Maybe, I misunderstand you, but you seem to contradict yourself. You say, “EACH [emphasis mine] article and news outlet should be viewed with skepticism and double-checked” except Fox news and Tucker Carlson, they should be dismissed as con artists. The exception negates the “each”.
I’m wondering what other news outlets and journalists you give the same treatment as Fox and Tucker Carlson or are they the only exception. There have been settlements against other outlets not to mention the numerous outlets that have published erroneous, biased information that didn’t end up in court. Who are the con men? The point is they all are, thus the need for skepticism.
I’ll concede your point if you can find another “journalist” whose show poses as a “news show” and then has his lawyer argue in court that you shouldn’t believe him.
I mean, there’s Alex Jones, I guess.
No, the reason for skepticism is so that you can keep an open mind. Your position is the basic issue with some dangerous political thinking in this country. You believe everyone is equally disingenuous and dishonest. As someone who actually knows scientists who work on climate studies (and other topics as well) as well as journalists and writers, that’s not the case.
Rachel Maddow’s case was very similar. Not to mention, the bias and the resulting erroneous reporting is not just a matter of court proceedings.
I am skeptical of all news sources thus I listen to multiple sources, and try to keep an open mind by avoiding getting in one silo. You are inferring things I never said, and put words in my mouth. I never said that there are equal levels of dishonesty. I said that all news has its bias and it impacts their reporting, some more than others, additionally I never mentioned scientists.
Finally, your claim “as someone who actually knows…” is irrelevant, a logical fallacy and based on an unproven assumption.
I quoted you in my reply above, so it’s difficult to say I’m putting words in your mouth (or fingers as the case may be). And let me know when Rachel Maddow, who I don’t watch, or any other “journalist” ends up in court the way Tucker did and has to broadcast from their basement.
You want to believe the worst. You typed: “The point is they all are [con men].” I merely refuted that with personal experience, and while anecdotal, that’s doesn’t make it a logical fallacy.
You quoted me, and then made inferences I didn’t imply. Specifically, you said I made a statement about degrees of dishonesty. I never made that statement. I’ll say it again, acknowledging and recognizing that ALL news has bias is not a statement of the level of such “dishonesty”. You put words in my mouth.
Rachel Maddow and CNN both went to court. What does a journalist’s broadcast location have to do with the quality of the information provided? There are a few independent journalists out there who are doing good reporting (less biased or at least giving both sides) from places that aren’t fancy major network studios.
Recognizing a flaw is not believing the worst. I used “con man” because you did. You didn’t refute anything, you appealed to authority without support which is a logical fallacy. What anecdote? Anecdotal Fallacy? You just said you ACTUALLY KNOW [emphasis mine] someone. You have no idea who or what I know, not that that is relevant, and simply making that statement doesn’t prove or refute a thing. Not to mention, it is ironic that you question the veracity of another poster while expecting me to just accept your veracity.
You may find out about real criminality. YouTube has congressional hearing underway. Hear news first hand. The first opposition I heard was of a congress woman say we shoulfld find a way to prevent this in the future . . . Duhhhhh!
Bias is a far cry from “con men.” We all have biases; we’re not all con men. You know the difference, and yet chose to use the term. You can say that you used the term inaccurately or casually or whatever, but those were the words you typed. I chose my words carefully; you didn’t apparently.
Anecdotal evidence is often just a personal story or single example. You don’t actually have to construct an anecdote for it to be anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, an appeal to authority would be if I was a climate scientist or journalist, which I am not, or was quoting a single one, which I didn’t.
Words have meanings. Choose wisely.
I agree that there are very good independent journalists doing great work, but there are also many charlatans who have no training and no urge to find the truth. Carlson’s location only matters because it’s emblematic of his dedication to veracity.
So, I looked up the Rachel Maddow case you referenced, and it looks like she’s in the same barrel of shame as Alex Jones and Carlson. Good call on that one. I’ll continue to not watch any of them.
“We” weren’t talking about “we”. I never said “we’re all con men”, or are you a journalist? Additionally, we were originally talking about skepticism towards Fox and other news and you brought in Tucker Carlson as a “Con man”, and a substitute for Fox news. So Tucker Carlson and con man are strawmen and do not answer my objection. @bud16415 posted that video simply stating it “maybe of interest”, and it was separate from what prompted his neighbor’s response.
As far as your anecdote, in this conversation it would need more specificity to carry any weight. If you’re claiming personal knowledge about journalists (the subject of the conversation), you would need to provide names, so I can evaluate not your veracity, but theirs.
Speaking of choosing words wisely, perhaps you should take your own advice. If you did, you would address what I said, you wouldn’t put words in my mouth and show your arrogance, e.g “someone who ACTUALLY knows…”, and “I chose my words carefully; you didn’t apparently”. Frankly, “choose your words wisely” is simply unnecessary. Just address what was said, or ask for clarification. I recognize that at times things can be misunderstood or misstated.
How is Carlson’s location “emblematic of his dedication to veracity”? Never mind, I’m not really interested in defending Carlson other than saying he is not alone or even exceptional.
So, we’ll just discontinue our conversation because it’s clear we can’t find common ground, even in the meaning of words.
On anecdotal evidence, it’s the weakest type of evidence. The small point I was making is that not all people who publish or produce media or research on climate change (the subject of the thread) are confidence men, trying to find a grift or angle, which some here would like to believe. Nor was I suggesting the collective here were con men.
Regardless, if we can’t even agree on terms, it’s clear we’re not going to agree on who to trust, which is the subject of a recent book The Death of Expertise. If people want to continue to trust disgraced entertainers posing as journalists, that’s on them.
I don’t see anyone doing that, and that’s the neighbor’s mistake he assumed that was what @bud16415 did. The neighbor used a shortcut to dismiss bud’s objections rather than address them.
I do agree maybe we should end this conversation because we seem to be talking past each other.
People will change the resulting facts of science a little here and a little there and then others will pick up where the first one left off and pretty soon the science has been transformed and has a life of it’s own and not even resembling the original science.
I know it goes on and I know I have to personally dig deeper for the truth.
For me real problems arrive when the President of the United States uses the evolved science in his State of the Union or in addressing the United Nation and such. Maybe it isn’t the President maybe it is just some ex-senators or even PBS or BBC trusted commentators. People we like to trust informing us on issues that will be impacting our lives and pocketbooks for years to come.
It is not enough for me to wade thru the facts and find my own personal conclusion of the truth, because I also realize for every person that does that there are 1000s that read the bullet points and headlines and look around and see what way the wind is blowing with people they relate with and take it as truth.
For me I like to have ah ha moments where a light bulb comes on. It doesn’t have to be some complex scientific doctoral information raveling something. It can be as simple as someone pointing out to me that saying 99.9% of climate scientists say the science is totally settled and climate change is real and caused by man and his lust for cheap fossil fuels and action needs to happen now and renewable energy is the answer. It is the move on there is nothing more to see here statement.
It really is like being given the Red pill, Blue pill paradox.
I’m certain that nobody is listening. Just dropping bombs. Then asking why nobody will stop posting . . . Eh? Simebody post one more comment. Then its over! Over! Amen!
