How the Media Enable Climate Denial and Misinform the Public

The media have played a critical role in climate denialism.  In some cases it is overt, but in most cases the role is more subtle and a function of the differences between how the media works and how science works. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that most media outlets have cut back on professional journalist staff, in particular on dedicated science reporters. Which means people who cover politics – or travel – one day are covering science stories the next. Thus, there is a tendency to have limited expertise in science topics, limited deadlines (so no time to learn), and an inclination toward “balanced” reporting (which, as we shall see, is not balanced at all).

Intentional denialism for ideological reasons

Let’s start with the role of media outlets that most easily fit into the meme – the intentional denialist media. For now, this does not include amateur blogs, though as we've seen, amateur blogs are the primary mechanism for spreading “the word” of thedenialist industry. What I mean in this section are the “mainstream media” outlets that have a decidedly denialist bent.  

There are some media outlets that intentionally push the denial of man-made climate change. They choose stories that have been placed in other outlets and ensure that they get disproportionate coverage on the most watched programs and most read online venues. The most obvious example of this is Fox News, which not only selects stories based on their “denial-appeal,” but employs pundits to feed the obfuscation machine. Suddenly some stolen emails are a constant drumbeat of largely false information in which a few words or lines are taken out of context and force-fit into the preferred narrative. And some obscure (and usually misrepresented) paper is suddenly the hot topic of conversation on every program from the sports guy in morning to the rabid political ideologue at night. Fox isn’t the only media that does this, though it certainly serves as the poster child for the practice. Joining Fox are other non-science news outlets around the world that, not surprisingly, often have a connection to the Rupert Murdoch media empire (e.g., NewsCorp, The Wall Street Journal, The Mail Online, The Daily (and Sunday) Telegraph, etc.). Bloggers and journalists on these and other venues seem to have a never ending supply of stories that just don’t pass the smell test when given even the most rudimentary scrutiny for factual, or even logical, content. But these media outlets run with them anyway and are even instructed to highlight anti-AGW viewpoints. Their intent is to present the science and scientists in the worst possible light. In other words, manufacture doubt.

Professional denial bloggers, e.g., James Delingpole (formerly of the Telegraph, now with Breitbart), Christopher Booker (Telegraph), and David Rose (Daily Mail), constantly beat the drum of false talking points fed to them by the denialist industry. They are part of the media collusion with denier lobbyists to mislead the public.


Accidental denialism

Not all media intentionally try to push the denial of man-made climate of course. In most cases the failure of the media is less about ideological bias and more about the way “journalism” works. To begin with, since most of the denialist industry comes from the realm of political lobbying, the media tend to treat climate science as if it were some sort of political philosophy. This is in direct conflict with how science itself works, where everyone’s goal is to advance our knowledge and taking that knowledge wherever the data will defensibly take us. So while science normally moves slowly and incrementally as scientists do studies to address small aspects of the bigger picture, the media are likely to treat each new paper as if it defines the science in a vacuum. The media then actively seek "the other side" to provide "balance."

This desire to provide balance almost always, in practice, leads to massive imbalance and misinformation. 

Consider a scenario in which a news anchor wants to discuss the state of climate science. The show's producer calls up a climate scientist well-known as an expert on at least some facet of climate. The producer will then call someone else willing to "debate the other side." Since virtually all climate scientists agree that 100+ years of published scientific data unequivocally demonstrate humans are warming the planet, the "other side" is usually some spokesperson for a lobbyist organization or one of its front groups.

You can can imagine how this debate goes. Normally the climate scientist will state the facts as have been defined by that 100+ years of science and summarized by thousands of climate scientists. Then the lobbyist spokesperson will rattle off a dozen sentences, all making false statements about a dozen topics. Since it's easier to misrepresent in bulk than it is to debunk each individually, the lobbyist will generally look more media-adroit to the viewing public. As such the viewers will 1) assume both "sides" are equally valid, and often 2) feel like the lobbying guy "did a better job" communicating than did the scientist.

And the public gets misinformed.

Lobbyists, of course, are very familiar with how to manipulate the media and the public. That's their job every day of the year. And they do it well. They don't worry about the fact that most of what they say isn't actually true; their goal is to reach the best result for their membership and swaying public opinion (and giving cover for political allies) is how they accomplish this goal.

Scientists, on the other hand, are good at science, but few scientists are as good communicating to the public. This isn't surprising since scientists historically communicate the science with other scientists through publishing their research in peer-reviewed journals. The information tends to be highly technical and hard to communicate to the public.

So the media actually aids and abets misinforming the public, perhaps not intentionally all the time, but routinely. This is exactly what the denialist industry wants.

Semi-accidental denialism

There is one more way the media misinforms the public. I've labeled this “semi-accidental,” for lack of a better word. What I mean is that the media give credence to the denial of the science simply by allowing deniers to fabricate the illusion of controversy. The creation of controversy itself isn’t accidental. Media outlets in the highly competitive 24-hour, insta-tweet “news” cycle are always looking for ways to boost ratings (which boosts ad revenues, which boosts profits). And controversy is the best way to boost ratings, even if the controversy has to be invented. Fox News has built its entire political-entertainment-oriented programming on the idea, and it has been a financial gold mine for them. Journalism be damned, we're getting ratings!

Creation of controvesy is often the primary motivation behind having two opposing views being interviewed at the same time. The interviewer intentionally seeks to create conflict so that the viewing public doesn’t doze off in the middle of the segment. While this may not reflect very well on the viewing public, it is the nature of our modern “give it to me in 140 characters or less” attention span. The media cater to it by setting the stage for conflict and ensuring that any controversial sound bites are played over and over as ticklers going to commercials. All day long.

And denier lobbyists use this to their advantage as they seek to manipulate public opinion. All day long.

How the Media Keep Climate Denial Alive

Climate denial remains active despite the overwhelming consensus that human activity is causing the warming of the planet and that action to reduce carbon emissions is immediately necessary. Professional climate denial lobbyists are a big reason for the continued anti-science sentiment, but the media have played a critical role in climate denialism as well.

To begin with, the media have been lax in reporting man-made climate change commensurate with its importance to current and future policy needs. Earlier in 2014 several Senators called for the media to increase climate coverage. Whether media coverage of climate has increased is debatable, especially given the release of so many critical climate change reports this year. But even when the media do report on climate issues they often misinform as much as they inform. This post looks at a few of the reasons why this is so.

Intentional denialism

In some cases this media role is overt and intentional.Time after time studies have shown that Fox News, to name the best known and most egregious example, intentionally misrepresents the science of climate change and actively foments distrust of scientists while giving false credence to non-scientists. One recently published study demonstrates that partisan media, especially the conservative media, effectively turns the public away from science.

While these ideologically motivated anti-science venues are obvious, at least to impartial observers, in most cases the role of the media in spreading climate denial is more subtle and a function of the differences between how the media works and how science works. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that most media outlets have cut back on professional journalist staff, in particular on dedicated science reporters. Which means people who cover politics – or travel – one day are covering science stories the next. The tendency toward limited science expertise, short deadlines, and an inclination toward “balanced” reporting, sets the media up for both internal and external manipulation by climate denial lobbyists.

Accidental denialism

In most cases the failure of the media is less about ideological bias and more about the way “journalism” works.  Since most of the denialist industry comes from the realm of political lobbying, the media tend to treat climate science as if it were  some sort of political philosophy. This is in direct conflict with how science itself works, where everyone’s goal is to advance our knowledge and taking that knowledge wherever the data will defensibly take us. This sets up an inherent conflict between the normal incremental movement as scientists do studies to address small aspects of the bigger picture and the tendency for the media to treat each new paper as if it were the science in and of itself. Such reporting often seems to say one thing one day and the opposite the next - an unintentional media glitch that professional denial lobbyists willfully exploit.

Let's take a look at the problem of "balance" in media. Ironically, the desire to provide “balance” in principle can lead to massive imbalance in practice. For example, consider a scenario in which a news anchor wants to discuss the state of climate science. The young producer calls up the National Academy of Sciences and asks for an expert on climate science. Good start, right?

Maybe. Already this interview has the potential for incompletely informing (and possibly misinforming) the public because the news anchor will presume that the expert called will be an expert in every facet of the science. Rarely is that the case. One scientist may be an expert in Arctic ice thermodynamics while another may be an expert in atmospheric physics. Each may be able to discourse for hours on their topic (usually putting the audience to sleep) while possibly not quite getting all of the minute details right on other facets of the science. Any errors or hesitancy to opine on an area outside their specific expertise is painted as ill-informed or hedging. Further, the anchor could ask politically charged questions, which the expert is likely not in a good position to answer (most scientists are not very political). The potential for miscommunication is huge.

But let’s take this a step further.  Themedia, especially the political media, are used to staging debates betweenopposing sides. That may work when you have two parties with different views of how to finance job creation where either view may have merits on its own. But it doesn’t work for discussing the state of the science. Certainly there are dramatic debates between scientists on specific studies, but by the time the totality of the science has reached a point where the vast majority of scientists agrees on its meaning, i.e., a scientific consensus, that is the state-of-the-science. 

Unfortunately, the media rarely present this state-of-the-science, usually because the discussion can get too technical and it just is not enough drama for ratings. In order to "turn up the dial" enough to attract viewers the media willoften choose to contrast the science with a denial of the science. Doing so creates a false equivalence that just doesn't exist. Since there is a tendency to give equal time to opposing "views" you have the situation where a non-valid and usually non-factual denial appears to have equal weight with what is the end point of tens of thousands of studies by thousands of scientists all over the world.  To the viewer this comes off as:

“Well, Scientist A says global warming is happening but Scientist B says it isn’t.  It seems like scientists are still divided over this issue, so I can relax and wait until they figure it out.”

See the problem there?  Scientist A is, in fact, a scientist and has either presented a summary of the sum total of all of the science from thousands of scientists or merely offered his insight on one particular area in which he has expertise. On the other hand, “Scientist B” is often not even a scientist at all – he is a political operative hired by a free market lobbying organization to deny the science. The viewing public generally doesn’t understand this; all they see are two people arguing. The very fact that these two guests are being interviewed implies that they have comparable expertise and credibility on the topic being discussed. That is most definitely not the case. So in an effort to provide “balance,” the media actually tips the scales towards the non-scientist lobbyist who really shouldn’t even be part of the discussion.

This is exactly the scenario that the denialist industry strives to achieve. That is their goal – make it look like there is a disagreement where there really is none. The goal is to manufacture doubt in the minds of the people and give their favored politicians cover to deny the science. And the media are complicit in this - sometimes unintentionally but ofttimes intentionally.

Future posts will look closer at the media, including the "semi-accidental" denialism. One thing that the media can do now, however, is to stop referring to climate deniers as "skeptics." As shown before, denialists are not skeptical at all. Skeptics look at evidence and are simply harder to convince. Denialists dishonestly reject all scientific evidence and unskeptically accept any conspiracy blogger or lobbyist misinformation no matter how obviously false it is. It's time to call denialists what they are - science deniers.

[Note: Photo credit/source]

How the Media are Used to Intentionally Mislead the Public on Global Warming

The fact that humans are warming the planet is unequivocal and incontrovertible. Who says so? Well, virtually all climate scientists, all the world's National Academies of Science, and indeed, the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Studies of the scientific literature consistently demonstrate that 97% or more of climate scientists agree our planet is warming and human activity is the cause. Who disagrees? The Wall Street Journal. More on that in a follow up post.

Which brings to light an important dynamic of the global warming debate. And by debate I don't mean whether global warming is happening, because that has been established beyond all doubt. I also don't mean a debate about whether humans are causing it, because that too has been established beyond all doubt. And yet, there are those who intentionally try to "manufacture doubt" about global warming, just as there were those who intentionally manufactured doubt about smoking causing lung cancer.

One tactic used to give the impression of doubt is to manipulate the media. Always in search of ratings, and the ad revenues that are tied to ratings, the media thrives on controversy. They like "debate." But their long history of presenting a "balance" of views has been hijacked and exploited by groups expert in managing public opinion.

Ironically, it was a media outlet video - by a comedian, no less - that provided one of the most effective demonstrations of how the media, either intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresents the science to the public. As the video below featuring John Oliver notes, most news outlets relay information on global warming by showing two people debating. One is usually a scientist volunteering to present the scientific case, the other usually a non-scientist paid to represent their client's interests. But the reality is quite different. [Note: Sound coarse language]

When most people see two people debating the natural tendency is to assume equal weight of opinion. But that isn't true. Would it make sense to debate the presence or absence of gravity by having one person advocate for each "side?" Of course not. No more than you would have a one vs. one debate on whether Elvis is alive or whether the Earth is round. The facts are clear.

So too with global warming. The facts are clear. We are warming the planet. No amount of debate between one scientist (representing virtually all climate scientists, 200 years of science, millions of empirical data points, a hundred thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, and physics) and one non-scientist (representing oil companies and political lobbyists) is going to change that fact.

So when the media present such a "debate" they are actually misrepresenting the science to the public.

How can the media communicate the science accurately? One way is stop having paid lobbyists spouting non-facts as commentators. Instead, have a knowledgeable climate scientist, or perhaps a panel of two or three climate scientists, present "what we know" of the science. These same scientists can also present "what we don't know." For example, we know the planet is warming and that we are causing it. But we don't know exactly how much or how fast (we can present likely ranges), in part because there is inherent short-term variability that creates "noise," even though we can determine the long-term trend with great accuracy. Depending on the time allotted by the media outlet, this "what we know" and "what we don't know" can go a long way toward communicating the science to the public, and doing it accurately.

Communicating Climate Change - The Problem with the Media

From Media Matters

The IPCC released the third of its series of reports on man-made climate change last week, and the organization Media Matters published a first analysis of how the media was reporting it. While the analysis was limited in scope, it does provide some interesting insights into the role of the media in communicating the science.

One of the most noticeable things about media coverage of the report was that there wasn't much media coverage of the report. This is a problem on several levels, not the least of which is that the media is not communicating to the public one of the most important science stories impacting the public. While ignorance may be bliss in some cases, this isn't the time to hide from reality.

Another problem with the lack of coverage of this third report is that its focus is on mitigation, that is, it offers some potential solutions to man-made climate change and the impacts that we are facing from those changes. These are dire messages. But as Media Matters notes, "studies show providing dire messages without solutions could be ineffective."

Covering the first U.N. reports warning of the dire impacts of climate change, while giving relatively little coverage to the report outlining the solutions, may be counterproductive. A 2009 review of studies on climate messaging, published in Science Communication, found that "fear-inducing representations" of the threat of global warming without providing solutions could "trigger barriers to engagement."

Even worse:

[D]ire messages warning of the severity of global warming and its presumed dangers can backfire, paradoxically increasing skepticism about global warming by contradicting individuals' deeply held beliefs that the world is fundamentally just.

So whereas the media reported on the problem, they largely ignored reporting on the solutions. Doing so actually reduces the chances for action. And action is what the IPCC - and every other scientific organization - insists must happen. In fact, the IPCC notes that "carbon emissions need to be drastically reduced in order to prevent global temperatures from rising over two degrees Celsius -- the threshold to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of manmade global warming." We're well on our way to reaching the two degrees Celsius. Without action, the question is not will we reach it, but how fast.

It's one thing for the media to poorly report on science, as has been discussed here and here. But what we're talking about here is media actually misinforming the public by its dual errors of 1) ignoring coverage of solutions, and 2) giving false credence to science deniers.

This is a major problem.

Book Review – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

I periodically review books that address the issue of communicating science to the public. As suggested by its title – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future - this book acknowledges the limits of the public’s understanding of science and how science works. But I felt the book was most powerful because it focuses on the role of scientists in disseminating scientific information.

The first two chapters give a very nice background on the role science has played, from its high funding and close relationships with policy-makers soon after World War II, to its period of low funding and disconnect from policy-makers, to the more recent “war on science” (the topic of Mooney’s previous book).

Much of the main part of the book looks at the intersection of science and other institutions. Individual chapters look at science as it relates to politics, to religion, to its portrayal in Hollywood, and to journalism, all within the subcontext of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” theme. In short, different ways of thinking, and different needs, affect the interaction of the two institutions in the dyad. For example, whereas the needs of the media are episodic, science is more incremental. So every incremental finding coming from scientific studies can be picked up by the media and presented as if it is a revelation. Except it might suggest the opposite of yesterday’s revelation. No matter that the two studies merely looked at different parts of the picture and support the full knowledge base, the media assume each piece stands on its own. This can be, and usually is, highly confusing to the public. Similar conflicts in the messaging occur between science and religion, scientist depiction in film (usually as a stereotypical caricature), and politics.

One chapter discusses the role of blogs. As newspapers and broadcast media have been eliminating science coverage, at least 1000 science blogs have sprung up. While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.” Misinformation thrives, and those who want to manipulate the debate can publish whatever they want, and unfortunately, usually do. Much of it is biased, inaccurate, or outright fabrication. Which is why blogs may be useful for rapidly getting the word out, they cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the science itself. The exception, perhaps, are blogs written by the scientists themselves.

The authors refer repeatedly in the book to Carl Sagan, an astronomer who was also a stellar communicator, but whose popularity was often seen by other scientists as an indignity (i.e., to traditional scientists who preferred to do their science and leave the communication to others). But in the end the authors of Unscientific America, one a journalist and the other a scientist, assert that disseminating the science to the lay public, to the media, and to policy-makers is an “integral part of the job description of scientists themselves.” Essentially, they say that it should be part of every scientist’s responsibility to communicate the science accurately, and to make sure that the science is not misrepresented by those who would misuse it.

The book is eminently readable and surprisingly insightful. The book is definitely worth the read.

Book Review – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

I’ll start by highly recommending this book. Especially to scientists or those interested in science. As suggested by the title – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future - the book acknowledges the limits of the public’s understanding of science and how science works. But I felt the book was most powerful because it focuses on the role of scientists in disseminating scientific information. More on that later.

The first two chapters give a very nice background on the role science has played, from its high funding and close relationships with policy-makers soon after World War II, to its period of low funding and disconnect from policy-makers, to the more recent “war on science” (the topic of Mooney’s previous book).

Much of the main part of the book looks at the intersection of science and other institutions. Individual chapters look at science as it relates to politics, to religion, to its portrayal in Hollywood, and to journalism, all within the subcontext of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” theme. In short, different ways of thinking, and different needs, affect the interaction of the two institutions in the dyad. For example, whereas the needs of the media are episodic, science is more incremental. So every incremental finding coming from scientific studies can be picked up by the media and presented as if it is a revelation. Except it might suggest the opposite of yesterday’s revelation. No matter that the two studies merely looked at different parts of the picture and support the full knowledge base, the media assume each piece stands on its own. This can be, and usually is, highly confusing to the public. Similar conflicts in the messaging occur between science and religion, scientist depiction in film (usually as a stereotypical caricature), and politics.

One chapter discusses the role of blogs. As newspapers and broadcast media have been eliminating science coverage, at least 1000 science blogs have sprung up. While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.” Misinformation thrives, and those who want to manipulate the debate can publish whatever they want, and unfortunately, usually do. Much of it is biased, inaccurate, or outright fabrication. Which is why blogs may be useful for rapidly getting the word out, they cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the science itself.

The authors refer repeatedly in the book to Carl Sagan, an astronomer who was also a stellar communicator, but whose popularity was often seen by other scientists as an indignity (i.e., to traditional scientists who preferred to do their science and leave the communication to others). But in the end the authors of Unscientific America, one a journalist and the other a scientist (who together write a blog called The Intersection), assert that disseminating the science to the lay public, to the media, and to policy-makers is an “integral part of the job description of scientists themselves.” Essentially, they say that it should be part of every scientist’s responsibility to communicate the science accurately, and to make sure that the science is not misrepresented by those who would misuse it.

The book is eminently readable (I read it in it’s entirety on a cross-Atlantic flight) and surprisingly insightful. I highly recommend the book; it is definitely worth the read.

Other book reviews

Better Scientific Understanding = Better Policy Decisions

An underlying theme of this page is how science meets policy. In a recent commentary, UK scientist and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute and special adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, says that "getting understandable science information to policy makers remains a great challenge." I agree. As I noted in Sunday's Dake Page, some with political or ideological motivations often try to obfuscate the science. Professor Sachs suggests "the effective flow of information from the scientific community to the public and to policy-makers, and the systematic application of that information in policy-making remains a great and growing challenge." He opines that "the Bush administration exemplified a government that ignored, distorted, and even disdained scientific information, to the enormous cost to the US and the world."

To counter this, Professor Sachs offers five areas of action "to improve the link between science and policy."

First, he says "the general public must broadly understand scientific issues such as climate change in order to be able to call for and endorse sound public action. Yet the scientific issues are inherently complex, and the public arena is filled with misinformation (by innocent error) and disinformation (by calculated misdirection) by vested interests. To overcome the confusion, it is vital to establish processes such as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that inform the public of the boundaries of real knowledge and consensus, especially based on the peer reviewed literature. Other venerable scientific institutions and societies (such as the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences) can also play this role."

Second, he states that "the public must be informed of the consensus in an intelligible manner." That is something that is sometimes difficult for scientists, who Sachs says, "notoriously neglect to be intelligible, usually not in order to be intentionally obscure, but rather to avoid the imprecision of non-scientific, day to day language." He also suggests that "science journalists (with proper scientific training), the media, and scientist-statesmen are needed to play an important role in translation."

Third, Sachs says that "policy-makers need detailed and systematic inputs beyond the broad public debate." He touts the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) as "a vital institution." Sachs believes it is a good step that President Obama has "revitalised it by appointing world class scientific leaders."

Fourth, he emphasizes that "science needs to inform public policy systematically, not only through advising the executive and legislative branches (and indeed, often, the judicial branch), but also through a seat at the table in rule-making and public decision-making." Sachs is highly supportive of "government bodies such as environmental agencies, national laboratories, and standard setting bodies," and suggests that they need "not only their own internal experts, but also panels of independent (non-governmental) scientific experts, free from conflict of interest, and beyond the reach of politics or governmental bureaucratic control."

Sach's fifth and final recommendation is to note that "while expertise is vital...it is not enough." Ultimately, he says "we can't leave...decisions to the scientists, though we want the scientists very close to the ultimate decisions, and to express their views strongly and publicly." Rather, he suggests that the "ultimate decisions depend on democratic processes and consensus building around the scientific evidence that are needed to combine scientific knowledge with ethical guidelines, public values, and a sense of justice, fairness and social cohesion."

While he says that "this meshing of science knowledge and ultimate democratic decision-making is a never ending challenge,...the general commitment to the combination of scientific rigour, public consensus and democratic accountability should be a guidepost for action and institutional design."

In short, scientists and policy-makers must communicate, with each other and with the public.

Read the original commentary here.

Mixed Responses - Scientists in US Happy, Scientists in Canada Not So Much

Most scientists didn't miss the obvious reference to reinvigorating and respecting science in President Obama's inauguration speech. The Kansas City Star newspaper had a nice article yesterday about this:

Researchers welcome Obama’s emphasis on science by Malcolm Garcia

In contrast, researchers in Canada have had a slightly different response to science budgets.

Researchers fear 'stagnation' under Tories by Carolyn Abraham

What do you think?

Politicians as "Scientists" - Is This a Good or a Bad Thing?

This past week, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore urged scientists to exert their influence on global climate change. In short, he said that scientists must play a more active role in how their science is used to make policy. "For those of you who haven't communicated, there is no time to sit back," Gore says.

Which, of course, begs the question of how this can be accomplished? Should scientists become "Issue Advocates" as described in Roger A. Pielke Jr.'s book "The Honest Broker," or should they be the "Science Arbiter?"

But it also begs the question, what role should politicians play in advocating science? Gore himself has been a highly visible icon communicating the science of global warming to the public and to the legislators with whom he once worked. In one sense, he has been far better at communicating the issue than have the scientists themselves. But in another sense, he has become a foil for those who say that global warming is merely a liberal political movement and scientists are only claiming there is a crisis to get funding. And we all remember the Terry Schiavo case when then Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist took the Senate floor and challenged the diagnosis of Schiavo's physicians that she was in a persistent vegetative state: "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office." While Frist was a medical doctor prior to entering politics, many medical scientists took offense to him making a diagnosis based solely on an edited video tape.

Both Gore and Frist's advocacy have provided fodder for discussion about the relative roles of politicians in science and scientists in politics. Are they communicating from knowledge, or are they using the science to further their political ideologies? Many arguments have been offered for both sides of the discussion.

In his speech last week to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Gore encouraged the "world of science" and "the world of politics" to work together to respond to the climate crisis. He called for the scientist to deliver the sense of emergency to their colleagues, networks, and policy makers. In essence, he called on scientists to be issue advocates.

Review of "Between Two Worlds: Escape from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam" by Zainab Salbi

Salbi, an Iraqi who with her family was in the inner circle of "friends" of Saddam Hussein, doesn't tell you what two worlds she is between until near the end of Between Two Worlds: Escape from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam. But the reader can imagine many "two worlds" as they read this fascinating book.

In a way, Between Two Worlds is the coming-of-age story of a young girl growing up in a privileged family in a the 1980s. In another way, the book reveals the paradox of Saddam Hussein, a man who loved to party and loved having friends, yet partied and communed by coercion. While living a life that most Iraqis couldn't enjoy - cars, good schools, travel to Europe and the US - Salbi and her parents and relatives did so under a constant cloud of fear. Fear because their "special status" allowed them to stay in Iraq...and to live...because Saddam Hussein held them close as "friends" on his whim. Her father, Saddam's pilot for a while, at one point is asked to choose between being a pilot and friendship with Saddam because of a contrived slight. Fearing no answer was correct, he chose friendship, knowing that friendship would mean privilege but also fear. Her life, and that of her family, is an illusion of happiness, an "artificial life."

Throughout the book we see a young girl slowing realizing that Amo...Uncle...was not only leader of Iraq but a murderer, a rapist, a terrorist to his own people. A man who she "ultimately came to realize" did things "specifically designed to cause fear and hurt." She would realize the depth of this only after her mother marries her off at 20 to a much older Iraqi man living in the US...a brutal man she leaves after he rapes her. So now alone in the US when the first Gulf War (1991) pushes Saddam back out of Kuwait and starts a long decade of difficult times in Iraq, she starts to see life from another world.

To me, the focal chapter in this book is the one called "Becoming Zainab." Here she discovers real love and compassion, the pain of others, and her mission in life. She decides she must give back to the women who were abused physically and mentally. She begins Women for Women International and it becomes her passion as she travels to places like Bosnia and elsewhere to help women escaping from "rape camps" and other control methods often sanctioned by totalitarian governments. She fights against the idea that in some countries "violence against women was somehow expected."

She ends with "[b]etween the world of right-doing and the world of wrong-doing there is a meeting ground. There is a garden where women no longer need to whisper. I know it. Your real country is where you're heading, Mohammed said, not where you are."
I found this is be a powerful book. The earlier portions where she describes her childhood will appeal more to women readers than men, but men will in particular find the growing dread as she discovers more and more about the real "Amo." To both it provides a valuable insight into both Saddam's mind and the mind of a woman coming to understand how other woman are abused. A woman who dedicates her life now to helping other woman.

When I first saw Salbi's photo on the cover she seemed familiar. By the time I finished the book I felt I was beginning to know her.

I highly recommend this book. The insights are incredibly valuable as we face similar dictators...and similar abuses on women...in other countries of this world.

Tossing the Plame Lawsuit

Tonight I saw a brief report on Fox News regarding the Valerie Plame lawsuit accusing President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Scooter Libby and others of outing her covert CIA status.

In their reporting Fox indicated that the judge's decision read "the act of rebutting public criticism by speaking with the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch official." To which the Fox commentor did a bit of a "I told you so" monologue.

Then I just read an article on the ruling on CNN's web site. Unlike the Fox version, CNN provided a little more in the way of quotes (but not obviously the full 41-page decision). Interestingly, the flavor of the CNN piece could easily lead to somewhat different interpretation of the judge's statements. For example, here is what CNN quotes relative to the Fox quote:

[ The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote, but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials." ]

Furthermore, earlier in CNN's piece they quote another part of the judge's opinion:

[U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." ]

Hmm....to me this looks like the judge is saying that even though Plame and Wilson didn't have a legitimate case against the President et al., he did have serious concerns about the actions taken by them against Plame/Wilson. Now I think most legal scholars believed that the case would not move forward. In fact, I think it likely that Plame/Wilson always assumed their suit didn't have enough meat to enable a judgment in their favor, but rather filed so as to cause as much political angst as retribution for their own loss of reputation/status. So having the case tossed isn't really that much of a surprise (though apparently they plan to appeal). But what is interesting is the selective reporting aspect of the case. Am I alone in expecting news organizations to evaluate the information and present an accurate representation of the facts? And I don't mean "fair and balanced" where one side yells at the other side and no one actually gets the real facts so we can make up our own minds.

The Internet

The internet is a complex issue. I'm convinced that the best way to communicate across this "flat world" (as in The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas Friedman) is to use the power of the internet for free expression. Certainly knowledge is power in the sense that if people around the world have the facts they can then make decisions. Ah, but therein lies the rub.

Anyone can write anything they want on the internet now...through blogs, personal web pages, "community" sites like Gather and Myspace, etc. It is largely unfiltered...and often inaccurate. Statements can be made as if fact when they have no basis in reality. In many cases the writers use the freedom of the medium to present their particular biases. In some extreme cases the medium can be used to foment hate. Authoritarian governments such as China, North Korea and many others strictly control the "freedom" of thought, site accessibility, and use. Even in the US the political parties and other special interest groups have manufactured concensus, created news, planted stories and videos on sites such as You Tube, and otherwise attempted to "control" (or at least supplement) the content. Clearly the "reporting" is unbalanced. Perhaps it is balanced in toto should people go to the trouble of comparing views on multiple sites (sort of like switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News Channel in order to figure out what the real non-spun version of the facts are). However, most folks don't do that. Rather they read those sites, watch those TV stations, and peruse those papers that they tend to agree with.

Okay, having said all this, and while the suggestion that England (technically it is the United Kingdom) is leading the way toward totalitarianism is more than a little unrealistic (and perhaps conspiratorially paranoid)[Note: this relates to a statement in the posting I was responding to]*, I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of keeping the internet free and uncontrolled. This is where it has the greatest power. However, to paraphrase a line from the first Spiderman movie, with great power comes great responsibility. It behooves all of us to read everything on the internet (and elsewhere) with a wary eye....to consider the source and the source's inherent bias (we all have it)...and to consider viewpoints that may not be the same as our own. We each need to filter out the noise and find the reality. While I certainly wouldn't trust some government functionary to do this screening, it does mean that each of us must take this personal responsibility upon ourselves.

Now let's get out there and blog people!!

[*Note: I wrote this in response to a comment on Gather, and decided it would be a good blog.]

False choices…and deflections

Have you noticed how politicians and the media are great at providing false choices? These are “choices” that are created as straw men to oversimplify the issue to the point of having to choose between either being for it or against it…making things black or white when they are really different shades of gray. Both Republicans and Democrats do it. As do the media.

For example, while the Democrats say they are for “a new direction” and want to set an “exit timeline” the Republicans call any timeline a “surrender date” that will embolden the terrorists (um, like the terrorists haven’t been emboldened already). It’s either “cut and run” or it’s “winning.” The “surge” to some is an “escalation of the war” to others and "reinforcements" to still others. Either we “win” in Iraq or “the terrorists will attack us here.” Regarding the likely failed attempt to resolve the immigration issue, it is either “amnesty” or a "path to citizenship;" a “comprehensive” solution that couldn’t possibly work unless it includes a “guest worker program.” Some Republicans have taken to using the term “Democrat Party” (vs. the proper “Democratic Party”). You are either “Pro-Life” (as opposed to “Pro-Abortion”) or “Pro-Choice” (as opposed to “it's a life, not a choice”). Candidates either "win" or "lose" the debates (er, the election is almost 1-1/2 years away...shouldn't the debates at this point be considered "debates," i.e., a chance to voice viewpoints and perhaps even listen to opposing viewpoints rather than a game of cut-throat?)

You get the idea. Each of these false choices belies the bias of the individual or group spouting them. However, by simplifying complicated issues into “bumper sticker slogans” (as presidential candidate John Edwards recently called the “war on terror”) we lose the ability to have an honest debate about arguably legitimate differences of opinion. Notice how the media pundits focused entirely on the controversy of Edwards’ choice of language rather than the real question of what in fact the “war on terror” actually means. Doesn’t it make sense to look at the “war on terror” in the context of, for example, the “war on drugs?” Clearly the decades-long war on drugs hasn’t come close to removing illegal drugs from our society. Some would argue that drug use goes through faddish cycles and that the billions of dollars we spend is really nothing more than an expensive public relations campaign. Others would argue the opposite, but the point here is we don’t really discuss the effectiveness of programs; somehow we equate the amount of money we spend as a measure of whether a program is worthwhile. The recent immigration bill, for example, equated the amount of money allocated, the number of border agents hired, and the number of miles of fence built as “proof” that the “border security” part of the deal had been met, thus allowing the “guest worker” and “path to citizenship” phases to begin. Wouldn’t it make more sense to set the benchmark as something like “a reduction of illegal border crossings to 5-10% of 2007 levels?” Wouldn't that or similar metrics actually measure the endpoints we're really interested in rather than some false straw man that makes it look like we're doing something? By playing with the language we do ourselves a great disservice and, in all honesty, deflect ourselves from the possibility of resolving the issue at hand. Clearly our elected officials have devolved into making decisions based on the affect on electability. Perhaps we, the people, should take more seriously our own role in this democracy and demand some semblance of accountability?! Perhaps we need to pay more attention and stop abdicating our responsibility.

Book Review – "The Assault on Reason" by Al Gore

In The Assault on Reason, Al Gore writes a scathing rebuke to the policies of the Bush Administration. He unabashedly accuses Bush, Cheney, and their “cronies” of lying, deception, power-mongering, abuse of the public trust, “manufacturing consensus”, and outright law breaking. And not just any laws – Gore accuses Bush of having broken Constitutional laws. To say that the book is impassioned in its criticism of the administration would be an understatement. Yet, as with his passionate advocacy in “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore offers an intelligent and reasoned look at how the administration's actions reflect what he sees as, well, an assault on reason.

Despite the time spent on laying the groundwork, the main points of the book can be discerned from two chapters. In “Democracy in the Balance” Gore examines how what he sees as the over-reaching power grab of the executive branch, coupled with the lack of legislative oversight and the stacking of the judiciary, has damaged the very existence of our democracy. The manipulation and/or lack of courage of the media contributes to this problem. In “A Well-Connected Citizenry,” Gore takes what he sees as the lack of public participation and awareness to be an area in major need of correction. Television remains the primary medium for most people to receive information about the world, yet television is a one-way communicator and susceptible to the manipulation by those with money and access. Perhaps Gore’s views are best summarized by the following (p.254):

“The remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the reestablishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way – conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response.”

By public participation and connectivity (e.g., by becoming aware and exchanging ideas), we can recapture the basic checks and balances of our democracy, ensure government governs wisely for all its constituents (not just the narrow special interests), and reestablish American credibility and leadership in the world.

While the book clearly could have used some stronger editing, it is an important book that should be on any informed person’s (or anyone wishing to be informed) reading list. Check out the link in the right column of my blog if you want to order.

Saw just a few minutes of Larry King's interview with Al Gore tonight (so this may be out of context). But I was struck by a bit of irony. Gore is touting his new book that apparently lambastes our current President's decision-making, as well as the media. Gore had just finished telling Larry why he didn't intend to be a candidate for president in 2008 (which he has said consistently and often). He then went into a discussion of how the line between news and entertainment was often blurred (see my earlier blog about the media). He gave credit to Larry (as a rare exception) for clearly delineating between shows about news and shows about entertainment. Then, as he opined about this blurring of the line, CNN put up one of those tickler footers (static, not a scroll) asking whether Gore would be a presidential candidate. He just said he wouldn't....yet they put up the graphic anyway. Why? Because anyone reading the tickler who just tuned in wouldn't know that he just said he wasn't going to run...and so the viewer may want to continue watching to find out if Gore was entering the race. Talk about blatant attempt to enhance ratings. Exactly the thing Gore was chastizing the media for as they proved him right. How ironic is that?