The Other Blog

Two Sides to Everything? Not on Your Tin-Type

[This started as a comment to a Facebook thread started by Rick Wirch, who read The Audacity of Hope and said favorable things about it. Got WAY too long for FB!]

Coincidentally enough, I graduated from a rather prestigious school of journalism, and spent a good deal of career time in the field. So I know whereof I speak when I say that "the other side" does not exist for journalists working to the standards of their profession. If you want to talk editorial content, that's fine, but there's no obligation (since the Fairness Doctrine expired decades ago) for an outlet to present "both sides". None. So Fox is perfectly OK to heavily slant their editorial coverage.

And Gary, you're perfectly correct that the MSM has a slant. To the right. Or, to be a little more precise, to whatever side, angle, or lie happens to be on sale from those in the halls of power, and those who fund their campaigns.

In other words, don't rock the boat, questioning our wars is treason, the free market is the answer to social problems, people born in the hell-hole of our inner cities are responsible for their problems, those who oppose us abroad are senseless fanatics, the answer to crime is imprisonment, profits trump environmental costs. Hmm. Doesn't quite have that "Internationale" ring to it, does it?

The pundits want access and a good working relationship with their sources, so they parrot the talking points anonymously provided by government officials about inconsequential issues like NAFTA (Clinton), going to war (Bush), raping civil liberties while recruiting a new generation of motivated terrorists (Bush), and confirming dictatorial powers of indefinite detention without cause (Obama). Gary, you and I agree perfectly about the watchdog/lapdog aspect of the media. Please, as your brother American (leftist though I am), I beg you to keep their feet to the fire! I promise to do likewise.

Now, when you're talking news, it's the facts that I'm concerned about. Reportage. That's what they taught us in J-School. Get 'em, check 'em. There aren't "two sides" to facts -- this is a pernicious myth. When Glenn Beck says that the recent D.C. demonstration encompassed a million-plus people, he's not espousing one of two equally valid viewpoints. He is lying. (Insert leftist pundit example here -- if you can find one.)

There aren't two sets of facts about Iraqi WMDs, one for the Left and one for the Right. They weren't there. There aren't two sets of facts about evolution. No reputable biologist denies it, or has a valid alternative theory. It's not in dispute, except by loonies and paid shills, that the climate is warming, that the effects multiply, or that a hefty portion is anthropogenic. And even when facts are in dispute, or policy options debated, what simplistic laziness dictates binary choices?

I'm afraid that this two-side hooey is largely the fault of the American right (and the aforementioned lapdog state of the media). It really began to take root with Nixon's Southern strategy in the 1968 campaign, but it was Gingrich and his cohort who really sold it in 1994, and whose heirs continued to do so for all their long years in power since then. (Let us not make jokes about Bill Clinton being a member of the Left. Please. That irony is still too painful.) The Democrats, taken as a group, are less willing to unify behind an agreed set of talking points, which is one reason they seem so powerless and fractious.

Reporters today evidently view their obligations discharged when they've presented "the other side". That covers their butts, but betrays their audience.

Gary, it's clear that you've a skeptical mindset, which is a priceless asset for an American citizen. If you want to talk healthcare or carbon-emission, hey, let's tangle! But when it comes to them lying to us, I am right there beside you, hollering.

The Most Dangerous Person in the World

Hint: He's the guy or gal in the mirror. A very nicely written explication of what kills Americans. Another hint: Terrorism is down in the noise level, below peanut allergies.

(Another h/t to Mr. Schneier).

Helpfulness Trumps Paranoia in New York

Meet...Tweenbots!

(h/t Bruce Schneier)

Disruptive Tech: Nanoscale IR Antennas for High-Efficiency, Low-Cost Solar Arrays

This has the potential to be really huge. This research team invented really cool "nantennas" that can turn sunlight into electricity. Yawn? Not so -- they got it to work in IR wavelengths, where traditional photovoltaics perform quite poorly, and they're already achieving 90% efficiency. That's ninety percent, folks.

Incident sunlight is a good source of IR, obviously, but with some wavelength tuning, the new tech works perfectly well on reradiated IR too, meaning you can harvest from the ground, sides of buildings, etc., where you don't have cells installed.

And they've already prototyped a roll-to-roll manufacturing process onto polyethylene film, so that you wouldn't have to somehow attach rigid (and thus fragile) tiles to your roof: You'd just unroll this stuff and staple it down.

Holy cats. This could be seriously huge. They say that industrial-scale application is still years away -- for one thing, the electricity is generated at terahertz frequencies, so they've got to find rectifiers that will (a) work and (b) be cheap to incorporate.

But several of the biggest technical hurdles are already in their wake.

WOW! WOOT!

Capsule Rave: GO SEE CORALINE!

Especially if you can see it in 3D. Literally awesome. Such a fabulous piece of movie-making, I hardly thought about the art and craft of it until after it was over, which is going some for an old CG hack like me. Without any Carrie-esque "gotcha" moments, it still scared the crap out of me, deep down where I live. But that wasn't the takeaway message of the movie either.

Just please, go see it.

(And I cannot believe they did it in stop-motion! OMG!)

You Go, Bro!

From PZ Myers' excellent Pharyngula. Along with the snail porn and snarks about whingdang fool creationists, this piece on the fate of universities is well worth reading.

His point: Legislatures love to cut university funding, because nothing obviously bad happens immediately. So clearly that was wasteful spending. And next year...look, we did it again, and nothing bad happened! ("Bad" meaning "embarrassing scandal that cost me my legislative seat".)

Yes, Dr. Myers is employed by a university. So am I. This does not make our advocacy invalid, though the careful reader is right to be skeptical. Read the logic. Do the math. You'll find he's right: If we don't turn around the practice of bleeding our great universities white, our trajectory toward Third World status will only accelerate. (We're currently ranked 15th in the U.N. Human Development Index. In 1985 we were #2. Any bets on the 2009 and 2010 rankings?)