But we’re not all for the blatant pattern of subjective misrepresentation that goes on, virtually unchecked, all over the Internet — including by sites that are routinely, well, cited.

In this Post, a Biggovernment.com writer starts blatantly spinning in the second sentence (emphasis added):

…basis of calls for extreme climate change regulation.

But it is in the title, and the very first sentence, where the piece starts of misleading, right off the bat.

The title: “Penn State’s ‘ClimateGate’ Inquiry Determines Further Investigation Is Needed.”

How is this misleading? Well, for one, it gives no indication of the more relevant fact that Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing in three of the four charges, and the only three that really matter, namely:

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Which charge was Mann not yet cleared on?

4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously
deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

Notice the difference between “conceal, destroy, misuse, falsify (No.’s 1-3) and “seriously deviating from accepted ‘practices’ within the academic community” (No.4) — along with how subjective that latter standard might be. It’s not unethical; it is prima facie evidence, if in fact it is found to have been the case, of having made an academic mistake. Sometimes going outside of such practices may even be a good thing. (We are not suggesting that this is necessarily the case here, just pointing out the subjective, and somewhat insignificant nature of this charge.)

Mann has been accused of all kinds of things, including some very serious allegations made round the Internet in striking and very public and repeated fashion (including at Biggovernment.com.) To come out with a headline that reads “Inquiry Determines Further Investigation Is Needed” in light of these facts, and the actual findings, is being purposefully misleading.

The very first sentence to the piece is also misleading:

In looking at four “possible allegations” of research misconduct against meteorology professor Michael Mann, a Penn State University panel has determined that further investigation is warranted for one of them

People have short attention spans, the most relevant points are put first (except here at Donkasaurus Post, were we expect you to be bored before you have even gotten past the title.) Only at the end of a long sentence is it noted that further investigation is warranted for “one” of them, meaning, by exclusion, not the other three. But there is no mention that Mann was exonerated on all three of the first three allegations. Or what they were, in comparison to the “fourth charge.”

No mention in the second paragraph either. Or the third. Or the fourth. But what is mentioned in the fourth paragraph, instead?

I suspect panel members are secretly hoping someone else will shoulder responsibility for determining Mann’s guilt or innocence.

Note: “Mann’s guilt or innocence.” And his guilt or innocence over what, exactly? This article has never told the reader, who is only informed by finding allusion to it, buried deep in the recital of the official press release that is included as part of the piece, finally.: That is, his “guilt” or “innocence” as to having “engaged in practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices.” (Note also that the sentence strongly implies that the panel came to no decisions whatsoever, although it is true that the first sentence does somewhat implicitly contradict this.)

For a site that is presumably concerned with “Big Government,” that sounds more than a bit “Big Brotherish.” But it’s probably not intended as such; but instead, only as much spin as can be gotten away with, to make it seem like the gap between the intense hype and heavy accusations against Mann that reverberated around the Internet and even into the mainstream media, and what Mann actually did, is not nearly as large, as in fact, it is.

As long as we are using the terms “guilt or innocence” completely inappropriately; on charges of blatantly misleading its readers, Biggovernment.com is found guilty by this panel, of the charges leveled against it…

..Namely, we’ll bury deep down in the repeated press release, of “seriously misleading its readers.” Unfortunately, “seriously misleading its readers,” is not a very big deviation from “accepted practices.”

And that is the problem, in America, today.

Talking head and blogger Sarah Palin spoke out on Fox News saying that Alito’s “Wilson moment” was OK, and that Justice Alito was just “calling him out.” She based her careful judgment on her longstanding and intimate knowledge of Supreme Court protocol. Oh, wait.

In other deep layer of Palin analysis, she went on to discuss health care “mandation.” What’s “mandation” you ask? According to Dictionary.com it means “No dictionary results.” Strange…

And finally, she described the entire state of the union from President Obama as being like “a lecture.” And we all know how she feels about lectures. Maybe that’s why she went through five different colleges.

Palin was also basing her support of Justice Alito’s “calling out” the President on the history of the law and the Supreme Court,  upon her intimate knowledge of Supreme Court cases.  Where it appeared she couldn’t name a single Supreme Court case.

Note, however, that after the aforelinked debacle, Palin crammed for a crash course, and got to pimp some misleading political spin at the same time, all while Fox’s  Carl Cameron did his magician like “Fair and Balanced” act, craftily veiling his two minute TV rehabilitation commercial for her even while,  rather emphatically, getting in Palin (and Fox’s) anti mainstream media message at the end.

The mainstream media is poor, as Cameron, and Palin, subtly, and not so subtly, imply.  But not because it is unfair to Palin;  but because of quite the opposite.  As an example, the ideologically fervent, and almost always incorrect, misleading, or simply rhetoric stuffed Palin is treated with kid gloves relative to the facts.  And the media has done a better job covering Palin than many other things, in fact, and it still has not covered Palin correctly.

Notice that at the same time Cameron also renovated this snafu on Palin’s part as well — where Palin apparently could not name a single source of news she routinely read. Now, according to her and her fair and balanced mouthpiece Cameron, easily explained by how ”annoyed” she was at that same media, even though in the video itself (just linked to), Palin expresses her “great appreciation for” that very same media.

If Palin was thus acting sycophantic here by telling the world her “great appreciation for the same media” she would later tell her rehabilitator Cameron that she was so annoyed at she would not answer critical questions, wouldn’t it have made far more sense to have simply name some sources (if she really dutifully reads them) and some Supreme Court cases (if she really knew any) rather than come off as looking extremely uninformed when that was already a chief concern to begin with? And then make her point about media annoyance?

You betcha.  Palin didn’t because she froze. And she froze because, as evidenced by her constant misleading rhetoric, it is unlikely that she really had read very much of substance, or knew much about the Supreme Court or its decisions at all.

But that’s nothing that spinmeisters Fox and Palin (and now back, naturally on the “Fair and Balanced” station, together again), couldn’t cobble back together, as the link of  Cameron and Palin above, aptly illustrates.  (Just not to active hard core Democrats perhaps, who sometimes don’t seem to want to grasp that just because they think something is purely empty, doesn’t mean everyone else is not being somewhat influenced by it on some level, or that being the most watched cable “news” source is not just coincidental with the movement of this country that past ten plus years. But then it’s not clear that Democrats see the movement of this country the past ten years, either. )

As noted in the Anchorage Daily News piece just linked to, also consider Palin’s suggestion from her recent book  that the media is “worthless as a source of factual information anymore.”

This is sometimes true. But mainly because they will publish wildly misleading and incredibly ill informed pieces like this one by Palin herself, and play to the same propaganda as a legitimate “side’ to a ‘factual debate” that Palin repeatedly, and erroneously, promotes herself.

The irony is unbounded.

]]> http://donkasauruspost.com/2010/01/28/worth-repeating-palins-expertise/feed/ 2 http://donkasauruspost.com/2010/01/17/its-now-six-minutes-to-midnight/ http://donkasauruspost.com/2010/01/17/its-now-six-minutes-to-midnight/#comments Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:24:59 +0000 admin http://donkasauruspost.com/?p=383 Six minutes to midnight refers to the time on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ “doomsday clock.”

If six minutes to midnight sounds bad, consider that until just recently, it was five minutes to midnight.

The scientist give two reasons for this.  One seems reasonable, the other does not.

The first has to do with efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation.  It seems sensible enough. The other reason given, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is:

And for the first time ever, industrialized and developing countries alike are pledging to limit climate-changing gas emissions that could render our planet nearly uninhabitable.

We don’t think climate change should yet be considered a doomsday scenario.  Yes, climate change will almost certainly be bad, and there is a high probability of rapidly accelerating feedback effects taking hold:

But, also, a lot of people that purchased beach front property in Arizona are going to make a lot of money. And boat owners will see a sharp rise in their commodity and its source of use.

Those who love really hot deserts and find peace and tranquility in places like California’s “death valley” should also be happy (though, unfortunately, death valley itself will be well under water).

So we are not sure that climate change, while likely very bad, and, potentially, extremely bad, should necessarily occupy a place alongside potential nuclear annihilation just yet.

However, that is not the real problem with the climate change point that these scientists make.

Notice what these scientists say.  ”For the first time ever… are pledging to limit climate changing gases.”

Technically this is true. Over a decade ago, not all industrialized and non industrialized countries made such pledges. Only most did. And since that time, have done little to nothing to give those pledges any meaning.

Likewise, a relevant admonition for these scientists now: “Pledges” mean next to nothing.

Particularly when the debate in the country that is the world leader, is still essentially a medieval flat earth society type debate of science versus anti science ideology driven rhetoric, or wildly uninformed yet boldly assertive ideology posing as science; not one of “what are the likely outcomes, what is the most sensible outcome to take.” We think these scientists are not seeing the full picture.

Indeed, in the U.S., we are one step short of simply arguing against physics itself, at this point.

Full Disclosure:  We are not fans of Michael Moore.  Some on the left may likely get angry with that statement, and dismiss what we are trying to do (somewhat comically, since there are millions of blogs out here and few see this one).

But what is important to point out — and even more important to understand (aside from the fact that people can have different perspectives over the same set of facts) is that the fact that a website like this that actually supports a number of positions that the left happens to support, carries far more credibility, because it can not be simply dismissed by or attributed to irrelevant but typically common assertions of “well, that’s just the left talking,” and a presumption of bias and spin immediately read right in. Because, here, it is not, and there is none. Rather, we are looking at the issue objectively, and dispassionately, trying to share facts as reasonably as possible, and when our perspective intermingles (which is not often the case), we try to give the reason why, when it is relevant.

That is what gets people to listen, and to bridge divides. Not necessarily in changing positions or even “compromising” things that don’t need to be or even should not be compromised on, but in helping open up actual debate, improving the level of information,and making disinformation into a much bigger issue that it currently is.

Now back to that disinformation, and the intense media bias that continues to play into the framing of the right. Part of the reason the media does this is because — well, for reasons discussed in other posts, and on more serious, lengthy sites, this is what the media does. And part of the reason why is because Democrats allow them to do it, Democrats do not use the often misleading framing of the far right to define the far right, Democrats allow the far right to define Democrats, and Democrats often play into the framing of the far right. This makes it easier — no offense media — for the media to do the lousy job that they do. (Many reporters have privately acknowledged that the wish Democrats would sometimes just freakin’ make an effective case, so they could cover it without immediately being accused by the far right of bias simply by virtue of covering the facts — but this seems to be a notion that, when shared, many active Democrats online scoff at. Which is too bad.)

Briefly, with the Michael Moore example:  Here is the news headline, on its user account home page, that greeted millions of Americans today (emphasis added):

Michael Moore Defends Beliefs. Filmmaker reacts to suggestions he leave the country:  Why he won’t go

This is rather incredible in its presentation.  Moore had to “defend” rather than simply “express” his beliefs?  Then there is the absurd suggestion that Michael Moore leave the country.  Why is AOL even parroting this?   For quick headline appeal, most likely. But the effect is the same.

“Jim” is famous.  Jim doesn’t think the way we are doing things is the best way, so Jim complains about what he thinks is not the best way.  He might spin his facts, as many do, and exaggerate a bit, but he doesn’t even wildly mislead, as some very promiment commentators in America do. And we say “Jim should just leave the country.”  Because our country is not founded upon the notion of the right to disagree, but instead, the idea that those whose perspectives we don’t like (not those who continually, and repeatedly, wildly mislead — and even they have a right to be here) should just leave.

Ha ha. We were just kidding. Of course our country is founded upon the right to disagree — and in fact the necessity for it. But maybe a few other people take up our call for Jim to leave the country.  “Jim, just get the hell out.” It has a nice, real emotionally base, and very easily appealing (and pithy!) ring to it. It’s even fun to say.

It is absurd, of course.  But AOL in its news feed, to millions, decides to run a headline;  ”Jim responds to suggestions that he leave the country.” The idea, even if Jim’s response is wonderful, is now legitimized.

But AOL,here, does something much worse. AOL now actually gives credence not just to the idea that the suggestion is at least reasonable, but to the idea that Jim “should get the hell out” itself, by telling its readers and account holders “Why Jim Won’t Go” is reasonable.

This is sensationalism at its worse.  We may dislike Moore, but at the moment we dislike AOL “more.”  Maybe AOL should “get the hell out!”

Heck, that is appealing!!  And it is fine, we are not castigating those who make this very misguided (and darest we say, perhaps on some absrtract level, “unAmerican”? suggestion), BUT WE ARE CASTIGATING AOL FOR BLATANTLY LEGITIMIZING IT, AND PLAYING RIGHT INTO IT.

It’s shameless. It’s clueless. And it is extremely biased.  And it’s being manipulated by the far right.  But as we noted above, Democrats are not helping, either.

Yet the media has covered the story quite a bit. As they have covered ACORN for quite some time now, on the continued rantings of those who think ACORN is the biggest thing in America.

But still, why hasn’t the media covered this latest “pimp” scandal even more?  Salon Columnist Glenn Greenwald, clearly, wonders as well why the media has not covered the  huge, enormous ACORN scandal as the very huge, enormous, once in several years type scandal that it quite clearly is.  Some hyperbole aside, his piece is well worth reading.

But even if the media “ignored” this HUGE story — which according to the far right means not making it one of the bigger stories in ages –Congress didn’t, and promptly passed a bill to address the situation. (As Congress often does, most particularly this decade, to address “situations.”)

However, there was a little problem.

So a few days ago Greenwald “interviewed”  Florida Representative Alan Grayson on just exactly this problem was.  Grayson, it should be noted, is a pretty formidable attorney.  (Here, he is lovingly described by Rolling Stone reporter and latest “in” commentator guy Matt Taibbi, in a pretty hilarious and entertaining post that describes Taibbi’s “personal experience” with him.  The video of Grayson grilling the Chief Counsel for the Federal Reserve, embedded at the bottom), gives a pretty good indication of Grayson’s skill set.)

Glenn Greenwald: You discovered that there was a potential consequence in this bill that was probably not intended by the bill’s sponsors. Can you talk about [that]?…

Alan Grayson: Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I will say that it is true that 10 out of the 10 biggest defense contractors have been convicted of fraud at one time or another in the past few years, and ACORN hasn’t, it’s difficult to frame any bill, whatever one’s intent, to punish ACORN and keep ACORN from being funded by fed contracts…[and] This bill, taken literally, at its words, actually forbids and prohibits fed funding of virtually every large defense contractor in America.

Glenn Greenwald:Why couldn’t the bill just have simply said we will defund ACORN, and left it at that?…

Alan Grayson: The Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder; bills of attainder are actions by Congress that are directed toward one individual or one organization. And the reason for that is that Congress is a law-making body, not a judicial body. We [Congress] don’t actually decide guilt or innocence; we don’t decide liability, and therefore the Constitution understandably forbids a law that singles out ACORN or any other organization for punishment.

Glenn Greenwald: …Before you got to Congress, one of the things you were known for was working on fraud and abuse among contractors in Iraq. Can you put, in terms of the cost to the taxpayer of funding ACORN versus, say, the waste and abuse that comes from fraud on the part of military and defense contractors in Iraq [in context]?….

Alan Grayson: AG: …The amount of money that ACORN received in the past 20 years, all together, is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day, during the war in Iraq.

We  agree that the ACORN scandal bears looking into.  But it also seems fair to ask the far right, if some dime store low level employees of already scandal ridden ACORN, engaging in some two bit, and somewhat hilarious, if not disturbing, ”free” pimp and prostitute and income sheltering advice is a national scandal of such epic proportions as to warrant a full court press of ongoing national news coverage; where was the same cry for more glaring media coverage, with respect to the far more significant — from a taxpayer standpoint – fraud convictions of each of our nation’s top defense contractors?

True, the ACORN story is more salacious.   But from a taxpayer standpoint, as Grayson points out, Halliburton – which has already been convicted of fraud with respect to expenditure of Taxpayer funds (awarded via not bid contracts, as well, upping the price to taxpayers considerably) – received from taxpayers each and every single day, roughly the same amount that ACORN had over 20 years. (The far right is also calling out for an investigation of Obama, as if he has been ACORN’s CEO just before becoming president;  Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO.)

If we are talking about taxpayer support of fraud and improper purpose, it seems like Congress was focused on making an issue out of a pretty small ACORN, that fell from the mighty Oak tree of taxpayer funded fraud and abuse, instead of also going after, say, an actual mighty tree of fraud and abuse itself.  Wouldn’t all those Independent, anti Big Government, anti Fraud and Abuse, anti Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Tea Partiers agree with this?

Probably not. And therein lies the political problem that America is facing today.