That is a “I’m having my cake and I will eat it too” line. If it is not part of the curriculum there would not be a debate, a debate is what creationists are aiming for to get around what the courts decided when they branded even intelligent design religious teaching. **Sam **it is disappointing that you are ignoring that this is a typical tactic of Intelligent designers and creationists nowadays.
To be clear, I was praising the science section (though actually I think that Natalie Angier could be kept on a shorter leash). I think your post expressed better than I did the potential utility of tougher editing.
Be that as it may, here’s Calculated Risk’s tag for Picking on Poor Gretchen. I’m happy to call my claim weakly substantiated for the purposes of argument, if only because Tanta’s posts tend to be long. But if you’re interested in this stuff, you might start with the Nov 6, 2007 missive, then skip around as you feel like it.
Shorter version of 6 Nov 2007: Sure, mortgage servicers had rather dubious business practices and junk fees that deserve challenge. But saying that these fees represent a large and growing profit center doesn’t really pass scrutiny - though it makes for a pleasing narrative.
You linked to blog posts in The New Republic and The Nation. Am I reading this correctly? It’s fair to distinguish between blogs and the actual magazine, right? Should blog commentary be held to the same standards?
Be that as it may, I see that The Nation has corrected the record with an update while TNR has not, AFAIK.
In fact, it seems that TNR does not have a practice of appending updates to their posts. TNR’s oversight in this regard should be condemned, IMO. BTW, here’s a later TNR blog post from Sep 3 indicating Palin’s “support for Pat Buchanan in 2000”, without elaborating that the support consisted of wearing a Pat Buchanan badge in 1999 during a Buchanan campaign swing.
What “clarification” do you think changes her position? From your quote:
Teaching “both” is nonsense and is only promoted by people who are interested in promoting Creationism or by people who are ignorant of the fact that Creationism has no place in science.
Still no error in the news reporting on this one.
Right. “Teaching both” is specifically saying that it should not be part of the curriculum?
I have made no claim for her being a “scary Creationist.” You made the claim that portraying her as wanting Creationism taught in schools was a media “lie.” “Teach both” hardly confirms your claim.
So, of your three “lies,” we have one error that you think the NYT should have investigated more thoroughly (even though they accepted the statement of an officer of the group as their source) and have since corrected, one statement that you oddly claim does not say what it says, and one loony congresscritter’s comments that were repeated only by partisan editorial sources.
OK.
No, first she said that it should be taught. Then later she said it could be discussed and she added that “…it doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
That still leaves the door open.
I think she gave her real views off the top of her head.
And she talks about how there are “theories.” She made no mention that creation theory is not a scientific theory. I suspect that she doesn’t understand that evolution isn’t just a matter of speculation.
It some parts of the United States even a discussion of creationism would potentially lead to all sorts of problems in the classroom.
I think that I had read here at the SDMB that she was opposed to financial support for unwed mothers. I am open to a correct answer.
The Washington Post printed that the FBI had done a background check on Palin, and then had to retract. Bias? Or maybe they also used what they thought was a reliable source who turned out to be wrong.
There is a reason why journalism and history are not equivalent, after all.
WAPO’s blog reported that via a line-item veto, “Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot
She and McCain appear to oppose explicit sex education.
For completeness, this pro-life website notes that Covenant House’s government grants totaled to $1.3 million dollars in 2007 and $1.2 million in 2006. Then again, the 2008 budgetary item was for facility expansion, and the reasoning behind the cut wasn’t clear.
Covenant House’s home for teen moms is called Passage House. I see from the 990s at guidestar.org that they were allocated $199 thousand in 2006 and $258 thousand in 2007. They serve about a dozen mothers each year.
Covenant House as a whole received $1.7-1.8 million in private donations in 2006-2007. I’m not sure whether the government grants that the pro-lifers report reflect federal, state or local funding.
Bias? Yes: a bias towards a familiar narrative. I mean, you would think that the FBI would be given time for a background check, right? And that Democrats like to raise taxes and Republicans cut them. Never mind that Obama extends tax cuts to all but the upper reaches of US income, McCain can say that Obama will raise your taxes and not be branded a liar. [Ok, I’ll have to leave substantiation of that last clause for another day.] Never mind that Obama allocates a bigger tax cut than McCain for those earning less than $100,000.
But why would that be any different now than it was then? They had shareholders in the 50s and 60s, too.
Why would the FBI be involved in a party political matter?
Anyway, surely the FBI and / or the CIA already have extensive dossiers on all senior American politicians?
My take is that decades ago news was more prestigious, more important and better funded, not only in America but in all western countries. Since then entertainment has become more important and profitable and news has become “newstainment” and sort of “fast news” (like fast food).
IMHO it’s not because journalists are “stupid” (although many of them are). It’s because journalists (and quite a lot of other people) are completely incapable of any critical thinking. Press releases are printed or reported as if they were fact, without any sort of filtering process beyond typing a few keywords into Google. The news media ought to be asking questions, not just passing on what they’re told, and I think they’ve forgotten how. And that goes for both ends of the political spectrum.
As for the British newspapers, cue Jim Hacker:
Hijack: does this in part account for the rise of blogs?
I don’t have the book to hand, but have you got Hacker and Sir Humphrey mixed up? And that was one of my favourite shows.
Ah, “the good old days”.
My point was that if you’re going to define “bright” as “has a lot of knowledge in a particular area”, then no, most journalists probably aren’t bright – when compared with specialized professions.
Does the journalist sent to the auto plant to cover the union strike know more than the workers about how to build their car? No. More than the plant manager about how to run the plant? No. More than the owner about the car industry? Probably not, no. More than the union boss about labor relations between UAW and GM? Maybe, but then maybe not.
However, if she’s a good journalist, or even an average one, in my experience, she’ll have done enough reporting on the story before she goes out to know more than Joe Q. Public on any of those topics, and know enough to know what she doesn’t know, what’s important to find out, and how to go about doing that.
I do believe one of the legitimate functions of a journalist could, unflatteringly, be reduced to the word “parrot”. Providing people with access to people, places and events they would not normally have access to is a legitimate and valuable role. People raved about PBS’ coverage of the conventions because they didn’t have talking heads yammering over the speeches all the time. They were, essentially, parroting the conventions. But make no mistake – that was a journalistic decision they made.
I also believe that (again, based on my experience), most average-and-above journalists do enough reporting on a story so they do know the subject matter well enough to do the job in 99% of the cases. Things are different from when the AP had a bureau in every major city and the major dailies had science beat reporters. The Internet is changing things and has been for 5 or 10 years. But as I’ve said, basic news writing and reporting hasn’t – an average journalist is still an asset, not a liability, when it comes to tracking down a story.
Oh, and thanks everyone, for turning this into YASPT (yet another Sarah Palin Thread). Great job!
No, blogs are a separate phenomenon tied to the rise of the Internet. In (very) brief, blogs are a form of self-validation, an assertion that the opinions of the individual are valid and should be heard, supported by new technological means of dissemination. Basically, it’s a way of shouting your views at the public without having to go down to Speaker’s Corner on a Sunday morning.
The decline in critical thinking happened pre-internet IM Completely Subjective O.
[To Garfield] Yes, journalists report what they’ve been told. The problem is that they often do so unquestioningly.
And broadcasting the convention isn’t reporting on it, it’s just broadcasting. There’s a difference.
Don’t think so.
Um, you’ve seen Citizen Kane, haven’t you?
Here’s a really big hint as to the dignified nature of news gathering in previous generations: The first newspaper was called The Tatler.
Will Rogers put it perfectly: “Things aren’t what they used to be - and they probably never were.”
In other words “Not. That. Bright.” Here’s a hint: Parrots really aren’t known for their critical thinking skills.
And anyway, you’re wrong. Were Woodward and Bernstein parrots? Was Murrow a parrot? These guys are the reason it’s called investigative journalism. It’s when the media started to parrot that we got into deep shit. The part of me that still has faith in humans’ ability to decide their own destiny likes to think that if we had any of the journalists I mentioned above, we just might have avoided the Iraq debacle.
As far as I’m concerned, there are 4,000-something troops and God alone knows how many thousands of Iraqi civilians that might be alive right now if the media stopped “parroting” and started earning its keep.
Did you miss the part where I said “one of the legitimate functions”?
If there’s a general consensus that journalism has gone downhill, I wonder whether the general dumbing down of the population is the chicken or the egg.
I think it occurred when the equal time provision was removed. Reagan pushed hard for it,.Until then when you presented a opinion piece you had to give sort of equal time to dissenting opinion. That made Fox News and right wing radio possible. It changed the whole presentation of news.