Marshall Zelinger jokes about why he's a journalist (I'm not laughing). If democracy dies in darkness it whithers when the light only hits one spot. And, winter's coming--the juncos are back!
"I'm a journalist because I'm really bad at science."
The above is a quote from Marshall Zelinger at the tail end of the Next episode linked below.
Mr. Zelinger is a competent journalist, but when a viewer makes a comment about emissions vs. steam vapor, his reply is the above.
We all have talents. We all have weak spots.
In that sense, I understand Mr. Zelinger's attempt at humor. I myself have said similar to students or advisees. The thing is, I don't try to inform or educate on topics that I am ignorant in. I might express an opinion about, say, what I think of medieval French poetry, but I do not pretend to teach others.
Not so with journalists. How many times have you heard journalists brag about their role in democracy? How many times have you been told they help create an informed citizenry?
This is what separates the kind of laughing ignorance you and I may have from the laughing ignorance of Mr. Zelinger. The pretense and the lack of forthrightness from the media when reporting about science.
If you've read this page long enough, you've seen article after article where I go through and point out the (often numerous) flaws in reporting: the mistakes, the omissions, the lack of depth and understanding of not only the topic at hand but the basics of how science works.
I wonder how many of those reporters, if confronted, would make the same sort of joke.
This is not okay. If you don't know something, say it. If you don't know something and you're tasked with helping others to learn it, get someone who does know. Get two people and ask both!
We, the consumers of media, deserve better or we deserve to be informed of just exactly how little "nutrition" we get in our reporting.
Related: This is precisely why having reporters ignorant of science and the scientific method is a problem.
At about the 4:36 mark in the video below (about a famous and very much flawed study on gun violence which lit up the media recently) you get the following quote:
"There's a lesson here. Lankford's critical but simple error could have been picked up if journalists had only demanded his data and methods before publicizing his study. Journalists should learn to be skeptical. In the meantime, we should all be skeptical of news coverage of studies like this that simply confirm what journalists and people want to hear. "
Even when reporters act in good faith, that is, even when they're not actively pushing a certain narrative, an ignorance of science can lead to mistakes like in the video.
This can happen for reasons as simple as not bothering to do the basics like checking what the study proports to do and/or how it was done. This can happen for reasons as simple as not understanding the difference between correlation and causation or the rudiments of statistics.
Being ignorant of the basics of science is not a joke. It strikes me as closer to journalistic malpractice; maybe it's not intentional, but they should have known better.
Ah would that these two reporters expanded their view; would that they give as much time, space, and concern time to businesses' perspective on environmental regulations as they give to the environmentalists'.
The two articles below, from left-leaning outlets the Sun and CPR, detail how angry environmentalists are about the latest rules on emissions that came down on large companies. They're apparently not strong enough.
It's perfectly valid to ask and then inform the public as to how the environmentalists feel. I don't mind. They should get their say.
What I do mind is that this is often done (in the left-leaning media at least) to the exclusion of, or in hugely greater proportion to, how business feels about these regulations. When do they get their say? Or when do they get as lengthy and sympathetic a report about their concerns?
Both of these things need to be part of the discussion.
If you're the CPR reporter, about all that business rates in your article is what you see in the screengrab labeled "CPR".
If you're the Sun, you do get a little more, but to give you a sense of proportion, what you get is the highlighted text (out of the two columns) you see in the screenshot labeled "Sun".
We deserve better. If we are to evaluate the decisions our policymakers are handing down on matters where we may not be experts, we need to hear from the people who do know more about the issue than we do.
We need to fully hear from both the environmentalists AND the businesses hit with the regulations.
If Democracy dies in darkness, it withers and struggles to thrive when the light is directed solely to one area.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/09/25/colorado-climate-rules-manufacturers-environmental-groups/
https://coloradosun.com/2023/09/26/colorado-greenhouse-gas-smokestack-rules-air-pollution/
Winter’s on its way back: I saw the first junco out back yesterday.
When I started feeding birds I kept noticing a particular one every winter that looked like some kind of sparrow or something but that wore a black executioner’s hood. They were out in all kinds of weather and had a distinctive little call I could hear in the trees that ring my yard, coming down to eat well before any other birds were up (and certainly well before the sun).
Eventually I learned they were juncos and that they come down to the Plains from the mountains to overwinter. I know winter’s coming soon when I see them and I look forward to their arrival every year.
Saw my first one yesterday and so if you didn’t get the message yet, you got it now. Winter will soon be here.
If birds are an interest, I linked below to Cornell’s page on them (by the way Cornell’s web pages are excellent references for birds—worth bookmarking the overall site).
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Dark-eyed_Junco/id