Comments on: Readers are Mad as … http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/ LiveScience Blogs | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:54:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: littlewolf http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-437 littlewolf Fri, 05 May 2006 21:41:23 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-437 As a Canadian I think of myself as nonpartisan with regard to US politics. As an impartial judge I would have to come down strongly on this article as political; there is simply no doubting it as an impartial outside observer. Mr. Britt, unfortunately you've lost a lot of credibility regarding your impartiality since when one allows there political views to perturb them so much as to have to write about them in their work world, it brings into question how they may be coloring your reporting in other areas that require ethical perspectives. As a Canadian I think of myself as nonpartisan with regard to US politics. As an impartial judge I would have to come down strongly on this article as political; there is simply no doubting it as an impartial outside observer. Mr. Britt, unfortunately you’ve lost a lot of credibility regarding your impartiality since when one allows there political views to perturb them so much as to have to write about them in their work world, it brings into question how they may be coloring your reporting in other areas that require ethical perspectives.

]]> By: niatpac_levram http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-425 niatpac_levram Thu, 04 May 2006 22:16:56 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-425 "And you still think the “$800 Pentagon toilet seat” is a true story" Yes, it's a true story, except you have your facts wrong. It was a $600 toilet seat, and it was exposed by Sen. Charles Grassley in a Pentagon audit in 1983. “And you still think the “$800 Pentagon toilet seat” is a true story”

Yes, it’s a true story, except you have your facts wrong. It was a $600 toilet seat, and it was exposed by Sen. Charles Grassley in a Pentagon audit in 1983.

]]> By: bareshiyth http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-382 bareshiyth Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:51:53 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-382 I've appreciated your science expertise and reporting for years. Keep that up and stay away from politics, PLEASE. You know, everyone has a political bias, built upon all sorts of experiences, values, and history, and no matter how much you try to keep yours out, you won't, and even if you could, the readers will read and impugn one into what you write, and your blog will soon become as embroiled in the partisanship as the rest of our culture, and the blogosphere - which already has its millions of political bloggers and many more millions of readers. The value of your science writing will be diminished and lost in the mire of the political biases and prejudices and passions of your readers. Even a poll on science issues will become a slippery slope lubricated by Bush-hating or loving, party loyalties, pro- and anti-war, the culture warsd, etc. etc., and what you have to contribute will be poisoned by that pill! I’ve appreciated your science expertise and reporting for years. Keep that up and stay away from politics, PLEASE.
You know, everyone has a political bias, built upon all sorts of experiences, values, and history, and no matter how much you try to keep yours out, you won’t, and even if you could, the readers will read and impugn one into what you write, and your blog will soon become as embroiled in the partisanship as the rest of our culture, and the blogosphere - which already has its millions of political bloggers and many more millions of readers. The value of your science writing will be diminished and lost in the mire of the political biases and prejudices and passions of your readers. Even a poll on science issues will become a slippery slope lubricated by Bush-hating or loving, party loyalties, pro- and anti-war, the culture warsd, etc. etc., and what you have to contribute will be poisoned by that pill!

]]> By: netdragon http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-381 netdragon Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:54:23 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-381 Political science is science. I'm an engineer, and my girlfriend is a political scientist and we've had many discussions about whether political science is science or not. I'd have to say that she has a real point when she claims it's science, because political science is a study of the affairs of governments and state, and the methods of governing. Political policies are also affected by sociology, because social reactions come into play. Political science is science. I’m an engineer, and my girlfriend is a political scientist and we’ve had many discussions about whether political science is science or not. I’d have to say that she has a real point when she claims it’s science, because political science is a study of the affairs of governments and state, and the methods of governing. Political policies are also affected by sociology, because social reactions come into play.

]]> By: Anthony Duignan-Cabrera http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-377 Anthony Duignan-Cabrera Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:45:38 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-377 OK, this last posting is ironic since this thread began with personal attacks against Rob Britt, alleging biases in the writing of his story and once again it goes directly off point in an effort to deflect criticism from the alleged feeble arguments hoisted in the previous postings. As for the toilet seat, that and other quasi-urban myths related to government wastefulness are deserving of their own study, but have nothing to do with the overview of the polls that Mr. Britt posted. There was nothing relevant to your specifics and they were merely attempts at obfuscation in an attempt to bring it all back to the "science"; an attempt at taking some kind of moral highground. Next. OK, this last posting is ironic since this thread began with personal attacks against Rob Britt, alleging biases in the writing of his story and once again it goes directly off point in an effort to deflect criticism from the alleged feeble arguments hoisted in the previous postings. As for the toilet seat, that and other quasi-urban myths related to government wastefulness are deserving of their own study, but have nothing to do with the overview of the polls that Mr. Britt posted. There was nothing relevant to your specifics and they were merely attempts at obfuscation in an attempt to bring it all back to the “science”; an attempt at taking some kind of moral highground. Next.

]]> By: jimeo http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-376 jimeo Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:04:02 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-376 And you still think the "$800 Pentagon toilet seat" is a true story of gummint waste? I brought it up because it was brought up by somebody else, and, actually, it is based on a genuine aerospace technology and budgetary theme. I raise relevant specifics, and all I seem to get back is hand-waving about stuff like "presidential power", and a thinly-veiled suggestion that I'm the victim of the Administration's 'spin policy'. Once again, counter-arguments turn personal. Let's focus on engineering and scientific themes that can be thrashed out, that can be argued with cited sources as well as out own expertise and experience, that can move towards resolution rather than confrontation. Has anybody changed any tiny bit of their minds so far? We can do better. And you still think the “$800 Pentagon toilet seat” is a true story of gummint waste? I brought it up because it was brought up by somebody else, and, actually, it is based on a genuine aerospace technology and budgetary theme.

I raise relevant specifics, and all I seem to get back is hand-waving about stuff like “presidential power”, and a thinly-veiled suggestion that I’m the victim of the Administration’s ’spin policy’. Once again, counter-arguments turn personal. Let’s focus on engineering and scientific themes that can be thrashed out, that can be argued with cited sources as well as out own expertise and experience, that can move towards resolution rather than confrontation.

Has anybody changed any tiny bit of their minds so far? We can do better.

]]> By: Anthony Duignan-Cabrera http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-374 Anthony Duignan-Cabrera Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:10:45 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-374 That is a terrible example and some what overreaching as it has nothing to do with the point that Rob was attempting to make. Your dissatisfaction with the polling numbers is not the point. The point is that across a broad spectrum of voters the policies currently in place are not satisfactory. Whether Iran or Palestine are democracies is irrelavant as it could be argued that the our own Electoral College undermines the whole "one person/one vote" form of democracy that we're trying to export. As for Valerie Plame, any questions about that go to a much larger inquiry than whether she was "outed" or not, specifically it goes to the ever-changing and nebulous definition of "presidential power". Still as an exercise in how the memetic power of the Administration's spin policy is working, your above posting is pretty remarkable and should itself be studied. But, as you say, that's not going to happen here ... ;-) That is a terrible example and some what overreaching as it has nothing to do with the point that Rob was attempting to make. Your dissatisfaction with the polling numbers is not the point. The point is that across a broad spectrum of voters the policies currently in place are not satisfactory. Whether Iran or Palestine are democracies is irrelavant as it could be argued that the our own Electoral College undermines the whole “one person/one vote” form of democracy that we’re trying to export. As for Valerie Plame, any questions about that go to a much larger inquiry than whether she was “outed” or not, specifically it goes to the ever-changing and nebulous definition of “presidential power”. Still as an exercise in how the memetic power of the Administration’s spin policy is working, your above posting is pretty remarkable and should itself be studied. But, as you say, that’s not going to happen here … ;-)

]]> By: jimeo http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-373 jimeo Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:26:07 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-373 Nice try, Anthony, but polls, like elections, reflect realities of both options and stories presented to the public. Example: the concept that Palestinian and Iranian leadership reflects "free elections" (yeah, with the addition that 'unapproved' candidates were eliminated, on paper or in the flesh, prior to voting). Example: the public perceptions of Administration 'honesty' after years of drumbeats about a mythical 'punitive outing of a CIA covert agent', when the facts -- generally not made available to the public -- indicate that it was the Prez, not the press, that told the truth about Iraqi interests in Mali, that the CIA employment of Plame (who drove to work through the front gate in Langley, and was openly assigned to foreign US embassies -- hence, could NOT have been 'covert') was relevant to allegations of who sent her husband to Mali, and that it was as preposterous as it really looks for some supposedly evil minion in the White House to 'get even' with a guy through a useless gambit ('outing'? -- oh, ouch, how much has that really hurt anybody?) instead of REALLY using the abuse-power of the government (recent-past reminder -- release of Pentagon personnel records of citizens who displeased Clinton). So of course the general public will respond to such programming. And then touting the artificial response is 'closing the circle' of false cause and false effect. But we're not going to do that here. Nice try, Anthony, but polls, like elections, reflect realities of both options and stories presented to the public.

Example: the concept that Palestinian and Iranian leadership reflects “free elections” (yeah, with the addition that ‘unapproved’ candidates were eliminated, on paper or in the flesh, prior to voting).

Example: the public perceptions of Administration ‘honesty’ after years of drumbeats about a mythical ‘punitive outing of a CIA covert agent’, when the facts — generally not made available to the public — indicate that it was the Prez, not the press, that told the truth about Iraqi interests in Mali, that the CIA employment of Plame (who drove to work through the front gate in Langley, and was openly assigned to foreign US embassies — hence, could NOT have been ‘covert’) was relevant to allegations of who sent her husband to Mali, and that it was as preposterous as it really looks for some supposedly evil minion in the White House to ‘get even’ with a guy through a useless gambit (’outing’? — oh, ouch, how much has that really hurt anybody?) instead of REALLY using the abuse-power of the government (recent-past reminder — release of Pentagon personnel records of citizens who displeased Clinton).

So of course the general public will respond to such programming. And then touting the artificial response is ‘closing the circle’ of false cause and false effect.

But we’re not going to do that here.

]]> By: Anthony Duignan-Cabrera http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-372 Anthony Duignan-Cabrera Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:41:35 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-372 Nice try, boys, but Rob's round-up of the polls out there spell out a larger problem that has nothing to do with his politics: There are simply a lot of polls out there hanging the president, his administration and congress out to dry. Rob could have chosen polls about gas and oil prices, and while there are not as many out there, those surveys (eg: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/24/rel11a.pdf) reflect a disatisfaction with the how the ruling party has handled the issue. If you don't like the bad news, don't shoot the messenger (like poor Scott Mclellan), take aim at the policy makers. Nice try, boys, but Rob’s round-up of the polls out there spell out a larger problem that has nothing to do with his politics: There are simply a lot of polls out there hanging the president, his administration and congress out to dry. Rob could have chosen polls about gas and oil prices, and while there are not as many out there, those surveys (eg: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/24/rel11a.pdf) reflect a disatisfaction with the how the ruling party has handled the issue. If you don’t like the bad news, don’t shoot the messenger (like poor Scott Mclellan), take aim at the policy makers.

]]> By: snowphlake http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-368 snowphlake Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:38:11 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/27/readers-are-mad-as/#comment-368 Jimeo makes a good point. I also think that the article had a light scent of bias. You were SUBTLY giving away your bias, Mr. Britt - it was subtle - not overt, like much of the media bias that exists today. Kudos for that. A news anchor can state that one politician is "living up to their promises to the voters" by doing such and such, but the other politician is "bowing to pressure from their campaign contributors". For instance, I have not yet stated any political opinions whatsoever, but I bet anyone reading this has already made assumptions about my political leanings, and those of jimeo. A more scientific look at those same polls would ask why the polls are showing the specific trend. You said: “While polling is imprecise, good ones are done scientifically and often offer the best and only way to find out what segments of the population are thinking.” But your article offered no inquiry into whether the polls you were looking at were “good ones”, or not. Nuf’ said yall. ;-) Jimeo makes a good point. I also think that the article had a light scent of bias. You were SUBTLY giving away your bias, Mr. Britt - it was subtle - not overt, like much of the media bias that exists today. Kudos for that.

A news anchor can state that one politician is “living up to their promises to the voters” by doing such and such, but the other politician is “bowing to pressure from their campaign contributors”.

For instance, I have not yet stated any political opinions whatsoever, but I bet anyone reading this has already made assumptions about my political leanings, and those of jimeo.

A more scientific look at those same polls would ask why the polls are showing the specific trend. You said:

“While polling is imprecise, good ones are done scientifically and often offer the best and only way to find out what segments of the population are thinking.”

But your article offered no inquiry into whether the polls you were looking at were “good ones”, or not.

Nuf’ said yall. ;-)

]]>