I get almost 100 percent of my news from two sources: Television and the Internet. But I am continually annoyed at some of the stuff they put on TV news these days - stuff that really isn't news at all. So sometimes I think I would make a much better news producer than the professionals they have in charge now.
Here is the way a decent local newscast should look:
The emphasis would be on positive stories about new things happening in town, such as what new businesses and restaurants are opening, if there are any new features being promoted by the city or state, and what activities are there that might be of interest to a large number of local residents.
Next most important topics would be breaking news (which, in some cases, might be the headline story, of course). But the emphasis here would be on merely reporting the facts of the story. If what is happening is visual, such as a fire or storm damage, then show a video of it. But I don't need to see a video of a reporter talking endlessly about what happened with shots of road signs or raindrops splashing in a puddle.
If a crime is involved I don't need to hear an interview with someone who is the next door neighbor of the suspect, telling us how unexpected it is to find out his neighbor's a criminal. I don't need to see a maudlin interview with a tearful victim; we all know the state of mind a tragedy can invoke. Simply stick to the facts of the story and move on.
A good local TV news program would have human interest stories that center on things that might affect a large number of viewers. I don't need to see any tearful reunions of a soldier coming home unexpectedly; that only affects his friends and family, not me. Instead, show stories about positive community events or people doing things that might affect the city as a whole or a large part of it.
I like to see stories about how new technology is being introduced or how people are using it. I would like to see more stories about science, nutrition, and health matters.
I also think that political news is important. However, one thing that both local and network news departments do is try to force a balance on both sides of an issue when there really is no balance. If Republicans are acting crazy, call them out on it and stop trying to present it as simply politics in general where both sides are doing the same thing. If Democrats are acting crazy, report it as such, but don't try to dig up something crazy about Democrats just because a Republican did something that is in-your-face crazy just for the sake of balanced reporting. Everybody understands the fact that the Republican Party these days includes a bat-shit-crazy element so there is no need to try to balance that out.
One example of this is the faux debate about the age of the earth. There is no debate. Instead, there are religious nuts and right-wing crazies who believe the world is a few thousand years old vs. the truth. Don't report it as "scientists say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old." Simply report it as "the earth is, indeed, 4.5 billion years old." Report factual news as factual. If there is a building burning it would not be reported as, "the fire department claims a building is burning." Show the same respect for scientific facts.
At the same time, however, if there is a single scientific study indicating something new or controversial, report it as such, not as a fact. A single study does not a fact make. Once the study has been peer reviewed and verified by other studies, then it can be reported as a valid theory or even as factual if enough evidence backs it up. But giving too much credence to single studies only makes people not trust science if and when that study is shown later to have been wrong.
There, that's the way a newscast should look as I see it. Cut down on all the maudlin human interest stuff. Report facts as facts. Don't interview people to get their feelings or opinion; only interview them if they have facts to reveal. Don't try to force balance on a story where no real balance exists. And get the science right.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Rubio Still Doesn't Quite Get It
Last week, Florida Senator Marco Rubio told GQ Magazine in an interview that he didn't know how old the earth was. "I'm not a scientist," he said. "I can tell you what the bible says." He went on to say it is "one the of great mysteries."
Well, no it isn't. We know, and he should know, how old the earth is. I've known it since my 7th grade science class. It's 4.5 billion years old. Every school child should be able to answer that question better than Rubio did.
He, apparently, finally understood that when a few days later he clarified his response. He now says that there is no scientific debate over the age of the earth and that it has been established, by science, that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. So why didn't he say that in the first place?
Rubio is a Roman Catholic, which, by the way, accepts scientific discoveries about the age of the earth and about evolution. But he also is a Republican, so he has to keep the wacko wing of his party in mind when he speaks, because wackos tend to vote. So he said, although he accepts that there is no scientific debate and that the earth's age has been established, he said there remains a theological debate and that people of faith must be free to make up their own minds about whether they believe or not what scientists say about the age of the earth.
Well, that's true. But if I have made up my mind that the moon is actually made of green cheese does that make it a reality that the moon is actually made of green cheese? By the same token, if people of faith make up their minds that the age of the earth is only about 6000 years old does that make it so? The age of the earth is what it is, not what you believe it is, not what you wish it were. Scientists do not say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old because that is what they believe in or because that is what they hope for. They started from scratch, not knowing. Many even assumed, at the beginning, that the earth was only a few thousand years old, because most earth scientists were Christians, like almost everyone in Europe back then.
But unlike religion, science uses empirical methods to get at the truth, and if those methods reveal something different from what was believed, scientists must reluctantly accept that evidence, especially if it is verified over and over again.
So, Rubio may have been right when he said there is still a theological debate over the age of the earth. He may have been right when he said everyone must make up his or her own mind about what they believe. But what was wrong about even his second, clarified answer to the question was that he still insists that the dichotomy between what scientists have proven and what the faithful believe is a legitimate one, deserving of equal attention in the public square. There certainly is a dichotomy of thought, but it is not equal. One side is the Mississippi River, the other side is Cripple Creek. If you want to know what really happens in nature, ask a scientist. If you want to be comforted in your own beliefs, ask an evangelical Christian. But the two answers you get are not equally valid if it's the truth you seek.
Well, no it isn't. We know, and he should know, how old the earth is. I've known it since my 7th grade science class. It's 4.5 billion years old. Every school child should be able to answer that question better than Rubio did.
He, apparently, finally understood that when a few days later he clarified his response. He now says that there is no scientific debate over the age of the earth and that it has been established, by science, that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. So why didn't he say that in the first place?
Rubio is a Roman Catholic, which, by the way, accepts scientific discoveries about the age of the earth and about evolution. But he also is a Republican, so he has to keep the wacko wing of his party in mind when he speaks, because wackos tend to vote. So he said, although he accepts that there is no scientific debate and that the earth's age has been established, he said there remains a theological debate and that people of faith must be free to make up their own minds about whether they believe or not what scientists say about the age of the earth.
Well, that's true. But if I have made up my mind that the moon is actually made of green cheese does that make it a reality that the moon is actually made of green cheese? By the same token, if people of faith make up their minds that the age of the earth is only about 6000 years old does that make it so? The age of the earth is what it is, not what you believe it is, not what you wish it were. Scientists do not say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old because that is what they believe in or because that is what they hope for. They started from scratch, not knowing. Many even assumed, at the beginning, that the earth was only a few thousand years old, because most earth scientists were Christians, like almost everyone in Europe back then.
But unlike religion, science uses empirical methods to get at the truth, and if those methods reveal something different from what was believed, scientists must reluctantly accept that evidence, especially if it is verified over and over again.
So, Rubio may have been right when he said there is still a theological debate over the age of the earth. He may have been right when he said everyone must make up his or her own mind about what they believe. But what was wrong about even his second, clarified answer to the question was that he still insists that the dichotomy between what scientists have proven and what the faithful believe is a legitimate one, deserving of equal attention in the public square. There certainly is a dichotomy of thought, but it is not equal. One side is the Mississippi River, the other side is Cripple Creek. If you want to know what really happens in nature, ask a scientist. If you want to be comforted in your own beliefs, ask an evangelical Christian. But the two answers you get are not equally valid if it's the truth you seek.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Isn't it about Time Voting went Digital?
It's 48 hours after the polls closed in Florida and they are still counting the votes. CNN has not declared a winner in that state yet because the votes are so close. Florida doesn't matter this year; President Obama has already won. But it could have mattered, just like it did in 2000 when we didn't know who was going to be president until December.
Obama says, "We need to fix that." But will we finally get around to fixing the problem of long lines at precincts, some with voters waiting hours to cast their ballots? Will we fix voting irregularities, problems with extra-long ballots, voter registration snafus, and attempts at voter suppression? How can it be done?
One way that I advocate in the staunchest manner is to allow voter registration and actual voting to take place on the Internet. Voting online would mean that long lines at polling places would be a thing of the past. It would mean an end to paper ballots. It would mean that voting would no longer be an inconvenience.
Right now, in Indiana, if you're not already registered you need to go to the voter registration office or a license branch in person to register, at least 30 days before election day. If you then want to vote early, you have to go downtown, pay to park, walk through metal detectors in the City County Building, then wait in line to vote. If you'd rather wait for election day and vote in your precinct, you need to first find out where the voting is going to take place the physically go there, wait in line, and vote.
But with Internet voting it could work like this: Go online to the site of the Federal Voter Registration Agency (which doesn't exist right now). User your tax identification number or social security number to register online any time during the year prior to election day. Then within, say, 30 days of election day, you could log on to the voting site and cast your ballots for federal office elections, such as for president or senate. In this scenario, election day would be nothing special, just the last day in a series of days that you could vote on your computer.
As for state elections, states could follow suit and set up their own voting sites which could be linked to the federal site. All voting could be done electronically in the privacy of your own home at your own convenience. There would be no more counting of ballots. Votes would be counted automatically and instantly, and we would know who won every election as soon as the pre-set time limit is up, say 6:00 PM on "election day."
As for the worry some people express about privacy or fraud, there would be no more danger of fraud or violation of privacy as on any other secure Web site, such as those used by banks, credit card companies, and the IRS. If paying your taxes, getting a loan, paying your bills, and earning a college degree can take place online in a safe and secure manner, why not voting as well?
For those who do not have access to the Internet at home, there could still be polling stations set up during election days, such as in libraries and county offices. But, really, anywhere that lets you get on a computer could be a polling place. I see no downside, other than the initial expense to set it up and the constant droning of the obligatory nay-sayers who always come out of the closet every time someone suggests making progress. But they will get used to it and eventually embrace it, like they did the automobile - that futuristic contraption that would put livery stables out of business. We have learned to live without livery stables; we can learn to live without paper ballots, chads, and long lines at the polling places.
Obama says, "We need to fix that." But will we finally get around to fixing the problem of long lines at precincts, some with voters waiting hours to cast their ballots? Will we fix voting irregularities, problems with extra-long ballots, voter registration snafus, and attempts at voter suppression? How can it be done?
One way that I advocate in the staunchest manner is to allow voter registration and actual voting to take place on the Internet. Voting online would mean that long lines at polling places would be a thing of the past. It would mean an end to paper ballots. It would mean that voting would no longer be an inconvenience.
Right now, in Indiana, if you're not already registered you need to go to the voter registration office or a license branch in person to register, at least 30 days before election day. If you then want to vote early, you have to go downtown, pay to park, walk through metal detectors in the City County Building, then wait in line to vote. If you'd rather wait for election day and vote in your precinct, you need to first find out where the voting is going to take place the physically go there, wait in line, and vote.
But with Internet voting it could work like this: Go online to the site of the Federal Voter Registration Agency (which doesn't exist right now). User your tax identification number or social security number to register online any time during the year prior to election day. Then within, say, 30 days of election day, you could log on to the voting site and cast your ballots for federal office elections, such as for president or senate. In this scenario, election day would be nothing special, just the last day in a series of days that you could vote on your computer.
As for state elections, states could follow suit and set up their own voting sites which could be linked to the federal site. All voting could be done electronically in the privacy of your own home at your own convenience. There would be no more counting of ballots. Votes would be counted automatically and instantly, and we would know who won every election as soon as the pre-set time limit is up, say 6:00 PM on "election day."
As for the worry some people express about privacy or fraud, there would be no more danger of fraud or violation of privacy as on any other secure Web site, such as those used by banks, credit card companies, and the IRS. If paying your taxes, getting a loan, paying your bills, and earning a college degree can take place online in a safe and secure manner, why not voting as well?
For those who do not have access to the Internet at home, there could still be polling stations set up during election days, such as in libraries and county offices. But, really, anywhere that lets you get on a computer could be a polling place. I see no downside, other than the initial expense to set it up and the constant droning of the obligatory nay-sayers who always come out of the closet every time someone suggests making progress. But they will get used to it and eventually embrace it, like they did the automobile - that futuristic contraption that would put livery stables out of business. We have learned to live without livery stables; we can learn to live without paper ballots, chads, and long lines at the polling places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)