http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Quote:False balance is a real or perceived media bias, where journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence actually supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may suppress information which would establish one side's claims as baseless.

Why does this matter? It matters because the media can create controversies where there are none, misinform the public, and push an agenda. This happened with vaccines, evolution, and still happens with global warming:



This is just an example, but it illustrates just how little media outlets care about properly representing science.

Consensus isn't really evidence, you say. That statement is true if you think it's supposed to serve as direct evidence. It's not. Consensus studies are intended to correct misconceptions people have about the state of the science. It's an indicator of how much scientists are in agreement, nothing more. This matters because perception affects voting and public policy decisions.

Should we give skeptics airtime? Of course we should. However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balanced.

(10-24-2013 05:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Quote:False balance is a real or perceived media bias, where journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence actually supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may suppress information which would establish one side's claims as baseless.

Why does this matter? It matters because the media can create controversies where there are none, misinform the public, and push an agenda. This happened with vaccines, evolution, and still happens with global warming:



This is just an example, but it illustrates just how little media outlets care about properly representing science.

Consensus isn't really evidence, you say. That statement is true if you think it's supposed to serve as direct evidence. It's not. Consensus studies are intended to correct misconceptions people have about the state of the science. It's an indicator of how much scientists are in agreement, nothing more. This matters because perception affects voting and public policy decisions.

Should we give skeptics airtime? Of course we should. However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balanced.

It's also a false dichotomy. Asking a "climate scientist" if they believe in global warming is like asking a reverend if he believes in God. The human caused global warming hypothesis is the basis of their existence.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Sorry, mac, but i don't buy into this.

Every "experiment" even psychological or statistical has to have a control group.

You're telling me that you're using climate scientists, who get almost _all_ their grant money to prove (note, not to disprove) their hypothesis about global warming is a "reasonable" control group?

(10-24-2013 05:50 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 05:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Quote:False balance is a real or perceived media bias, where journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence actually supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may suppress information which would establish one side's claims as baseless.

Why does this matter? It matters because the media can create controversies where there are none, misinform the public, and push an agenda. This happened with vaccines, evolution, and still happens with global warming:



This is just an example, but it illustrates just how little media outlets care about properly representing science.

Consensus isn't really evidence, you say. That statement is true if you think it's supposed to serve as direct evidence. It's not. Consensus studies are intended to correct misconceptions people have about the state of the science. It's an indicator of how much scientists are in agreement, nothing more. This matters because perception affects voting and public policy decisions.

Should we give skeptics airtime? Of course we should. However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balanced.

It's also a false dichotomy. Asking a "climate scientist" if they believe in global warming is like asking a reverend if he believes in God. The human caused global warming hypothesis is the basis of their existence.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

There is no PhD in Climate Science. These scientists work in fields that exist independently of AGW.

(10-24-2013 05:51 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Sorry, mac, but i don't buy into this.

Every "experiment" even psychological or statistical has to have a control group.

You're telling me that you're using climate scientists, who get almost _all_ their grant money to prove (note, not to disprove) their hypothesis about global warming is a "reasonable" control group?

You do realize that quasi and non experimental studies are very common, right? Either way, control groups completely irrelevant if you're pretty much just gathering descriptive statistics. It's not even an experiment, so you're trying to frame this as one, you've already missed the point.

You're the one that made the implication that Fox was giving airtime to the fringe.

Quote:"However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balance"

By that, it seems that you're taking the assumption is that the 69% that Fox uses for discussion of "climate change" (don't forget, it's not Global Warming anymore :) ), is the "fringe".

Basically, your entire post was to try to further the meme.. "Fox is for the extremists only". (whether or not you'll admit it is another question).

(10-24-2013 06:06 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You're the one that made the implication that Fox was giving airtime to the fringe.

Quote:"However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balance"

By that, it seems that you're taking the assumption is that the 69% that Fox uses for discussion of "climate change" (don't forget, it's not Global Warming anymore :) ), is the "fringe".

Basically, your entire post was to try to further the meme.. "Fox is for the extremists only". (whether or not you'll admit it is another question).

What would you describe them as, then? They literally fit the Merriam-Webster definition of fringe.

(10-24-2013 06:11 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 06:06 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You're the one that made the implication that Fox was giving airtime to the fringe.

Quote:"However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balance"

By that, it seems that you're taking the assumption is that the 69% that Fox uses for discussion of "climate change" (don't forget, it's not Global Warming anymore :) ), is the "fringe".

Basically, your entire post was to try to further the meme.. "Fox is for the extremists only". (whether or not you'll admit it is another question).

What would you describe them as, then? They literally fit the Merriam-Webster definition of fringe.

Scientists with a different hypothesis. (Doesn't mean their hypotheses are always right either...)

Media Matters is funded by the Federal Govt.

LMAO and he is talking about bias and Fox News. You can't make this stuff with liberals.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/59867/t...ers-again/

(10-24-2013 06:13 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 06:11 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 06:06 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You're the one that made the implication that Fox was giving airtime to the fringe.

Quote:"However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balance"

By that, it seems that you're taking the assumption is that the 69% that Fox uses for discussion of "climate change" (don't forget, it's not Global Warming anymore :) ), is the "fringe".

Basically, your entire post was to try to further the meme.. "Fox is for the extremists only". (whether or not you'll admit it is another question).

What would you describe them as, then? They literally fit the Merriam-Webster definition of fringe.

Scientists with a different hypothesis. (Doesn't mean their hypotheses are always right either...)

Which is? If their goal is to check the how replicable climate science is, that's one thing.

Could it be that the "news" isn't global warming, but that the news is actually that global warming has com under increased scrutiny the past few years. Therefore, the stories featured are about the growing doubt as to man's direct impact on global warming. In the near future I believe the "fringe" will become the majority on this topic.

Man accounts for about 3% or C02 output worldwide.

/

(10-24-2013 06:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Could it be that the "news" isn't global warming, but that the news is actually that global warming has com under increased scrutiny the past few years. Therefore, the stories featured are about the growing doubt as to man's direct impact on global warming. In the near future I believe the "fringe" will become the majority on this topic.

That's the point of false balance. You're making an example from me. You got this perception from somewhere, and it doesn't reflect reality. It reflects what the media focuses on, as this increased scrutiny you speak of doesn't exist outside of the media.

(10-24-2013 06:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Which is? If their goal is to check the how replicable climate science is, that's one thing.

Doesn't matter what their hypothesis is.. Hell, they could all have different hypothesis.

Global warming is man-made and increase exponentially and is a threat to life on earth
Global warming is man-made and incresasing exponentially, but there's no threat to life on earth, as earth will adapt and clean up after itself
Global warming is man-made but is not increasing exponentially, but will still destroy life on earth.
Global warming is not man made, but naturally occuring and increasing exponentially. (Earth is kililng us!)
Global warming is not man made and is not a threat to life ...
Global warming is caused by monkeys who are trying to use a typewriter and trying to reproduce Hamlet...

etc. etc..

But because they have a different opinion on climate change... and fox gives them some airtime, you're basically accused Fox of not a balanced site to allow their messages/hypothesis out.

Fox needs to show the other side of the "Climate Change" theories.
Fair and balanced may not just be their total broadcasts, but also those of others.

(10-24-2013 06:24 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 06:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Which is? If their goal is to check the how replicable climate science is, that's one thing.

Doesn't matter what their hypothesis is.. Hell, they could all have different hypothesis.

1) Global warming is man-made and increase exponentially and is a threat to life on earth
2) Global warming is man-made and incresasing exponentially, but there's no threat to life on earth, as earth will adapt and clean up after itself
3) Global warming is man-made but is not increasing exponentially, but will still destroy life on earth.
4) Global warming is not man made, but naturally occuring and increasing exponentially. (Earth is kililng us!)
5) Glboal warming is not man made and is not a threat to life ...

etc. etc..

Scientists almost always base their hypotheses upon prior research. It's actually very important that your hypothesis is sufficiently justified.

No one watches Fox more than the left and if global warming was man made with no other explanation then there wouldn't be other explanations.

This is a stupid thread.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-24-2013 07:22 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  No one watches Fox more than the left and if global warming was man made with no other explanation then there wouldn't be other explanations.

This is a stupid thread.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

You're wasting words.

We need to start creating an artificial atmosphere on Mars for future use.
Time is wasting Mr. Obama.