What amazes me about the media is that they do not seem to understand what is going on at all. In fact when they need to become less biased, they believe the solution is to become more biased. When they should be making efforts to appeal to both sides and make amends, many actually just get a lot more biased. The New York Times, for example, is just a leftist rag now. Before it had a bias, but at least it had credibility.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported on big circulation declines at most newspapers. The only two to remain steady have reputations for being centrist and unbiased: The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.
One might think that dropping all pretense and just openly serving one side is a good business decision, but it is absolutely not, because there are way too many media orgs that choose to serve that one side. There are only so many liberal eyeballs, and they have dozens of news orgs to choose from. The amount of news they consume is limited by how much time there is in the day.
The decline of the newspapers is not solely due to bias, and maybe not even primarily - their big problem is the internet - but it has an effect. When things are tough, it's a lot harder to stay alive when you not only have the Internet Problem, but you also have a reputation for untrustworthy reporting. The decline of the big 3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) is in some ways due to the advance of cable TV, but not all of it. MSNBC's problems are mostly due to their embarrassing bias, I think.
Another thing that is so damned entertaining: seeing these reporters' morale collapse. These guys didn't get paid worth crap to start with. Now they're going to end up looking for a job outside of the media because the demand for "professional" reporters has tanked, and with failing news orgs and the democratization of news generation on the web, supply is huge. So there go there livelihoods. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of sleazeballs.
Some news orgs have taken the effort to appear less biased by employing conservative commentators, or having some commentators appeal to conservative causes. CNN is a good example with Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs. I suspect CNN is going ok in the ratings now. Not that I think that gives them a pass for their actual reporting, but at least they understand that a reputation for bias is going to kill them. For the NYT, there seems to be no such illumination.
So it is funny, like a starving man, their bodies have begun to feed on themselves. The NYT is selling part of its building to stay alive. Time and Newsweek are at death's door, I don't think either will survive through 2009. And yet they accelerate in the wrong direction. It is just amazing.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Religion of Global Warming becomes more evident
When Bjorn Lomborg published The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press - 2001) he must not have been prepared for the onslaught of comment, both personal and professional, that has erupted in the popular and scientific press (see www.lomborg.com ). Whereas the popular media have generally reported positively on the 500-plus page analysis of the global environment, the scientific press in North America has been negative to the point of personal insult. It is very clear that extreme environmentalists are deeply threatened by the breath of fresh air Lomborg brings to the debate.
Among the most scathing of the attacks on Lomborg was an 11-page editorial in the January 2002 edition of Scientific American. With the rather high-handed title "Science Defends itself Against the Skeptical Environmentalist" the editorial declared the book a "failure" and invited four prominent environmentalists to do their worst to discredit Lomborg and his analysis.
Scientific American did not give Lomborg any opportunity to respond to his critics, even though they gave him a copy of the editorial before it went to press. They said they would give Lomborg one page in a future edition to reply to 11 pages of full-on attack. Lomborg's response was to publish the text of the Scientific American article on his own website and to intersperse it with a detailed response to every point raised by his critics. Scientific American then threatened to sue Lomborg over copyright. In response to my complaint Scientific American wrote "This is an infringement of our copyright and interferes with our business of selling the article." Does Scientific American really think that they will lose readership because Lomborg has posted a response to a publication that is already off the newsstands? I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself. And I don't blame Lomborg for giving in to such a huge organization when threatened with legal action. (If you go to Lomborg's website www.lomborg.com and look under Critiques you will find he has removed the offending text, thus gutting the effectiveness of his response.)
I think we should defy Scientific American's blatant attempt to muzzle Lomborg. Anyone who reads his response to the Scientific American attack will have to agree that it is thoughtful and thorough. Here is a link to the entire response complete with Lomborg's comments.
LINK TO LOMBORG'S REPLY TO SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (.PDF Acrobat File)
I call on all scientists, organizations, and citizens to publish this document on their websites. I do not believe Scientific American can prevent this legitimate right of free speech. The entire editorial was an attack on Bjorn Lomborg. Surely he has a perfect right to defend himself on his own website. I am willing to bring this to the test. Please help with this effort. If you do not have a website then send the document to someone who does.
You can build a link to Lomborg's original article by referring to www.greenspirit.com or you can retrieve the Acrobat .pdf file from the Link to Lomborg's Reply above and publish the document directly on your site.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Atlantic's Absurd China Article
I'm reading an article from The Atlantic about China. What I really want to do, more than anything, is pick this detestable piece of crap apart in detail, but I just don't have the energy. If I dismantled every unfit piece of journalism in this country I would never do anything else.
But I will make two points about this odious article by James Fallows. The first should be evident from the first sentence:
"AS CHINA PREPARES to take its place as the world’s dominant power, it faces confounding obstacles: its insularity and sheer stupidity in delivering the genuine good news about its own progress."
As China "prepares to take its place as the world's dominant power"? I'm actually glad this is the first sentence, because it does exactly what the first sentence in an article is supposed to do: It tells you what the article is about. Except in this case, it also tells you that the article is total shit.
Under what definition of "power" can this sentence be true? Is China about to exceed the USA in economic activity? Scientific discovery? Military power? No. It is not. In fact it is not even close in any of those three categories.
China's per capita GDP is woefully behind ours - $5,300 - vs. $45,700. The middle class in China is far below the poverty level of the United States. Their total GDP is 3.3 trillion dollars, vs. America's GDP at 13.8 trillion dollars. In no way, shape or form can China be said to even be in the same league as the United States economically.
And lest you think that America's recent economic troubles have given China a leg up on us, China is suffering more than we are. The Hong Kong stock market is down from its highs more than ours is, having fallen 57% versus America's 40%.
Militarily, the Chinese have a bigger army than we do, but they always have. They have a very land-centric, infantry-centric army, because that is one of China's strengths: It just has an ungodly shitload of people. It can field a 5-million man infantry army because rifles are cheap and in China, so is human life. Tanks and airplanes are expensive.
China does not have a blue water navy. America has twelve aircraft carriers and the Carrier Strike Group ships to support it. This means that with six Carrier Strike Groups at sea at all times, within days, the US Navy can be operating 100 aircraft off of any shore in the world, and they can double, triple or quadruple that number within weeks. China has no carriers.
China has 77 blue water ships like frigates and destroyers, no cruisers, no carriers, and a gaggle of local, littoral combat ships like missile patrol boats, and 800 aircraft. The US Navy has 283 ocean-going, blue water ships. and 3700 aircraft.
The People's Liberation army Air Force has 2,300 aircraft. The US Air Force has 5,700 manned aircraft, and the US Army operates hundreds more aircraft (mostly helicopters) , and the Marines operate hundreds more again.
In the coastal waters of China, China's navy is capable. Beyond Japan and Taiwan, it is no match for the US Navy.
In the ability to project force, China does not even come close to the US. We support military forces all over the world, and in addition, America solely has the ability to put 150,000 troops into Iraq, a country on the other side of the planet, and support them indefinitely. Nobody has this ability besides us, and certainly not China.
So I must ask the Atlantic, what the hell are you talking about? Where is China beating the US? Where is it even matching the US? Where is it even close?, that you would say it is about to become the "dominant world power"?
Secondly, the entire paper addresses a very disturbing premise: that China is, sadly, not very good at telling the world how awesome it is, despite the fac that they control their media and no significant criticism of the government is tolerated. I must point out here that this journalist, who lives in a free country with a free press, is eager to help China expend its power as a brutal dictatorship by teaching it the fine art of PR.
And I bet the irony of it is totally lost on him.
But I will make two points about this odious article by James Fallows. The first should be evident from the first sentence:
"AS CHINA PREPARES to take its place as the world’s dominant power, it faces confounding obstacles: its insularity and sheer stupidity in delivering the genuine good news about its own progress."
As China "prepares to take its place as the world's dominant power"? I'm actually glad this is the first sentence, because it does exactly what the first sentence in an article is supposed to do: It tells you what the article is about. Except in this case, it also tells you that the article is total shit.
Under what definition of "power" can this sentence be true? Is China about to exceed the USA in economic activity? Scientific discovery? Military power? No. It is not. In fact it is not even close in any of those three categories.
China's per capita GDP is woefully behind ours - $5,300 - vs. $45,700. The middle class in China is far below the poverty level of the United States. Their total GDP is 3.3 trillion dollars, vs. America's GDP at 13.8 trillion dollars. In no way, shape or form can China be said to even be in the same league as the United States economically.
And lest you think that America's recent economic troubles have given China a leg up on us, China is suffering more than we are. The Hong Kong stock market is down from its highs more than ours is, having fallen 57% versus America's 40%.
Militarily, the Chinese have a bigger army than we do, but they always have. They have a very land-centric, infantry-centric army, because that is one of China's strengths: It just has an ungodly shitload of people. It can field a 5-million man infantry army because rifles are cheap and in China, so is human life. Tanks and airplanes are expensive.
China does not have a blue water navy. America has twelve aircraft carriers and the Carrier Strike Group ships to support it. This means that with six Carrier Strike Groups at sea at all times, within days, the US Navy can be operating 100 aircraft off of any shore in the world, and they can double, triple or quadruple that number within weeks. China has no carriers.
China has 77 blue water ships like frigates and destroyers, no cruisers, no carriers, and a gaggle of local, littoral combat ships like missile patrol boats, and 800 aircraft. The US Navy has 283 ocean-going, blue water ships. and 3700 aircraft.
The People's Liberation army Air Force has 2,300 aircraft. The US Air Force has 5,700 manned aircraft, and the US Army operates hundreds more aircraft (mostly helicopters) , and the Marines operate hundreds more again.
In the coastal waters of China, China's navy is capable. Beyond Japan and Taiwan, it is no match for the US Navy.
In the ability to project force, China does not even come close to the US. We support military forces all over the world, and in addition, America solely has the ability to put 150,000 troops into Iraq, a country on the other side of the planet, and support them indefinitely. Nobody has this ability besides us, and certainly not China.
So I must ask the Atlantic, what the hell are you talking about? Where is China beating the US? Where is it even matching the US? Where is it even close?, that you would say it is about to become the "dominant world power"?
Secondly, the entire paper addresses a very disturbing premise: that China is, sadly, not very good at telling the world how awesome it is, despite the fac that they control their media and no significant criticism of the government is tolerated. I must point out here that this journalist, who lives in a free country with a free press, is eager to help China expend its power as a brutal dictatorship by teaching it the fine art of PR.
And I bet the irony of it is totally lost on him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)