This morning I heard a financial reporter explain yesterday's stock market as a reaction to "lower retail sales caused by rising interest rates." Now I know that is wrong. Retail sales may not have been as good as expected in some stores, but they have not fallen. Nor, for that matter, have retail sales been forced down by rising interest rates. In fact, the big ticket items, like cars, which might see some impact from a rise in rates, are having a much better year than last year. Simply put, there are not many folks who consider market interest rates when they are buying a pair of jeans at Wallmart. The clear error that the reporter called "news" got me to thinking about some of the many other "facts" that get reported every day.
Perhaps my favorite in this group is the "scientific consensus" which supports global warming caused by man. The truth is that there is a consensus among the liberal media in support of global warming caused by man. There is, however, no consensus among scientists. In fact, most of the recent data supports the opposite conclusion. Atmospheric temperature readings have stayed level since the late 1990's, about a fourteen year period with no warming. Ice formation in Antarctica is at the highest levels since observations began, etc. In truth, there are now cracks even in the media consensus regarding global warming. Nevertheless, this remains one of those facts which gets repeated again and again by the media, even though it is not true.
Another related "fact" is the whopper that fracking causes more pollution that alternative energy sources like coal or oil or even gas from conventional wells. Again, exactly the opposite is true. For example, a large truck running on natural gas produces 40% fewer emissions than the same truck running on diesel. In other words, converting a million trucks to natural gas from diesel is the equivalent of taking 400,000 trucks off the highways. The claim that fracking causes pollution of the ground water in the area has now been debunked on multiple occasions by the EPA (not a friend of the energy industry), the Pennsylvania agencies that oversee the environment and every other impartial group that has looked into the matter. The other side is mainly pushed by celebrities who look good for the camera but have no scientific abilities at all. There is, of course, a "study" which claimed that fracking releases methane at an alarming rate. This was repeated by the media over and over again long after that study was debunked by a whole host of authorities.
The third "fact" that often gets reported is that lower government spending means that there will be children left to starve and adults left to suffer. Here the problem is not that this could not happen. Lower spending could indeed leave some children to starve, but only if the lower spending is focused on food programs that feed children. On the other side of the spectrum, conservative media (the few that exist) tell us that lower government spending will cut out waste and fraud. Again, that is only if the lower spending is focused on the programs that are rife with waste and fraud. Most news reports leave out the actual facts of the proposed changes to expenditures and focus instead on the narrative that supports or attacks spending in general. As a result, the "news" is really just propaganda.
There are many more of these so called "facts" which permeate the media. Feel free to leave more in the comments if you wish. The point, here, however, is just how bad the media really is at giving the country the facts.
Perhaps my favorite in this group is the "scientific consensus" which supports global warming caused by man. The truth is that there is a consensus among the liberal media in support of global warming caused by man. There is, however, no consensus among scientists. In fact, most of the recent data supports the opposite conclusion. Atmospheric temperature readings have stayed level since the late 1990's, about a fourteen year period with no warming. Ice formation in Antarctica is at the highest levels since observations began, etc. In truth, there are now cracks even in the media consensus regarding global warming. Nevertheless, this remains one of those facts which gets repeated again and again by the media, even though it is not true.
Another related "fact" is the whopper that fracking causes more pollution that alternative energy sources like coal or oil or even gas from conventional wells. Again, exactly the opposite is true. For example, a large truck running on natural gas produces 40% fewer emissions than the same truck running on diesel. In other words, converting a million trucks to natural gas from diesel is the equivalent of taking 400,000 trucks off the highways. The claim that fracking causes pollution of the ground water in the area has now been debunked on multiple occasions by the EPA (not a friend of the energy industry), the Pennsylvania agencies that oversee the environment and every other impartial group that has looked into the matter. The other side is mainly pushed by celebrities who look good for the camera but have no scientific abilities at all. There is, of course, a "study" which claimed that fracking releases methane at an alarming rate. This was repeated by the media over and over again long after that study was debunked by a whole host of authorities.
The third "fact" that often gets reported is that lower government spending means that there will be children left to starve and adults left to suffer. Here the problem is not that this could not happen. Lower spending could indeed leave some children to starve, but only if the lower spending is focused on food programs that feed children. On the other side of the spectrum, conservative media (the few that exist) tell us that lower government spending will cut out waste and fraud. Again, that is only if the lower spending is focused on the programs that are rife with waste and fraud. Most news reports leave out the actual facts of the proposed changes to expenditures and focus instead on the narrative that supports or attacks spending in general. As a result, the "news" is really just propaganda.
There are many more of these so called "facts" which permeate the media. Feel free to leave more in the comments if you wish. The point, here, however, is just how bad the media really is at giving the country the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment