President-elect Trump - Page 6

Undertoad · 12-13-2016, 05:05 PM

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks!!!

News is "things happened and we told you they happened." News is not "Things happened in another country and Trump did some things in an unrelated agency that we aren't sure about, therefore Trump is going to do the specific bad things that happened in another country."

That is not news. That is merely free-range bullshit.

Flint · 12-13-2016, 05:20 PM

Oh! Oh! I wanna play the "this is my only question" game.

Okay, okay, THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION ( imagine I'm saying that in, like, a Batman voice )

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?

...

( And no fair changing the subject, because THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION --so you have to respond specifically within the parameters that *I* want the conversation to be framed in !! )

tw · 12-13-2016, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

News is not "Things happened in another country and Trump did some things in an unrelated agency that we aren't sure about, therefore Trump is going to do the specific bad things that happened in another country."

That is not news. That is merely free-range bullshit.

UT is 100% on target here.

First off - a citizen is responsible for learning facts so as to make critical and informed decisions. We educated everyone to create informed (and therefore moderate) citizens. Who then first learn facts before concluding anything. Not everyone remembers their education. So we require everyone to be educated.

Second and unfortunately, too many are making "Trump will do this" conclusions. We know that Trump has a long history of doing what a "senior German government official" said. He has a set of "emotions and reflexes" rather than a foreign policy. Who can say what he will really do? He lied so often in his campaign that, for example, he now talks about Hilary in respectful tones. And has dismissed silly suggestions that Hilary should be jailed. He fully endorsed women's rights. When that did not get him political support, he quickly became an anti-abortionist. What does he really think? Nobody really knows. We only know he appears to have no long term thoughts. He is clearly not a chess player.

And that is the point. Nobody can really say what his every decision will be because he does not even admit to previous claims and accusations. His long history is to say anything that is convenient at the time. We have no idea what he will do.

Learn facts. Learn who he is hiring for his administration. Only that is news.

Does that say what he is going to do? That is not his history. He has a history (like other business school graduates such as George Jr) of not reading memos and National Security Briefings. Instead he states his current "emotion and reflex". What will he really do? Nobody here or anywhere in the world can say based in facts.

Quote:

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills? Yes

We are in for a wild ride on a roller coaster in the dark. Since Trump is a front man (much like George Jr). He does not know basic economic theory, foreign policy, National Security briefings, and what the generals know. His history is to not do homework.

We have no idea if the coaster will go screaming down a hole or just gently round a curve. Best anyone can do is only learn who the players will be. And then watch. We do not even yet know if the players will be permitted to make decisions.

Only useful news says who the players will be. Nothing more. UT is spot on correct.

All patriotic citizens spend time every day becoming informed. Lesser citizens do not. Are therefore easily manipulated by emotions. Where will Trump's emotions take him? Knee jerk reactions were successful at getting him rich at the expense of counter parties, no taxes, and other unproductive accomplishments. Will that strategy play well on the world stage? Be concerned. Nobody has a clue. We only know it will make this world more volatile.

Only useful news says who the players will be and their histories. Speculation is not news.

sexobon · 12-13-2016, 05:38 PM

Looks like a rhetorical question to me.

Flint · 12-13-2016, 05:39 PM

Wrong! You didn't answer my only question.

sexobon · 12-13-2016, 05:43 PM

How do you feel about that?

Undertoad · 12-13-2016, 05:53 PM

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?

Yes

Now you answer mine. Use all your skills!

Flint · 12-16-2016, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...
A) Is that news?
...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?

Yes

Now you answer mine. Use all your skills!

Scanned the article, it appears to have two components.

1) First component: Definitely news, according to your definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

News is "things happened and we told you they happened."

In this case, the "things" are that the scientist/s did/said things, and the actions/statements were reported as happening. That's news. (Was it relevant that the things happened? That's actually debatable. But they did happen.)

2) The second component (about the scientists' name request) actually also fits the "things happened and we told you they happened" criteria, however they seemed to have been tacked on to the second half of the first article without announcing the journalistic intention of why the two events are being suggested as being related events. This kind of article leaves to the readers imagination a correlation between the two events, which could understandably be characterized as journalistically irrsponsible (at best), and journalistically disingenuous/purposefully misleading (at worst). Conversely, the correlation between the two events being suggested could be considered relevant, under the "related recent events" umbrella, but even in this case, the lack of a new heading announcing what the correlation is suggested to be creates the appearance of impropriety (which even if not in itself a wrongdoing, must be understood by the speaker to be corrosive to the perception of integrity).

Taken as a whole, is it "news"? By the letter of the definition, it is a reporting of events that occurred. In this case, yes.

In the larger context of journalistic integrity, is it "news" that had been executed to the highest standards? I'm erring on the side of "it could have been done better" --and the central question is, is it better to announce a questionable correlation and directly attempt to mislead the reader, or NOT announce a questionable correlation, which could variously be described as 1) misleading the reader by sleight-of-hand, or 2) letting the reader exercise their own critical thinking skills (in which case, NOT announcing the questionable correlation would be necessary).

My personal opinion is that they should have explained the questionable correlation with a new sub-heading, in essence a new "subject" being announced. At best, in this case, it should have been a new article. If left as the part of the same article, the correlation should have been explicitly called out, and the article should have been published as an opinion piece. In this case, it would not be "news" --but since the correlation wasn't explicitly called out, I can't make that determination.

In this case, with the correlation left unstated, it doesn't technically qualify as an opinion piece. As a "news" article, with no correlation suggested, it appears to be two unrelated news articles crammed together with no explanation.

If it isn't the function of a journalist to leave unspecified correlations to the reader's imagination, then it isn't "news".

If it's okay for a journalist to present unrelated events as long as they DON'T specify the correlation, then it is "news".

So as far as I can tell, this comes down to definitions of journalism that I don't know exist as anything other than opinions.

My personal opinion, I would call this "bad" news, because I like correlations to be explained. It seems irresponsible (at best), in my opinion, to drop "hints" to the reader (unless you're calling it an opinion piece), and at worst a trend in "bad" news which waters down the concept of using discernment in digesting new information (if, which is debatable, this can even be considered the responsibility of a for-profit news industry).

...

...

...

* * * I DON'T HAVE A SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY REPLY. * * *

Happy Monkey · 12-13-2016, 07:05 PM

Yes it's news.

It reported the thing the scientists are doing, the reasons they give for doing it, and some relevant events. It remarked several times that the specific issue of data deletion hasn't been threatened, and is probably unlikely, but that a more pressing threat is preventing the collection of new data.

I'll agree that it's not a great article, since it didn't go too far into that threat, since there are any number of quotes they could have had from Republicans saying that the research under threat is a money-making scheme by scientists, and claims from the Trump campaign that they intend to steer NASA away from "politicized science".

Undertoad · 12-13-2016, 11:10 PM

Quote:

they intend to steer NASA away from "politicized science".

That's excellent, I hope they are effective at it.

the full quote then

Quote:

"We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research," Walker told the Guardian. "Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

"My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science."

Maybe it's let NASA do space, NOAA do atmosphere. NOAA's more AGW-oriented anyway, if that's how it goes down.

Happy Monkey · 12-14-2016, 02:58 PM

You start out saying that scientists working in fields under political attack by Republicans are hysterical, and then say you hope that the Republicans are effective in steering scientists away from science the Republicans politically attack.

Undertoad · 12-14-2016, 03:38 PM

No *a* scientist is hysterical, believing that federal data will suddenly become unavailable without warning or recourse.

*Published* Federal data, suddenly unavailable. It'll be erased from everyone's hard drive by the NSA.

Make a wager; I'll give you 10 to 1 odds up to $200. We'll give it a month, if any of the data is taken offline by Feb. 20....

Here's the thing man.

Most climate skeptics I know are not anti-science AT ALL. They are demanding, with full voice, the continuation of the study of climate.

The worst thing that could happen to climate skeptics would be if the data were to suddenly stop being collected on Jan 20th, 2017. I expect they feel that would be a wholesale disaster for them.

Happy Monkey · 12-14-2016, 05:29 PM

I'm not making any bets on what Trump will do in any regard.

But if I were in the situation where the ante for the bet was "make the backup", winning the bet was "I have the backup", and losing was "I didn't need the backup", I'd make the bet.

Quote:

Most climate skeptics I know are not anti-science AT ALL. They are demanding, with full voice, the continuation of the study of climate.

The worst thing that could happen to climate skeptics would be if the data were to suddenly stop being collected on Jan 20th, 2017. I expect they feel that would be a wholesale disaster for them.

If their interest is in the science, sure.

But for the ones whose interest is in promoting fossil fuels, preventing environmental regulation, or for those who think that the science is a Chinese hoax or a liberal get-rich-quick scheme, it would not be a disaster.

Undertoad · 12-14-2016, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

But for the ones whose interest is in promoting fossil fuels, preventing environmental regulation, or for those who think that the science is a Chinese hoax or a liberal get-rich-quick scheme, it would not be a disaster.

It would be great for ALL of the stereotypes of the opposition!

Do you believe the end of the data would mean they win the argument? How would that work, exactly?

Wouldn't the argument just get bigger?

xoxoxoBruce · 12-14-2016, 06:13 PM

It most certainly would not end the argument, just the loss of valuable data we spent a fortune to document.

12-13-2016, 05:20 PM	#2
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Oh! Oh! I wanna play the "this is my only question" game. Okay, okay, THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION ( imagine I'm saying that in, like, a Batman voice ) Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills? ... ( And no fair changing the subject, because THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION --so you have to respond specifically within the parameters that I* want the conversation to be framed in !!* ) __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio** Last edited by Flint; 12-13-2016 at 05:30 PM.

12-13-2016, 05:39 PM	#5
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Wrong! You didn't answer my only question. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

12-13-2016, 07:05 PM	#9
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Yes it's news. It reported the thing the scientists are doing, the reasons they give for doing it, and some relevant events. It remarked several times that the specific issue of data deletion hasn't been threatened, and is probably unlikely, but that a more pressing threat is preventing the collection of new data. I'll agree that it's not a great article, since it didn't go too far into that threat, since there are any number of quotes they could have had from Republicans saying that the research under threat is a money-making scheme by scientists, and claims from the Trump campaign that they intend to steer NASA away from "politicized science". __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

12-14-2016, 02:58 PM	#11
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	You start out saying that scientists working in fields under political attack by Republicans are hysterical, and then say you hope that the Republicans are effective in steering scientists away from science the Republicans politically attack. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

12-14-2016, 06:13 PM	#15
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	It most certainly would not end the argument, just the loss of valuable data we spent a fortune to document. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

12-13-2016, 05:05 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It doesn't matter what anyone thinks!!! News is "things happened and we told you they happened." News is not "Things happened in another country and Trump did some things in an unrelated agency that we aren't sure about, therefore Trump is going to do the specific bad things that happened in another country." That is not news. That is merely free-range bullshit.

12-13-2016, 05:38 PM	#4
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	Looks like a rhetorical question to me.

12-13-2016, 05:43 PM	#6
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	How do you feel about that?

12-13-2016, 05:53 PM	#7
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills? Yes Now you answer mine. Use all your skills!

12-14-2016, 03:38 PM	#12
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	No a scientist is hysterical, believing that federal data will suddenly become unavailable without warning or recourse. Published Federal data, suddenly unavailable. It'll be erased from everyone's hard drive by the NSA. Make a wager; I'll give you 10 to 1 odds up to $200. We'll give it a month, if any of the data is taken offline by Feb. 20.... Here's the thing man. Most climate skeptics I know are not anti-science AT ALL. They are demanding, with full voice, the continuation of the study of climate. The worst thing that could happen to climate skeptics would be if the data were to suddenly stop being collected on Jan 20th, 2017. I expect they feel that would be a wholesale disaster for them.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)