-Obama and conservative, the White House will not win this battle agains Fox. Suggesting without any proof that Fox News is not a credible news gathering and reporting organization will not carry the day.

Rutenberg of the Times reports this story quite well. After all, the Times could not let this one pass as it did the Acorn story and the Van Jones story. Both of those are newsworthy, but the liberal Times chose not to cover them while they were 'hot.' Could it be that because they were not 'administration-friendly,' they did not cover them?

The Times, without a doubt, has a liberal slant in its editorials and its opinion journalists. Fox News commentators regularly point that out and I think most Americans believe it to be true, whether they be liberals or not.

NY Times Public Editor Speaks About Coverage of ACORN, etc.

Hoyt, the NY Times Public Editor rambles on about how and why the Times provided scant coverage to the ACORN story and the resignation of Van Jones, an Obama 'czar' that were rampant on the Internet. A couple of quotes below show that he may have some understanding why I and many millions of people believe the Times has become a 'flack' for TeamObama.

The Times is a liberal, biased newspaper, just as Fox News is a conservative biased cable network. To pretend this is not the case is ridiculous. If they believe they are 'fair and balanced' as Fox is wont to say, they are kidding themselves. Be not deceived!

"But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself."

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

Despite what the critics think, Abramson said the problem was not liberal bias.

How can she say this and believe it? Abramson is obviously in denial.

Here's a story in the Washington Post about ACORN's corruptness that just as well could have run in the New York Times were they not editorially a TeamObama mouthpiece.

NY Times a Shill for TeamObama

Editorial - Majority Rule on Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

The New York Times has shown itself to be a public propaganda machine for the Democratic party in this editorial. They are agreeing with the Democrat proposal 100%. Very disappointing.

Health care desperately needs reform to control costs and a national solution is the right way to go, yet the Democrat proposals will not control costs, rather they will expand the deficit and debt dramatically as the Congressional Budget Office has stated. None of this seems to matter to the Times as they exert editorial clout to line up with TeamObama.

Why Folks Are Upset

Millions of people are upset with the hurry-up process that TeamObama has taken, not so much because they are against health care reform. They simply do not trust government to get this right when the Democrat strategy has been to move it fast without the understanding, let alone the buy-in, of average Americans who are being asked to pay more for it. This is a terribly flawed approach and has been correctly exposed as wrong, if not duplicitous. Exposing one more event that destroys trust, the Wall Street Journal opines about Sen. Dodd's 'secret' health care bill.

Extremely partisan Republicans are taking every opportunity to capitalize on the likely failure of TeamObama to pass his domestic agenda. That's also a lousy approach to needed reform. Why can't grown men and women in Congress do the right thing?

Incremental Change is a Better Solution

This grand plan of ObamaCare is not the right approach. I think significant changes in our health care system should be made incrementally. For example, adding 40+ million uninsured to insurance plans seems to me to presume they will also be expected to choose a primary care physician if preventive medicine is a goal of reform that is intended to lead to cost containment. If that's true, where will we find these physicians? Will ObamaCare redirect the medical careers of thousands of doctors to accommodate the influx?

Reform the Medical Malpractice Industry Immediately


A good place to make an important change would be reform of the "medical malpractice industry" to take lawyers out of the business of unnecessarily increasing the costs of insurance for doctors. There are other ways to protect patients' rights to compensation when mistakes are made. The free-for-all created by lawyers trying to extract massive jury awards for their own benefit should be curtailed immediately.