Saturday, August 13, 2005
HOW TO BUILD A STORY OUT OF NOTHING
A couple of days ago I woke to Radio Scotland doing their review of the papers. One of the major stories they chose as particularly important was a piece in the Guardian, which few read but shares a lot of personnel with the Beeb, about how there was "proof" that billions of tons of methane in Siberian permafrost are being released into the atmosphere & we are all doomed - doomed I say.
Well guess what Saturday's Chaos Manor has the origins of this story researched & it appears that it originates with the most junior member of a group who have published 1 (count it 1) paper not cited by anyone other scientist.
& we thought that basing the justification of invading Iraq on the say-so of 1 ignorant but obedient Iraqi expat was pushing it.
In another instance the "GW proven by ocean temperatures" claims which recently got front page prominence, in the Indy among others, have been so discredited that the author won't even defend it. Anybody want to bet on how much front page coverage the rebuttal will get? That's what I thought.
The press claim merely to be "reporting" the news not manufacturing it but they can choose which of 6 billion people in the world to use, or to misquote, as a source.
In fact there is always some "source" they can find to announce that global warming/al Qaeda/Cottingly fairies/Iranian WMDs/GM food is more dangerous than previously thought & needs more government restrictions. Equally it is possible to choose to ignore sensible & credible experts who say such claims are rubbish. In turn by only quoting favoured "sources" the media turns such into celebritiettes.
We also have the refusal of the media to report on the evidence that low level radiation is good for you, Srebrenica is faked, AIDS isn't caused by HIV, every cabinet meeting is opened with a child sacrifice, Diana was pregnant, Carlos Marcello organised the Kennedy hit. (2 of these are disinformation but if you have to rely on the BBC you have to treat each as equally truthful or to put it another way if our media are totally corrupt how can you believe them when they once tell the truth)
Individually it is possible for the media to claim that each of these are accidents but collectively this is certainly a lie. It is inherent in the nature of accidents that they are random. Thus while their is a 50% chance that one 1 occasion the BBC/Guardianistas will overemphasise 1 global warming/evil Serb/nice eurocrat/Luddite report there is only a 25% chance that they will do it twice running. The chance that they will honestly do it 365 days running is 2 to the power 365 (ie 1:1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) which is the chance of finding an honest journalist on TV
Well guess what Saturday's Chaos Manor has the origins of this story researched & it appears that it originates with the most junior member of a group who have published 1 (count it 1) paper not cited by anyone other scientist.
& we thought that basing the justification of invading Iraq on the say-so of 1 ignorant but obedient Iraqi expat was pushing it.
In another instance the "GW proven by ocean temperatures" claims which recently got front page prominence, in the Indy among others, have been so discredited that the author won't even defend it. Anybody want to bet on how much front page coverage the rebuttal will get? That's what I thought.
The press claim merely to be "reporting" the news not manufacturing it but they can choose which of 6 billion people in the world to use, or to misquote, as a source.
In fact there is always some "source" they can find to announce that global warming/al Qaeda/Cottingly fairies/Iranian WMDs/GM food is more dangerous than previously thought & needs more government restrictions. Equally it is possible to choose to ignore sensible & credible experts who say such claims are rubbish. In turn by only quoting favoured "sources" the media turns such into celebritiettes.
We also have the refusal of the media to report on the evidence that low level radiation is good for you, Srebrenica is faked, AIDS isn't caused by HIV, every cabinet meeting is opened with a child sacrifice, Diana was pregnant, Carlos Marcello organised the Kennedy hit. (2 of these are disinformation but if you have to rely on the BBC you have to treat each as equally truthful or to put it another way if our media are totally corrupt how can you believe them when they once tell the truth)
Individually it is possible for the media to claim that each of these are accidents but collectively this is certainly a lie. It is inherent in the nature of accidents that they are random. Thus while their is a 50% chance that one 1 occasion the BBC/Guardianistas will overemphasise 1 global warming/evil Serb/nice eurocrat/Luddite report there is only a 25% chance that they will do it twice running. The chance that they will honestly do it 365 days running is 2 to the power 365 (ie 1:1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) which is the chance of finding an honest journalist on TV
