Four ways to tell: Is it news or advocacy?

I wrote this originally in 2016, but in the Trump era, it became even more important to know how to judge what is actually journalistic "news" and what is political advocacy.

When people, politicians, journalists, and others talk about "the media", everybody seems to mean something different.

For decades, "the media" referred to established mainstream news sources that pursued ethical and meticulous journalism. Today, social media has flattened the playing field and given everyone a voice, at little or no cost.  But this new "everyone" dynamic is largely made up of people who are not trained in journalism, not committed to telling all sides of a story, or are actively promoting a one-sided agenda.

How do you tell if what you come across is news or advocacy? Here are four ways:

1.  Value judgments are not attributed.

Real journalists do not tell you what they think as part of their stories.

Any time a headline or story body makes a statement about something being good or bad, admirable or not, or any other opinion, it needs to st somebody other than the journalist saying.  that means we have to attribute it as a quote or paraphrase.

If the story contains a value judgment without indicating the source, it is advocacy, not journalism.

2.  Loaded words have hidden meaning.

Journalists are trained to use descriptive language, but to avoid words that have social connotations, stereotypes, or other hidden meaning attached to them.

3. Doesn't really tell both sides of a controversy.

Advocacy thrives on giving you loaded information that is weighted to a particular agenda.  If a supposed news story brushes off an opposing point of view or only gives it lip service, it is likely not journalism.

4.   Contains ad hominem criticism, not attributed.

If the writer criticizes a person or group of people, as opposed to the person's/group's position on issues, it is a logical fallacy and it is advocacy, not journalism. Such "ad hominem" might appear in a quote and still be journalism, but when it is not attributed and this is a contention of the writer, it is not journalism.

Conclusion?

These four rules of thumb are just the beginning.  You have to scrutinize and evaluate the source of information.  Check Snopes or Politifact.  Ask yourself "is the writer promoting an agenda"?  The more you do this, the more it will become clear what is news and what is advocacy pretending to be news.

Facts vs. Truth

Screen capture from Meet the Press, NBC

Rudy Giulaini claiming that "truth isn't truth" is so strange, but WHY it's strange has been missed by the people reacting to his comments. 

It is a tenet of conservationism that there IS an absolute truth, outside of human experience and perception, that it is fixed, and relatively easy to understand. That is where literal reading of the Bible comes from. 

Conservatives, in the meantime, are skeptical about "new" knowledge, particularly when it contradicts the established narrative. This is where climate change denial comes from. I can easily understand a conservative saying that "facts are not the same thing as truth because facts are always suspect." 

The trouble for Giulaini is that this idea goes both ways. An administration that thrives on ignoring evidence, "alternative facts", and innuendo cannot be assumed to be telling the truth. But the way that Giulaini said "truth is not truth" smacks of propaganda and "if I say it enough times, they'll believe it IS the truth." And if the truth is not the truth, it leads to a mindset that lies are not lies. 

It seems to me that we see this "truth is what we persuade people it is" mindset all the time in the bogus and easily debunked claims that float thought the advocacy media. 

That is why we NEED professional, trained journalists, whose job it is to question claims, and fearlessly seek the actual truth, among the jumble of facts and opinions. The advocacy media can't do that for us, which is why we need the professional journalistic media.

Understanding Weather and Climate via Chaos Theory

I am not a mathematician, but I have published in the academic press on the subject of Complex Dynamic Systems, aka Chaos Theory, which certainly applies to weather and climate. But many Americans still don't understand how interconnected everything is when it comes to weather and climate. That makes it harder for some to accept human-caused climate change.

In Chaos Theory, tiny variations can grow to have huge effects in a dynamic system.  Weather and climate are such a dynamic system.

This article from Bloomberg shows how the LACK of warmer-than-average water in the Pacific Ocean (El Niño) results in worst-than-normal hurricanes in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Dry air blowing dust off of Africa’s Sahara Desert also plays a role in making bad hurricanes.

We know that warmer temperatures in the Arctic can mean colder North American winters, even though it seems counter-intuitive.

But logial falacies still persist:

"It's cold today, so there can't be global warning." 

"It snowed lot today, so there can't be global warming."

"There's no way to know what the temperature was before thermometers were invented, or before they were brought to such-and-such a location."

Each of these statements shows lack of critical thinking, yet each is common. And this makes it EASY for deniers to reinforce these wrong ideas.

The motivation of the big businesses that lobby against addressing climate change is short-term profits.  Big business is SO geared to quarterly profits reports that it has trouble seeing the long-term big picture.

Sooner or later, big business will conclude that climate change is bad for business. Insurance companies are getting a reminder in the wake of the huge hurricanes in the last several days, with billions of dollars of damages the insurance companies will need to pay out.  There is only so much they can get the government to pay for.

What I have never understood is that big companies DO make long term plans to improve profits, such as building new facilities that will take years to come online. Why can't they take the same approach to reducing carbon dioxide pollution NOW to leverage for greater profits in the future.  

We know that warming of the ocean and atmosphere is resulting in a higher rate of "extreme weather events."  What we used to call "extreme" is getting closer and closer to the new normal, unless we do something about it.

Temperatures rising! What we REALLY know about climate change.

Update: Since I wrote this, there have been more and more extreme climate events. The warming and melting of the arctic is having an increasingly powerful effect on weather farther south, from a hurricane that retained its strength and crossed overland from Louisiana to New York to freezing weather in Texas.

Here is another of my posts that explains in detail where these extreme events are coming from.

     ---

Original article:

The first half of 2017 was the second-hottest first six calendar months on record, behind only 2016.

This article notes that this is significant because this year there is no El Niño, which can temporarily raise global average temperatures.

That's after correcting for all the "figures don't lie but liars can figure" distractions out there, global warming is a fact and is a clear threat.

For those of you unclear about the details, here is a primer:

• Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.  The most simple, straightforward explanations are the best, and when proposed explanations are tested, there needs to be broad agreement that the observed facts ARE well explained.
  
• We know that the Earth is warming. Multiple independent sources of data tell us this. It may vary a bit from year to year, but the trend is upward. Within reasonable limits of error, these different independent sources agree.
  
• We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
  
• We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, is not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitudes have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified.
  
• We also know that in the prehistoric past, when the temperature was sometimes higher, the CO2 PPM was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not consistent with the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.
  
• So the question is "where is the CO2 coming from?"
  
• The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming is not consistent with the facts. If man-made CO2 is somehow not a contributing factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from? Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything. A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

To be fair, there have been attempts to suggest other causes for the climbing temperatures, but they are all over the map. There is no alternative explanation that has stood up to repeated independent testing, the way the human-produced CO2 explanation has.

So there it is. The ONLY consistent answer to the question of where the CO2 is coming from is human sources, primarily the energy industry burning fossil fuels.

It's inconvenient because solving the problem could reduce business profits for a while, but if we DON'T solve the problem, the global turmoil will also be bad for business.  Relatively modest changes now can reduce or prevent huge catastrophes in the future.

Climate Change Skeptics aren't Skeptics

When it comes to science, skeptics are people who question beliefs as the result of scientific scrutiny.

On the other hand, people making political arguments professing skepticism about climate change are more likely to be non-scientific in how they reach their conclusions.

So what does a true skeptic conclude about human-caused climate change?

Failure of Conservativism

The president's withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty is not just a failure of leadership.

It is a failure to be a true conservative.

So what do I mean by a true conservative and how did he fail?

Why does "the media" keep "attacking" Trump?

In fact, there is no such thing as "the media" and they are not "attacking" the Trump administration.

"The media" is not some monolithic bloc with a mind if its own. There are organizations that use media and advocacy.  Some of them attack and some of them defend any given political viewpoint, using posts that resemble news stories, except for the advocacy.

But the point of THIS post is to examine the operation of the professional journalistic media organizations, and why THEY keep reporting on possible wrongdoing by Trump and friends.

Simple Thinking in a Highly Complex World

One of the defining characteristics of conservatives is that they expect things to be basically simple.  They think that once you figure out a problem, there is usually one identifiable cause, and the problem gets solved by doing one thing.  But that doesn't work out too well in a world that is highly complex, in reality.

Running Government Like a Business: Not

I have long thought that the idea of "running government like a business" is a fallacy, because they are not the same things. Their reasons for existing are different and as a result their ways of doing business need to be different.

Trumps Brand

By definition, a "brand' is what customers think about a product, service, or person. A "brand promise" is what you WANT your customers to believe.  So what is Donald Trump's political brand and how much value does it have?

Reframing the Message on Climate Change

This Scientific American article takes a while to get to the point made by its headline, but has a great call to action for liberals to shape their message to appeal to the American mainstream.

Geese and Climate Change

The geese used to migrate in late October and early November.  Now they are migrating in December.

They have apparently bought in to the global conspiracy of thousands of scientists created by Mainland China to take money out of the pockets of hardworking billionaires.

Darn geese.

How to Talk to the Other Side of the Asile

This Slideshare PPT, from 2015, contains a nice analysis of how Conservatives and Liberals think.

Your brain on politics the cognitive neuroscience of liberals and conservatives

Therefore, it contains ideas to keep in mind when we are communicating with people who think differently than we do.

Social Media is not about Advocacy

I've seen all kinds of chatter this week, second guessing the presidential election and blaming whoever they can think of for the outcome, including a hefty dose of blaming social media.  But most of this social media blaming is from people who do not understand social media.

Social media is about relationships, not about persuasion.

Social media is about relationships, not about advocacy.

Let me say it again -- social media is about relationships, which is why you are much more likely to see posts that agree with your social, political, and religious orientation.

Not quite seeing the difference?  Let's take a step back.

In the 1990s, visionaries were learning that the Internet was not simply about moving data from place to place.  It was about social relationships. Look at these two Prodigy commercials:  In 1990, it was all about stuff, but by 1995, it was about people.

Facebook and Twitter were created for the express purpose of connecting together people who already knew each other, and people who shared common interests.

When social media evolved to also be about marketing and selling you things, it drew on the fundamental principals of marketing communications, which are giving people information to which they are most likely to be receptive, and minimizing content to which people will react negatively.

This is why the Facebook newsfeed algorithm sends you news about things it believes are your interests.  In politics, this means content (news and advertising) that aligns with your political views.  Note that such advertising usually has a line at the top listing a couple of your friends who also supposedly "like" this content.

See?  Facebook is not only sending you content it thinks you favor, but it is emphasizing your relationships, in effect using your friends to make endorsements.  If you are not sure about a product or service, you are more likely to consider the product or service because people you know appear to like and endorse it.

It is your social relationships that they depend on to persuade you to consider the advertising.

Jack Wagner has pointed out that, because of the way social media works, many people who favored Trump did not really even see the opposition to him.  Many who favored Clinton never saw the opposition to her.

But even more important, they probably saw it, but did not feel any social connection to people espousing it, so discounted it.

Jim Wright observed that neither party is good at reaching out to the other side.

If progressives want to counter all of their feared Trump policy initiatives, they need to find new ways to communicate -- new ways of making contact with people who do not think the way they do, and new ways of explaining their positions in ways people who think differently can relate to.

But the real lesson here is that memes and fake news stories do not persuade people. Peer groups persuade people.  In real life and in social media.

What's next?

I was disappointed by the election results, but I could care less about second-guessing who should have done what differently.

I could care less what MIGHT happen under Trump.  All that speculation is just a distraction.

What I DO care about (as a registered independent) is whether Progressives figure out that the way they have been telling their story hasn't worked.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to retool their system and tell their story more persuasively to people who do NOT think the way they do.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to organize in a way they never have before to stymie policy initiatives they don't like.

Business as usual will not cut it.

What's REALLY going on with NoDAPL

Why are state and local government officials in North Dakota freaking out about peaceful protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline?  It's because the protesters are challenging economic development amidst a tanking state economy, plain and simple.

North Dakota “has been the economic envy of every state in America for most of the past decade” according to Bloomberg. North Dakota had the lowest jobless rate, the highest increase in personal income, and the fastest-growing population, added Bloomberg, the result of the fracked tar sands oil boom that made North Dakota second only to Texas in domestic oil production.

But as you would expect from a boom-and-bust product, the market for North Dakota oil has tried up, the state's economy has collapsed, employment has plummeted, and the state has a $1 billion budget deficit.

Finding more markets for North Dakota oil would help reverse this free-fall. That's where the oil pipelines come in. DAPL says it would create 8,000 to 12,000 local jobs across its route during construction, plus lots of on-going local tax revenue.  It is not surprising that North Dakota officials eagerly want this revenue, and officials in all four states like the idea of income that does not result from taxes on voters.

THAT is why the local authorities are so vehemently on the side of the pipeline company.

As I have said before, I believe we need to get off fossil fuels as a primary energy source.  We need to do this because we are running out, because they cause global warming, and because renewable energy is simply a good idea.

Pollution of drinking water and tribal rights are important, but there is considerably more justification to NOT build new fossil fuels infrastructure.

Russell's Teapot and Climate Change

In 1952, Bertrand Russell wrote that when a claim is made that is not supported by science, the person making the claim has the burden to prove it. Those denying the claim do not have the the burden disprove it.

Russell was writing in the context of religion, i.e. about people believing in God even though science can neither prove or disprove whether God exists, but I have been thinking recently about how this principle works in other settings, like climate change.

Russell said that if he asserts that a teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, too small to observe by any telescope, we would NOT believe him, even though there is no way to disprove that it exists.

Russell held that just because a claim has NOT BEEN disproved does not mean that it IS factual. In fact, if there is no existing way to DISPROVE an assertion, then for all practical purposes, it is NOT true, or so goes Russell's argument.

We have LOTS deniers in America today. Because a scientific finding contradicts their world view, they struggle to undermine the science, in effect to disprove the scientific assertion. Often they use logical fallacies or inductive logic (reaching general conclusions from limited small amounts of data).  They contend that there is a controversy, when there really is not.  However, THEIR assertion that there is doubt is disproved by the preponderance of evidence.

The assertion on the other side of the question is that humans are emitting the greenhouse gases that are changing the climate. Every time the assertion has been tested by a fair scientific evaluation, it turns out to be correct (within small tolerances of error).  So the only avenue available to disprove the science...has not produced evidence of disproof.

The assertion that humans are causing climate change is proved.  The assertion that the science is invalid is disproved.

Ergo, according to Russell's framework we must ACCEPT the scientific conclusion that humans are affecting the climate, and that this affect is undesirable.

Could VALID disproof be discovered in the future?  Scientists are open to new evidence that changes our understanding, but it needs to be powerful to shake the broad and persuasive current evidence, not logical fallacies.

Why Climate Deniers Deny

The study linked below used scientific analysis to examine the fallacies in arguments denying human-caused climate change.

         http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

It found that the arguments climate change are often self-contradictory and that dissent is used by stakeholders to undermine the authority of science in order to postpone inconvenient political action: 

"Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness."

In other words, whereas the deniers complain loudly about a conspiracy against them, the evidence points to a dcoordinated conspiracy to ward off political action addressing global warning because they think it will be to expensive and hurt their short-term profits.

How We Solve the Problem

Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energies are among the solutions to global warming.

Last time I talked about what we know about climate change and global warning. Change IS HAPPENING and we need to reverse it before it reaches a tipping point that we CANNOT reverse.

The number one way to reverse global warming is to stop, or at least greatly reduce, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans pump into the atmosphere. We do this by developing and operationalizing alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and other energy sources.

As you see from the chart, power generation, transportation, and fossil fuel production make up nearly two-thirds of human greenhouse gas emissions, mostly CO2.  Solving the problem in those sectors would help scale back greenhouse gas production in other sectors, as well.

So, we need a policy climate in which we discourage further fossil fuel development, and promote alternative energy production.  We will likely never completely stop using fossil fuels, but we need to receive then for the most critical uses, not as the primary national energy source.

The corollary to this policy is that we need to stop building new refineries and pipelines.  You don't build expensive new infrastructure for something you need to phase out.

What else?

There are several other things we need in order to have a functional energy system for the decades ahead that is based on alternative energy and does NOT contribute to global warming:

• Rebuild the electrical grid.  The current system (in the United States, at least) is antiquated and fragile.  It is failure-prone, and time-consuming to repair.
• Storage capability.  The current energy system is use-it-or-lose-it.  With a few minor exceptions, there is no practical way to store energy when demand is low and retrieve it when demand is high.  California is trying, but we need a major state-of-the-art expansion so that we can even out high and low energy use times, which is more of an issue with wind and solar energy than it is with a fossil fuel economy.

We can do all of these things.  What is holding us back is rich people who think that solving this pocket will cost too much, reducing profits.  The problem with this way of thinking is that of we do NOT solve these problems, it will be even worse for business.

Climate Change Deniers

Increased flooding is one of the most common extreme weather consequences of global warming. 

I came across the tired old arguments of climate change deniers recently, in a Facebook group as it happens.  As usual, a few folks were parroting back the usual logical fallacies like "when it's -15 degrees, nobody talks about global warming."

Actually, scientists do. Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.

We know that the Earth is warming. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and fossils fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, it not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitude have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified, reinforcing itself because the warmer air holds more water vapor, causing even warmer air.

We also know that in the past, when the temperature was higher, the CO2 in the atmosphere was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not sufficient to explain the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.  Similarly, the deforestation of the Amazon has reduced the ability of the planet to turn CO2 back into oxygen, but not enough to fully explain the CO2 increase.

So the question is "what is the source of the excess CO2?"

The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming is NOT consistent with the facts. Human industry is CLEARLY producing large amounts of CO2. If man-made CO2 is somehow not the determining factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from?

Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything.  A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

The natural-plus-man-made CO2 is causing the planet to warm. This is disrupting long-term weather patterns.  One result is more extreme weather events.

And, yes, some places DO get colder or more snow in the winter, because shifting currents and winds take arctic air to places it has not been before.

Some thoughts about solving the problem in my next post.