Media Sunday: being a part of the solution for factual, accurate journalism on guns, 9 orders of magnitude of fact-check, and who is CPR's Brasch NOT listening to?
Being a part of the solution for factual, accurate journalism on guns.
I like the idea in the Reload article below: if the issue is that reporters don't have a solid, basic knowledge of firearms a good response to that is to help them learn.
In the article you'll find a link to a podcast (along with the same thing on YouTube) where the host interviews T Becket Adams, the director of the National Journalism Center over at YoungAmerica's Foundation.
Mr. Adams is running an internship program and one of the things he makes sure to educate the interns on is firearms. Given some of the reporting I've seen on firearms, I think this is a great idea. I cant' tell you the number of times that I've seen reporting where it's quite apparent the writer doesn't really know a lot about guns.
Good on them.
It got me wondering: I wonder if I could do the same (some sort of seminar?) about science and/or statistics for reporters or those wanting to enter the field. I can tell you there is most definitely a need, but I wonder how it would be received.
Some of the editors and reporters I have corresponded with up until now, well, let's say they lack the kind of humility required to foster learning. That and my writing about media I'm sure has not endeared me to them.
I do have to give a shoutout here to CPR's Andy Kenney. We don't agree on a lot of things, but I have a lot of respect for him because he has at least been open and has talked about wanting to learn about statistics and science; we've corresponded a few times.
The openness and willingness to ask questions and to try to improve one's knowledge is something this teacher appreciates greatly.
When regular "Fact Checks" aren't enough, you have to go up 9 orders of magnitude to a Giga Fact Check.*
The Colorado Sun has recently (I think they've done two up to this point) partnered with a group called Gigafact to do "fact checks" of things that they see trending online or that readers ask about.
Before I get into my thoughts on the matter, let me first acquaint you with what this is and some resources so you can read up on it for yourself if you're inclined.
The most recent Gigafact check as of this writing is linked first below and the Sun's little explainer about what they're doing is linked below that.
As you might imagine, I got curious to know more about this effort and Gigafact. I put some starter information for you below as links 3 through 6:
--The third link being to Gigafact themselves
--The fourth link is their "About" page and this includes a list of donors.
--Links 5 and 6 are Influence Watch pages for a couple of the foundations that donate and support Gigafact.
What is the value of this stuff?
If you are the Sun, of course, these things are clothed in the righteous rhetoric of truth and a "definitive" answer on a question (quote from the Sun's own page).
I do like the transparency involved here. Both the Sun and the Gigafact people don't try to hide the ball in terms of what they use as source material, what they're wanting to accomplish, and who is funding all this.
Compared with other outlets, the transparency here does point to respect for the reader and some measure of wanting to give the reader the ability to assess the information and sources for him or herself.
That being said, I take issue here with how this is sold.
Take a look at the attached screenshot. This is the claim that the Gigafact check below says it is responding to. Reading this tweet, the first thing you'll note is that there are several different claims made here.
The fact check then takes up, by its own title, the question of whether Colorado helps ranchers protect against wolves, listing all the programs and benefits available. It even has a quote by a CPW spokesperson.
The claims in the tweet are not exactly what the Gigafact thing addresses.
Does Colorado help ranchers? They have programs, but are people able to access them? Are they accessing them? Does what they offer actually help (in the sense of "working") prevent wolf depredation?
I think you get the point: a simple definitive "YES" or "NO" on a fact is pretty complicated and requires care. Much more care than is given here.
Pretend (if you're not) that you were ignorant about cows, wolves, ranching, CPW, the whole lot. If all you read was the Gigafact thing, you could easily walk away with the impression that Mr. Paige (the tweeter Gigafact was responding to) was full of crap. Of course Colorado helps ranchers.
This is not at all what ranchers themselves are saying. This is not at all what the reality looks like when the fladry that the state pays for comes apart in high winds and the wolves ignore it after about two days. This is not the reality when the state pays only for dead cows that it determines it ought to pay for (and pays nothing for the lost sleep trying to prevent loss or the worry about how much weight your cows put on and thus whether you'll make any money for a year's hard work).
I also would like to point you to the politics of both the Sun and Gigafact (as evidenced by who funds them) because they bear directly on who's going to get the Gigafact treatment ... and who won't.
If you look at the Sun's explainer on Gigafact and then click the link to see about submitting a tip for them to check, you'll see what is in the second screenshot. I underlined the relevant parts.
What gets looked at? Whose tips get taken up?
If you're thinking that the "substantive and relevant" topics that the "writer capacity" will be sufficient to process will lean solely to debunking things that suit the Sun's and Gigafact's politics, while ignoring those that don't, you and I think alike.
These fact checks are no more substantive, definitive, or important than anything else put out by the Sun. They are simply a furtherance of the Sun's reporting and should be thought of as such: topics that a left leaning outlet thinks will attract its readers' interest
You, as the media consumer here, need to remember this and spread your media consumption out over a broad array of ideologies and outlets. I would not at all recommend taking any one thing as definitive or the complete truth without thought, comparison, reflection, and further inquiry.**
*Nerdy physics joke alert: Giga (G) is a prefix that is 10 to the power of 9, that is a 1 followed by 9 zeroes. A gigabyte is therefore 1000 000 000 bytes.
**And, as I've said before, yes, this does include what I write here.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/26/colorado-ranchers-protect-wolves/
https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/26/fact-brief-methodology/
https://gigafact.org/
https://gigafact.org/about-gigafact
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/skoll-foundation/
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/patrick-j-mcgovern-foundation/
Related:
Later (i.e. post-Gigafact check) Sun article with the actual perspective of the actual people who raise cattle on the effectiveness of such things as range riders and fladry.
Maybe it's just me but it seems perhaps Gigafact, what with their commitment to truth and definitive answers might've either awaited this article or, you know, asked someone that dealt in cattle.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/05/01/20000-offered-to-help-grand-county-ranchers-fend-off-wolves/
Who does CPR "reporter" Sam Brasch talk to about renewables, and who does he not?
The CPR story below is about the renewables land use bill, the one I've posted about where the state wants to control the decisions on siting renewables.
If you give it a read, you may note that it's missing something. Can you find it?
Quote from the supporting politician? Check.
Quote from someone who is at least not friendly? Check.
Quote from an environmentalist? Check.
Quote from a renewable energy developer? Check.
Quote from someone who lives in an area where renewables would go? Quote from a landowner?
Crickets.
If you follow renewables and land use, especially in this session of the legislature, you get the impression that the voter-heavy Front Range that demands renewables doesn't want to be stopped or slowed in anyway to satisfy their "climate-saving" and conscience-salving renewable dreams.
It's just that the renewables aren't going to be in their backyard. They'll be out here on the Plains and in other areas: we can't sully the flatirons West of Boulder by turning them into giant solar arrays.
That impression is furthered here by CPR news and Mr. Brasch. This isn't the first time I say it either. If you look at the second link below which is to an earlier newsletter I did outlining pretty much the same thing.
To him, and to CPR apparently, only certain voices matter in the decision of where to put powerlines, where to put renewables and the like. And in case it's not patently obvious, the voices that matter ain't yours.
If this is a concern, do not wait for the media to tell your story. As you can see, they may get around to amplifying your voice and they may not.
Speak up to your county commissioners. Speak up to your state rep and senator.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/04/26/legislation-to-limit-local-control-renewable-energy-projects/
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/if-cpr-news-likes-you-youll-get-a?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web