Just a quick thought -- if a newspaper just prints what various people say, isn't that just a gossip column?
During a political campaign, it's common for the media in general just to quote the candidates, to tell readers what the candidates (or their advisors) have to say about each other (most commonly) or some issue or other.
When the editorial staff wants to show some responsibility and respectibility, they do a "fact check," which is often little more than a scandal check against assertions the candidates have made.
No analysis of the positions or proposed programs. Do they make sense? Do they have good internal sense? Are they based on reality? What do they gloss over? What do they assume? Are those assumptions valid?
If a newspaper just gathers statements, then it's not much more than a conglomeration of opinions -- and opinions are pretty cheap no matter the source.
If people are just presented with a mass of opinions, they're bound to turn more towards those they like and away from those they don't like. It's the nature of opinions, none are any more valid than any other, it's just a matter of taste and preference.
So, in this way the front page of a newspaper differs little from its op-ed page, and a newspaper differs little from talk radio. No matter that the reporters and staff think better of themselves...
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Sagging newspaper readership
Just a quick one -- I've been skating on my writing...
I read (quickly) an article in The Atlantic saying that newspaper articles are too long, that they have too many words because the rely on old style conventions, and so on. Pithy reading.
But I doubt that newspapers (or any other written news source) are losing readers or losing money because of the number of words used in their article. It seems to me more of a matter of the words not containing news, that is, useful information or insights.
It's that facts and assumptions thing. Most of what is reported is little more than a compendium of quotations from various individuals somehow involved in the matter, often loaded with unstated assumptions of questionable (but unquestioned) validity, and lacking any real substance.
Do I get any useful insights about the quality of my local schools from an article written after a school board budget meeting, in which the reporter quotes a representative of a teachers union about the need for more money to be spent on education, and throws in a quote from a school board member about sky-high local property taxes? Every reader already knows what each side has to say, so this is not news.
Questions about how this districts' teachers work with this district's kids, about how they use school time, about how parents relate to their kids' education, about how well buildings and vehicles are maintained -- such questions aren't addressed in such quicky articles.
It's like a courtroom in which the witnesses determine what testimony they want to present. Reporters should have at least enough understanding of the subject to get to some substance, and not be satisfied with what is presented to them.
Readers today may no longer have the time or patience of their ancestors, and don't care to read empty articles -- unless they find them amusing confirmations of what they already believe (without actually having any good basis for that belief), or annoying propoganda pieces they only want to tear apart (again, based on little more than their own sentiments).
If news media want to gain some readers (and make some money), they should get out of the rut of being little more than the community gossip, and also do some soul-searching to find that self-doubting, selfless investigator lurking deep inside them. They need to ask questions -- not just of the people they may interview but also of themselves and of other knowledgable sources.
They need to search out facts and identify assumptions, and then attempt to confirm or validate their findings. And they need to follow their findings where they go, no matter that they may lead to contrary or uncomfortable conclusions, or betray a complexity denying simple conclusions.
I think readers would respect those writers and flock to those sources. Respect our intelligence, respect reality, report what you find faithfully. The product of this work ethic will have value. Sound good?
I read (quickly) an article in The Atlantic saying that newspaper articles are too long, that they have too many words because the rely on old style conventions, and so on. Pithy reading.
But I doubt that newspapers (or any other written news source) are losing readers or losing money because of the number of words used in their article. It seems to me more of a matter of the words not containing news, that is, useful information or insights.
It's that facts and assumptions thing. Most of what is reported is little more than a compendium of quotations from various individuals somehow involved in the matter, often loaded with unstated assumptions of questionable (but unquestioned) validity, and lacking any real substance.
Do I get any useful insights about the quality of my local schools from an article written after a school board budget meeting, in which the reporter quotes a representative of a teachers union about the need for more money to be spent on education, and throws in a quote from a school board member about sky-high local property taxes? Every reader already knows what each side has to say, so this is not news.
Questions about how this districts' teachers work with this district's kids, about how they use school time, about how parents relate to their kids' education, about how well buildings and vehicles are maintained -- such questions aren't addressed in such quicky articles.
It's like a courtroom in which the witnesses determine what testimony they want to present. Reporters should have at least enough understanding of the subject to get to some substance, and not be satisfied with what is presented to them.
Readers today may no longer have the time or patience of their ancestors, and don't care to read empty articles -- unless they find them amusing confirmations of what they already believe (without actually having any good basis for that belief), or annoying propoganda pieces they only want to tear apart (again, based on little more than their own sentiments).
If news media want to gain some readers (and make some money), they should get out of the rut of being little more than the community gossip, and also do some soul-searching to find that self-doubting, selfless investigator lurking deep inside them. They need to ask questions -- not just of the people they may interview but also of themselves and of other knowledgable sources.
They need to search out facts and identify assumptions, and then attempt to confirm or validate their findings. And they need to follow their findings where they go, no matter that they may lead to contrary or uncomfortable conclusions, or betray a complexity denying simple conclusions.
I think readers would respect those writers and flock to those sources. Respect our intelligence, respect reality, report what you find faithfully. The product of this work ethic will have value. Sound good?
Friday, December 25, 2009
Scribes and Pharisees?
It seems to be as easy as rolling out of bed in the morning to counter criticism of opinions by attacking the person voicing that criticism. It may be by referring to some position that person may have held at some point which may run contrary to their own criticism -- making them hypocrites -- or the counter may be based on association with others whose motives are ostensibly contaminated by self-interest or some brand of idology.
This kind of name-calling, no matter how satisfying it may feel to the person calling the names, doesn't really help clarify matters. The intellectual falacies in these defenses and attacks have been well known for centuries, and they are no more valid just because they are put to use in support of a particular cause.
In this day, though, unlike those past centuries, a growing mass of people are adequately educated to see through such flimsy dodges and are thus being increasingly impatient and intolerant of their use. If you want to see your cause go down in flames, whatever it may be, just keep using those rusty weapons! Like a bayonet charge in the age of the machine gun, running off at the mouth in the age of the internet is doomed to defeat...
What do you think about theories of climate change? Economics and finance? Health and nutrition? War and peace? Are you interested in achieving progress for humanity? Or just making noise? No one likes noise makers (except perhaps as entertainment!)...
The only intelligent way to proceed.is to abandon those age-old, greasy tactics and instead investigate the truth of every matter of concern to you objectively, independently, dispassionately. Identify the facts and assumptions, both what you think you know and what others may claim. Validate the assumptions, no matter their source. Evaluate their relationship to reality -- are they sound or speculative? Are they built on good observation? Are they consistent with all available data? Do they make sense?
Remember, this investigation cannot be adjusted one way for views you already hold and another way for views advanced by people you don't like. Think about it -- is it more important to stick to what you believe, or to attach yourself to what is true? If you happen to have glommed on to something you found attractive but was actually flawed, is there any honor in sticking to the flaw?
As Baha'u'llah wrote, it is essential that one "so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth."
That is the standard. And it's a personal standard, not a political or philosophical standard. It's about freeing your judgment from prejudice or ignorance, seeing the world as it is rather than how you may have thought it to be. A doctor cannot make a good diagnosis without examining the patient to see exactly what is going on -- can anyone else make a diagnosis about what's right or wrong in the world without examining the situation as it actually is?
But some of the better-educated people I have talke with over the years hold this standard to be impracticable. They say it's contrary to "human nature." This perception supports cynicism, the idea that they're all a bunch of frauds, that some approximation of truth can be found by coming up half-way in between contending factions because none of them are any more or less valid than any other.
Talk about an assumption! This is the standard we try to apply in our legal system, in scientific investigation, in every question of fairness and justice. We try to get to the "ground truth," rather than sticking to ignorant first impressions or prejudices. So, contrary to the idea that public figures and public debate must always be dominated by the half-truth, by spin, by ideology and by interest, people can and should put such childish squabbles where they belong and act like adults.
And perhaps let the people with the big mouths know they're not fooling anyone, that they should be ashamed of themselves for their foolishness, and that if they're serious about anything they should start acting like responsible, mature adults.
Put the facts and assumptions out there for everyone to see. In the end, there can be widely differing views on issues based intelligently and fairly on differing assumptions, and it's up to leaders to choose the ones they find stronger. But more on that in later posts...
This kind of name-calling, no matter how satisfying it may feel to the person calling the names, doesn't really help clarify matters. The intellectual falacies in these defenses and attacks have been well known for centuries, and they are no more valid just because they are put to use in support of a particular cause.
In this day, though, unlike those past centuries, a growing mass of people are adequately educated to see through such flimsy dodges and are thus being increasingly impatient and intolerant of their use. If you want to see your cause go down in flames, whatever it may be, just keep using those rusty weapons! Like a bayonet charge in the age of the machine gun, running off at the mouth in the age of the internet is doomed to defeat...
What do you think about theories of climate change? Economics and finance? Health and nutrition? War and peace? Are you interested in achieving progress for humanity? Or just making noise? No one likes noise makers (except perhaps as entertainment!)...
The only intelligent way to proceed.is to abandon those age-old, greasy tactics and instead investigate the truth of every matter of concern to you objectively, independently, dispassionately. Identify the facts and assumptions, both what you think you know and what others may claim. Validate the assumptions, no matter their source. Evaluate their relationship to reality -- are they sound or speculative? Are they built on good observation? Are they consistent with all available data? Do they make sense?
Remember, this investigation cannot be adjusted one way for views you already hold and another way for views advanced by people you don't like. Think about it -- is it more important to stick to what you believe, or to attach yourself to what is true? If you happen to have glommed on to something you found attractive but was actually flawed, is there any honor in sticking to the flaw?
As Baha'u'llah wrote, it is essential that one "so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth."
That is the standard. And it's a personal standard, not a political or philosophical standard. It's about freeing your judgment from prejudice or ignorance, seeing the world as it is rather than how you may have thought it to be. A doctor cannot make a good diagnosis without examining the patient to see exactly what is going on -- can anyone else make a diagnosis about what's right or wrong in the world without examining the situation as it actually is?
But some of the better-educated people I have talke with over the years hold this standard to be impracticable. They say it's contrary to "human nature." This perception supports cynicism, the idea that they're all a bunch of frauds, that some approximation of truth can be found by coming up half-way in between contending factions because none of them are any more or less valid than any other.
Talk about an assumption! This is the standard we try to apply in our legal system, in scientific investigation, in every question of fairness and justice. We try to get to the "ground truth," rather than sticking to ignorant first impressions or prejudices. So, contrary to the idea that public figures and public debate must always be dominated by the half-truth, by spin, by ideology and by interest, people can and should put such childish squabbles where they belong and act like adults.
And perhaps let the people with the big mouths know they're not fooling anyone, that they should be ashamed of themselves for their foolishness, and that if they're serious about anything they should start acting like responsible, mature adults.
Put the facts and assumptions out there for everyone to see. In the end, there can be widely differing views on issues based intelligently and fairly on differing assumptions, and it's up to leaders to choose the ones they find stronger. But more on that in later posts...
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Opinions, polls and pols
Anyone can have an opinion about anything, and nearly everyone does. That's a fact, and it's a fact essential to polls. Polls are nothing more than a way of measuring how opinions are distributed among a population. So many head are counted expressing a preference towards one proffered opinion, so many the other way, and assuming that with a sufficient number of heads in a certain category you can predict what all heads of that type would say if asked the same question, the pollster announces the distribution of opinions among those heads.
And that is then presented by the press as a fact bearing somehow on the merits of the subject of the opinion.
However, since opinions are only as good as the judgment of the persons offering them, and that judgment is only as good as that person's familiarity with the underlying facts and assumptions, the opinion of most people on most topics is essentially worthless -- other than as a measure of sentiment, or the effectiveness of public relations campaigns.
If you ask the typical 4,000 random people whether carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by combustion of fossil fuels is a driver of climate change, you will certainly get their opinions. But what do those 4,000 people base their opinions on? Have they studied the CO2 record of the Vostok ice cores? Are they current on the transport of latent heat in storm formations? The absorbtion bands of various gasses in the atmosphere? The operation of Henry's Law on partial pressure of CO2 in sea water?
I think not. Instead, their opinions are largely based on haphazard, almost subconscious responses to tone and context, be it towards the environment or the economy, towards the global community or global government. But not on the facts and assumptions in the science itself.
Politicians, unfortunately, try to ride the horse of public opinion towards their own ends, often in even greater ignorance of the ultimate wisdom or folly locked into their views. Which is worse, higher taxes or higher debt? Which is better, lower taxes or reduced services? What drove the financial crisis of 2008? What is right and what is wrong with the American health care system? Do they have a clue? If so, I see little evidence of it...
More on the role of the media in a future post, but for now, it is an absolute necessity to get away from mere opinions, postures, policies and debate. People need to develop a sense of humility and insecurity in their own opinion, and instead seek out firm ground for reason and understanding of the issues attracting their attention. I should not offer an opinion on a topic which I have not studied in sufficient depth, nor should I seek out opinions from individuals appealing to my sentiments.
Instead, I should see out facts and identify assumptions, and then validate those facts and assumptions against their underlying data and observations. If there is controversy among the experts, I should not simply go with the one that seems more confident, or who has a louder voice or stands in front of a larger crowd. Instead I need to investigate their assertions, and the questions and challenges posed by other people involved in the controversy -- even if their numbers are small and the rich and famous tell me to ignore them, tarring them with insults. And even if I find myself satisfied with a particular understanding of the issue, I should be open to and carefully consider new divergent or contrary views when they arise.
The truth stands on its own against contrary claims, it does not need popular support, its worth is not determined by surveying public opinion. Everyone knows this to be true, and it is to their underlying shame that we often claim the contrary. People may at various times and to various degrees stroke their own egos, stuff their own pockets and honor their own superstitions, but not everyone, not everywhere, not always. The human spirit is made of better stuff than that!
And that is then presented by the press as a fact bearing somehow on the merits of the subject of the opinion.
However, since opinions are only as good as the judgment of the persons offering them, and that judgment is only as good as that person's familiarity with the underlying facts and assumptions, the opinion of most people on most topics is essentially worthless -- other than as a measure of sentiment, or the effectiveness of public relations campaigns.
If you ask the typical 4,000 random people whether carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by combustion of fossil fuels is a driver of climate change, you will certainly get their opinions. But what do those 4,000 people base their opinions on? Have they studied the CO2 record of the Vostok ice cores? Are they current on the transport of latent heat in storm formations? The absorbtion bands of various gasses in the atmosphere? The operation of Henry's Law on partial pressure of CO2 in sea water?
I think not. Instead, their opinions are largely based on haphazard, almost subconscious responses to tone and context, be it towards the environment or the economy, towards the global community or global government. But not on the facts and assumptions in the science itself.
Politicians, unfortunately, try to ride the horse of public opinion towards their own ends, often in even greater ignorance of the ultimate wisdom or folly locked into their views. Which is worse, higher taxes or higher debt? Which is better, lower taxes or reduced services? What drove the financial crisis of 2008? What is right and what is wrong with the American health care system? Do they have a clue? If so, I see little evidence of it...
More on the role of the media in a future post, but for now, it is an absolute necessity to get away from mere opinions, postures, policies and debate. People need to develop a sense of humility and insecurity in their own opinion, and instead seek out firm ground for reason and understanding of the issues attracting their attention. I should not offer an opinion on a topic which I have not studied in sufficient depth, nor should I seek out opinions from individuals appealing to my sentiments.
Instead, I should see out facts and identify assumptions, and then validate those facts and assumptions against their underlying data and observations. If there is controversy among the experts, I should not simply go with the one that seems more confident, or who has a louder voice or stands in front of a larger crowd. Instead I need to investigate their assertions, and the questions and challenges posed by other people involved in the controversy -- even if their numbers are small and the rich and famous tell me to ignore them, tarring them with insults. And even if I find myself satisfied with a particular understanding of the issue, I should be open to and carefully consider new divergent or contrary views when they arise.
The truth stands on its own against contrary claims, it does not need popular support, its worth is not determined by surveying public opinion. Everyone knows this to be true, and it is to their underlying shame that we often claim the contrary. People may at various times and to various degrees stroke their own egos, stuff their own pockets and honor their own superstitions, but not everyone, not everywhere, not always. The human spirit is made of better stuff than that!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Admin note
Bear with me -- I hope to make it all worthwhile!
Less Respectable Opinions
Not every opinion deserves as much respect as another. If I ask my doctor about my blood pressure, his opinion carries a lot of weight. He's got the education and experience, and I've known him enough years that I have confidence in his judgment. If I ask my Senator about my blood pressure, his opinion doesn't carry much weight. It isn't a matter of his education or station in life, it's just that he's a lawyer and not a doctor. I have no reason to think he knows any more about blood pressure than I do -- and the only reason I'm asking about it is because I don't know enough!
Other people, though, have the appropriate knowledge and experience, but they lack trustworthiness. You can't trust what they say. Your doubts may arise from prior statements they made that turned out to be less than correct, or because they clearly have some motive driving them other than to be honest with you. Or the situation may be so important that you simply can't take anyone on his word alone.
When you express your uncertainty, the response may either overcome or reinforce your doubts. An honest person, confident in his or her understanding of the matter, would ordinarily explain how they think, the facts and assumptions underlying their opinion. An arrogant (or really busy) person may just brush you away. But the person who attacks you for questioning his views, who dances around the question without actually answering it, who refuses or avoids providing those facts and assumptions, that person's opinion deserves no respect at all.
It may be that they are in fact expressing a deeply- and honestly-held view, and that view may itself be solidly-grounded in fact. But because of its source, you can't accept it.
When a person has shown himself to be a pushy advocate of a position, attacking contrary views with slander and irrelevant gossip about people holding those views, refusing to discuss the basis of his opinions or providing false or faulty assertions or analysis, and when you've clearly caught him in the act, then if you continue to listen to him you're only contributing to his delinquency.
Not a good thing!
When you have someone who accepts contrary views and addresses them fairly, carefully and intelligently, who demonstrates patience with critics and addresses their contentions rather than their connections, then you have someone whose opinions deserve respect.
Other people, though, have the appropriate knowledge and experience, but they lack trustworthiness. You can't trust what they say. Your doubts may arise from prior statements they made that turned out to be less than correct, or because they clearly have some motive driving them other than to be honest with you. Or the situation may be so important that you simply can't take anyone on his word alone.
When you express your uncertainty, the response may either overcome or reinforce your doubts. An honest person, confident in his or her understanding of the matter, would ordinarily explain how they think, the facts and assumptions underlying their opinion. An arrogant (or really busy) person may just brush you away. But the person who attacks you for questioning his views, who dances around the question without actually answering it, who refuses or avoids providing those facts and assumptions, that person's opinion deserves no respect at all.
It may be that they are in fact expressing a deeply- and honestly-held view, and that view may itself be solidly-grounded in fact. But because of its source, you can't accept it.
When a person has shown himself to be a pushy advocate of a position, attacking contrary views with slander and irrelevant gossip about people holding those views, refusing to discuss the basis of his opinions or providing false or faulty assertions or analysis, and when you've clearly caught him in the act, then if you continue to listen to him you're only contributing to his delinquency.
Not a good thing!
When you have someone who accepts contrary views and addresses them fairly, carefully and intelligently, who demonstrates patience with critics and addresses their contentions rather than their connections, then you have someone whose opinions deserve respect.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Respectable Opinions
Opinions are easy to get -- an old military adage about opinions noting, in part, that everyone has one -- but many of them aren't particularly valuable or useful.
So how do you separate the occasional grain from the clouds of chaff?
This is most commonly a matter of the authority, status or position of the person whose opinion is at issue. The opinion of a respected radiologist as to the value of mammography should have a pretty high level of credibility, the opinion of an anonymous responder to a blog should not. This is not a matter of class prejudice, it's a matter of knowledge -- of the person's prior assessment of facts and assumptions relating to the specific subject.
Now, if the radiologist offers an opinion about how individuals obtain health insurance to pay for mammogram, that's a different story. Knowledge about the medical issues does not confer special command over the financial, legal or social issues associated with insurance.
In fact, if the radiologist gets going too much on such issues unrelated to the medical basis of his or her expertise, you may well start having questions as to whether opinions on the medical issues are being distorted to conform to these other issues.
And if the radiologist turns out to have integrity issues -- making spurious claims based on weak statistical analysis of doctored data -- then his or her opinion deserves no more credibility than the hack blogger.
If authority is to be accepted as a substitute for a detailed presentation of facts and assumptions, it has to be built on a solid foundation of trustworthiness, which is the most fundamental of all human virtues...
So how do you separate the occasional grain from the clouds of chaff?
This is most commonly a matter of the authority, status or position of the person whose opinion is at issue. The opinion of a respected radiologist as to the value of mammography should have a pretty high level of credibility, the opinion of an anonymous responder to a blog should not. This is not a matter of class prejudice, it's a matter of knowledge -- of the person's prior assessment of facts and assumptions relating to the specific subject.
Now, if the radiologist offers an opinion about how individuals obtain health insurance to pay for mammogram, that's a different story. Knowledge about the medical issues does not confer special command over the financial, legal or social issues associated with insurance.
In fact, if the radiologist gets going too much on such issues unrelated to the medical basis of his or her expertise, you may well start having questions as to whether opinions on the medical issues are being distorted to conform to these other issues.
And if the radiologist turns out to have integrity issues -- making spurious claims based on weak statistical analysis of doctored data -- then his or her opinion deserves no more credibility than the hack blogger.
If authority is to be accepted as a substitute for a detailed presentation of facts and assumptions, it has to be built on a solid foundation of trustworthiness, which is the most fundamental of all human virtues...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
