Saturday, January 01, 2005
New Year - 2005 MSM & Blogs
The fundamental difference between MSM and blogs is that MSM claims to be an unbaised reporter of the news while bloggers are commentators on topics of personal interest.
The problem that MSM is having is it has let a bias seep into its reporting of facts by the nature of the topics covered and the their relative editorial weighting.
Also, on many topics, the reporter has no technical competence to evaluate the information given, particularly in science, technology, and envirionmental reporting. As a trianed scientist, I see many times when it is obvious to me that the reporter is getting a snow job and does not know it. For example the recent Vioxx scare is based on the fact that Vioxx appears to increase the risk under certain conditions of heart attack and stroke. None of the MSM reports I saw discussed what the relative risk factor for a patient was. Admittedly, one would need to dig into the statistics behind the story to properly access the problem and I suspect most journalists have little or no training in statistics or have a mathematical background to learn statistics on their own. My statistical background is more in process control than in interpreting medical data or in accessing the adequacy of the experimental design.
Another problem is that many journalists expect me to believe that journalism is a field with high professional requirements to enter it like law, medicine, or engineering. This is nonsense. The other fields require specialized education for one to be reasonably competent in them but what specialized knowledge is required to be a journalist? Asking questions, doing research, competently writing, competently speaking? Many other fields such as the three mentioned earlier require these.
Bloggers are commentators on issues and events that are occurring. These issues can be trite and trivial or profound and important. If the blog is to be respected several things must occur:
1. The blogger should acknowledge his bias and limitations. As a point of record I am a conservative/moderate Republican who is a Christian (not a fundamentalist) and am a physical chemist by academic training (MS degree).
2. Corrections of fact and logic should be made in a timely manner.
3. Personal attacks must never be made. If someone makes a factual or logical error, the error must be pointed out without name calling.
Many well known bloggers (Mickey Kaus, Glen Reynolds, Powerline, Volokh Conspiracy, numerous others) follow these rules.
Many people fail to understand the difference between a blog and news article. A blog is an opinion piece that is limited by the knowledge and competence of the author. A news article should be reporting the important facts (there will some editorial judgement) with as little bias as possible. I have little capability of ferreting the information for news article and the MSM is considerable resources in this area. The difference is that in certain areas I have a much higher degree of competence than any reporter will likely have and may be able to better interpret the information than the reporter. This is true of any blogger.
What is occuring now is that elements of the MSM have assumed because they covered the news they are the most competent at interpreting the news. But there are numerous bloggers who are experts in any given area and these bloggers can come to different conclusion than the reporter did or at least put a more appropriate context on the issue. This breaks their monopoly on accessible, accurate interpretation.
Adding to these problems are events like Rathergate. Again, this is really competent evaluation and interpetation of the the story, not origination of the story. Experts found numerous problems with the supposed documents and published their evaluation on their personal blogs for the world to see. In the old days, say 1996, their influence would have been virtually nil - they could only mention it to a handful of people, not the world. The real story is the institutional problems at CBS that let this fraud happen. The shattering impact for some is that there are experts who can call them out to the world when they forget their primary duty - accurate reporting of the news including careful evaluation of the "evidence". An aside, I learned a lot about kerning and pseudokerning that a computer can do but a convential typewrite can not.
As the MSM refuses to acknowledge their limitations, they are marginalizing themselves and are suffering from a credibility problem.
The problem that MSM is having is it has let a bias seep into its reporting of facts by the nature of the topics covered and the their relative editorial weighting.
Also, on many topics, the reporter has no technical competence to evaluate the information given, particularly in science, technology, and envirionmental reporting. As a trianed scientist, I see many times when it is obvious to me that the reporter is getting a snow job and does not know it. For example the recent Vioxx scare is based on the fact that Vioxx appears to increase the risk under certain conditions of heart attack and stroke. None of the MSM reports I saw discussed what the relative risk factor for a patient was. Admittedly, one would need to dig into the statistics behind the story to properly access the problem and I suspect most journalists have little or no training in statistics or have a mathematical background to learn statistics on their own. My statistical background is more in process control than in interpreting medical data or in accessing the adequacy of the experimental design.
Another problem is that many journalists expect me to believe that journalism is a field with high professional requirements to enter it like law, medicine, or engineering. This is nonsense. The other fields require specialized education for one to be reasonably competent in them but what specialized knowledge is required to be a journalist? Asking questions, doing research, competently writing, competently speaking? Many other fields such as the three mentioned earlier require these.
Bloggers are commentators on issues and events that are occurring. These issues can be trite and trivial or profound and important. If the blog is to be respected several things must occur:
1. The blogger should acknowledge his bias and limitations. As a point of record I am a conservative/moderate Republican who is a Christian (not a fundamentalist) and am a physical chemist by academic training (MS degree).
2. Corrections of fact and logic should be made in a timely manner.
3. Personal attacks must never be made. If someone makes a factual or logical error, the error must be pointed out without name calling.
Many well known bloggers (Mickey Kaus, Glen Reynolds, Powerline, Volokh Conspiracy, numerous others) follow these rules.
Many people fail to understand the difference between a blog and news article. A blog is an opinion piece that is limited by the knowledge and competence of the author. A news article should be reporting the important facts (there will some editorial judgement) with as little bias as possible. I have little capability of ferreting the information for news article and the MSM is considerable resources in this area. The difference is that in certain areas I have a much higher degree of competence than any reporter will likely have and may be able to better interpret the information than the reporter. This is true of any blogger.
What is occuring now is that elements of the MSM have assumed because they covered the news they are the most competent at interpreting the news. But there are numerous bloggers who are experts in any given area and these bloggers can come to different conclusion than the reporter did or at least put a more appropriate context on the issue. This breaks their monopoly on accessible, accurate interpretation.
Adding to these problems are events like Rathergate. Again, this is really competent evaluation and interpetation of the the story, not origination of the story. Experts found numerous problems with the supposed documents and published their evaluation on their personal blogs for the world to see. In the old days, say 1996, their influence would have been virtually nil - they could only mention it to a handful of people, not the world. The real story is the institutional problems at CBS that let this fraud happen. The shattering impact for some is that there are experts who can call them out to the world when they forget their primary duty - accurate reporting of the news including careful evaluation of the "evidence". An aside, I learned a lot about kerning and pseudokerning that a computer can do but a convential typewrite can not.
As the MSM refuses to acknowledge their limitations, they are marginalizing themselves and are suffering from a credibility problem.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Moral Values & Exit Polls
The whole issue of moral values equally opposition to gay marriage is a false issue. The problem is that question is very vague. I thought Kerry was morally weak because he did not seem to take a consist position on any issue. The problem is that I could not see that he had any particular convictions that would guide his decisions. He seemed on many moral issues to try take a stand on both sides, which is logically impossible.
In fact, in Georgia, when I voted I was surprised to even see the gay marriage amendment on the ballot, the issue was not that important to me and did not cause to change my vote or to vote in the first place. I voted because I believe Bush would fight terrorist the only way they understand and that he had a moral core that he would not compromise. His moral values are not identical to mine only similar. My surprise at seeing the gay marriage amendment should be a warning that equating morla values to a specific issue is foolhardy and likely to cause one to misread the situation.
The question was to vague to be very meaningful or insightful about what moral issues anyone was specifically concerned about.
In fact, in Georgia, when I voted I was surprised to even see the gay marriage amendment on the ballot, the issue was not that important to me and did not cause to change my vote or to vote in the first place. I voted because I believe Bush would fight terrorist the only way they understand and that he had a moral core that he would not compromise. His moral values are not identical to mine only similar. My surprise at seeing the gay marriage amendment should be a warning that equating morla values to a specific issue is foolhardy and likely to cause one to misread the situation.
The question was to vague to be very meaningful or insightful about what moral issues anyone was specifically concerned about.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
An old fashioned idea
I remember a time when Christmas displays were and advertising were not put out or started until the Friday after Thanksgiving. It seems that the Christmas shopping season gets earlier every year. I am reminded of the spoof song "A Green Christmas".
Personally, I would rather focus on the spiritual meaning of Christmas than all the holiday stuff.
Personally, I would rather focus on the spiritual meaning of Christmas than all the holiday stuff.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
A comment on the election
As moderate Republican my natural instinct is to vote for the Republican candidate unless the Democrats provide a candidate I believe is better. Issues that a Democrat must deal with positively are:
1. National security (both in peace and war), other countries do not have our security problems and needs and are not affected by, say, Islamofascist terrorists as the US is. The candidate must postively address how he plans to protect US citizens and interests in a potentially hostile world. This implies support for a strong military and when necessary the willingness to use it. President Bush grasped after 9/11 this essential issue fully and is willing to use military force to protect the US.
2. Promote opportunity based social programs, not the classic welfare system. The program the is best example of this is the Georgia Hope Scholarship, which is renewable college scholarship to any state college in Georgia. The program requires that one meets certain academic requirements in high school and maintain certain academic progress in colllege and is open to any resident of Georgia. Obviously the program is very popular with the middle class but the important feature is that any resident can apply and if they meet the academic standards are awarded a scholarship. The governor who established this program and its funding was Zell Miller, a Democrat.
Needless to say there numerous areas where programs like the Hope Scholarship could be established and would work very successfully. But it will take someone willing to seek a practical solution and not use a knee jerk reaction.
I find President Bush tends to lean in this direction, particularly with Social Security.
3. Have a moral core, what I mean is not what the left coast means. It is that one has a set of moral beliefs and principles that they hold dear and are not negotiable for votes or political expediency. Whether you agree with me one specific moral issues is not as critical as that you have a moral core and I have a good idea what it is. Also, that you respect that we may disagree on some moral issues because of religious and philosphical convictions and neither is foaming at the mouth idiot. President Bush has such a moral core, which is similar to mine. Senator Kerry did not seem to have one. Also, many of Senator Kerry's supporters assumed that my disagreement with their convictions (if it is the proper term) meant that I am idiot. Obviously, I am not voting for someone who assumes (or his supporters) that I am idiot.
4. Not dictate that I follow the party line, I see the left requiring everyone to support their party line without critcal analysis or debate. The most troubling aspect of this is when the Judiacary is used to avoid debates in the legislature or Congress about social issues and policy. The current issue of gay marriage is a classic example of this. If I remember correctly the Vermont legislature passed an act legalizing gay marriage while in Massachuetts, the courts "legalized" gay marriage. In Vermont there was an opportunity to debate the issue and come to a consensus, while in Massachuetts there is no opportunity for debate and consensus. The Vermont example and the numerous initiatives on the ballot about gay marriage are the proper way for issues like this to be determined, by the people through the legislature or by direct vote. I will respect the local opinions, even when I think they are wrong or stupid, when the people had a voice, not when the court decided.
Personally, I prefer Vice President Cheney's position over President Bush's of having most of these issues debated at the state not the federal level.
5. Respect the US Constitution, all Presidential elections are actually decided by the Electorial College not direct nationwide popular vote. The mantra of "selected not elected" ignores the Constitution, President Bush was elected in accordance with the Constitution and if you do not like how the procedure you must still accept it. The only option is to amended the Constitution to have a different method of electing a President, if the current method is totally unacceptable. The fact that there were problems in 2000 in Florida (in a Democratic area caused by a Democrat) does not change this.
If a Democrat candidate will meet these, I might vote for him on Election Day. If the Democratic Party insists on nominating Senator Kerry and similar people, I will not vote them ever.
1. National security (both in peace and war), other countries do not have our security problems and needs and are not affected by, say, Islamofascist terrorists as the US is. The candidate must postively address how he plans to protect US citizens and interests in a potentially hostile world. This implies support for a strong military and when necessary the willingness to use it. President Bush grasped after 9/11 this essential issue fully and is willing to use military force to protect the US.
2. Promote opportunity based social programs, not the classic welfare system. The program the is best example of this is the Georgia Hope Scholarship, which is renewable college scholarship to any state college in Georgia. The program requires that one meets certain academic requirements in high school and maintain certain academic progress in colllege and is open to any resident of Georgia. Obviously the program is very popular with the middle class but the important feature is that any resident can apply and if they meet the academic standards are awarded a scholarship. The governor who established this program and its funding was Zell Miller, a Democrat.
Needless to say there numerous areas where programs like the Hope Scholarship could be established and would work very successfully. But it will take someone willing to seek a practical solution and not use a knee jerk reaction.
I find President Bush tends to lean in this direction, particularly with Social Security.
3. Have a moral core, what I mean is not what the left coast means. It is that one has a set of moral beliefs and principles that they hold dear and are not negotiable for votes or political expediency. Whether you agree with me one specific moral issues is not as critical as that you have a moral core and I have a good idea what it is. Also, that you respect that we may disagree on some moral issues because of religious and philosphical convictions and neither is foaming at the mouth idiot. President Bush has such a moral core, which is similar to mine. Senator Kerry did not seem to have one. Also, many of Senator Kerry's supporters assumed that my disagreement with their convictions (if it is the proper term) meant that I am idiot. Obviously, I am not voting for someone who assumes (or his supporters) that I am idiot.
4. Not dictate that I follow the party line, I see the left requiring everyone to support their party line without critcal analysis or debate. The most troubling aspect of this is when the Judiacary is used to avoid debates in the legislature or Congress about social issues and policy. The current issue of gay marriage is a classic example of this. If I remember correctly the Vermont legislature passed an act legalizing gay marriage while in Massachuetts, the courts "legalized" gay marriage. In Vermont there was an opportunity to debate the issue and come to a consensus, while in Massachuetts there is no opportunity for debate and consensus. The Vermont example and the numerous initiatives on the ballot about gay marriage are the proper way for issues like this to be determined, by the people through the legislature or by direct vote. I will respect the local opinions, even when I think they are wrong or stupid, when the people had a voice, not when the court decided.
Personally, I prefer Vice President Cheney's position over President Bush's of having most of these issues debated at the state not the federal level.
5. Respect the US Constitution, all Presidential elections are actually decided by the Electorial College not direct nationwide popular vote. The mantra of "selected not elected" ignores the Constitution, President Bush was elected in accordance with the Constitution and if you do not like how the procedure you must still accept it. The only option is to amended the Constitution to have a different method of electing a President, if the current method is totally unacceptable. The fact that there were problems in 2000 in Florida (in a Democratic area caused by a Democrat) does not change this.
If a Democrat candidate will meet these, I might vote for him on Election Day. If the Democratic Party insists on nominating Senator Kerry and similar people, I will not vote them ever.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
A Musing on Global Warming
I would like to know if any of the current models used to "predict" future global warming can correclty "predict" paleoclimates when humans could not affect the climate.
If a model can correctly "predict" the known behavior then it seems more likely that its predict of future possibilities would account for the natural variation that has occurred. The basic problem is that the paleoclimates were both much warmer and colder than the current climate. Humans had no effect because we did not exist then. Obviously global climate change then has its own patterns and cycles that may dominate any thing we are doing now and could possilby do in the future.
What I understand of the current models, is that they derived from weather prediction models and weather predictions are problematical after about a week. Thus, I distrust the predictions and especially the hysterical claims in the MSM about the environment. I find trusting a shaky model bad science at best.
Author's note my professional background is in chemistry and material science.
If a model can correctly "predict" the known behavior then it seems more likely that its predict of future possibilities would account for the natural variation that has occurred. The basic problem is that the paleoclimates were both much warmer and colder than the current climate. Humans had no effect because we did not exist then. Obviously global climate change then has its own patterns and cycles that may dominate any thing we are doing now and could possilby do in the future.
What I understand of the current models, is that they derived from weather prediction models and weather predictions are problematical after about a week. Thus, I distrust the predictions and especially the hysterical claims in the MSM about the environment. I find trusting a shaky model bad science at best.
Author's note my professional background is in chemistry and material science.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A question about the TANG forgeries
I have question that I have not seen any comment on. Why would anyone keep a file on an obscure ex-junior officer approximately 10 years after the officer left the military. Bush left TANG about 1975 and Killian died in 1984. Given that there were many who served a tour and left the military during that period, I suspect that Lt Col Killian would have several of these files for different officers, some good, some soso, and some bad.
After Col Killian died, I find it hard that anyone would have saved old files on a former officer who is not particularly important at that time. The only people who would have saved these files, his family, never saw any files like these. For someone else to save them, because they might be important someday, is not realistic.
Another problem is that they did not surface when Bush first ran for governor or in 2000.
The fact that several people say a file like these prossibly existed does not mean that they knew the contents of the files or if they did see files necessarily correctly remember the contents of the files. These were alledgedly from 30 years ago and I would not want to rely solely on my memory for what would have been a relatively routine action, even for something I wrote. I could easily confuse two routine files after 30 years that I wrote and I am not 86.
I think that when considers the likelyhood of any documents of this type surviving 30 years, CBS has an even more serious credibility problem - they were not skeptical of the forgeries when they had sound reasons other than the technical and stylistic problems others have noted to be suspicious of the documents.
Maybe I could sell the Brooklyn Bridge to Dan Rather
After Col Killian died, I find it hard that anyone would have saved old files on a former officer who is not particularly important at that time. The only people who would have saved these files, his family, never saw any files like these. For someone else to save them, because they might be important someday, is not realistic.
Another problem is that they did not surface when Bush first ran for governor or in 2000.
The fact that several people say a file like these prossibly existed does not mean that they knew the contents of the files or if they did see files necessarily correctly remember the contents of the files. These were alledgedly from 30 years ago and I would not want to rely solely on my memory for what would have been a relatively routine action, even for something I wrote. I could easily confuse two routine files after 30 years that I wrote and I am not 86.
I think that when considers the likelyhood of any documents of this type surviving 30 years, CBS has an even more serious credibility problem - they were not skeptical of the forgeries when they had sound reasons other than the technical and stylistic problems others have noted to be suspicious of the documents.
Maybe I could sell the Brooklyn Bridge to Dan Rather
