Vetting Media, The Truth and "So-Called" Educated Trumpers

[BonzaiDuck]

Here is an exercise for any high-school graduate about assessing the reliability of a media source. I've changed the basic underlying issue to a simple topic about personal health. We'll get to the other matters shortly.

Assume these hypothetical numbers are correct and factual, even if I've pulled them out of my hat for purpose of demonstration.

"During the year 2020, 1,000 smokers died of lung cancer and 1,050 non-smokers died of lung cancer. Therefore, smoking doesn't pose a significant risk, or smoking doesn't increase the chance of contracting lung cancer."

Now. If just one person who is first to respond here with the logically correct answer, explaining how this is TRUE or how it is FALSE, we'll get on with the real meat and substance of the thread topic.

 

[IronWing]

Among how many smokers and non-smokers?

 

[pete6032]

Among how many smokers and non-smokers?

/thread

 

[uclaLabrat]

Base rate fallacy goodnight

 

[HomerJS]

Where do these people live, work?
Any smokers living with non smokers
Age
Family history

Numbers alone are not enough

 

[pmv]

Among how many smokers and non-smokers?

Yeah, exactly. Though also would help to know the demographics of the two groups (e.g. are the smokers and non-smokers distributed equally across age groups?).

 

[pmv]

Though the issue crops up both in arguments defending smoking and disapproving of it. E.g. there used to be a major poster campaign here that featured the line "every N seconds a smoker dies of a smoking-associated disease". Which always prompted the thought "but that doesn't tell me anything unless you also tell me how often a non-smoker dies of a smoking-associated disease?"

 

[interchange]

As an MD it's my duty to inform everyone (even though you admit to making up the numbers for illustrative purposes here) that in reality only 10-20% of lung cancers are in never-smokers.

But to answer your question, you can't interpret those findings without knowing how many people in the study population are smokers and non-smokers. If your population has significantly less than 50% smokers, then smoking would be a serious risk factor. That is, of course, ignoring confounders.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Among how many smokers and non-smokers?

Exactly. Anyone who made it through high-school algebra should see it right away. For instance, again with hypothetical numbers, if the general population contains 10% who smoke and 90% who don't smoke, then -- from the year's-worth of data, you would conclude that "it looks like" smokers are nine or ten times more likely to get lung cancer.

About six months ago, I was sitting in the customer lounge of my solid-gold auto repair shop. The TV was tuned to FOX news. The newscaster presented figures that were the same or close to these:

"During 2020 [approx year IIRC], 50 black males were shot and killed by the police, and 52 white males were shot and killed by police . . . .
"There must not be a problem then . . . . "

It hit me in the face right away. About three or four months thereafter, I sent around an e-mail to friends and associates with the statement I'd heard on FOX. Among them, a retired plasma physicist, a retired police detective, a widow and former housewife whose parents had always insinuated that she wasn't very smart, a former college-educated high-school classmate and Trumper, my brother and Trumper who had two years of college, and my cousin who never spent a day in a college classroom.

The housewife lacked the confidence to make a definitive answer, but she's not a dummy -- not at all. The police detective responded with a quote from Mark Twain about "lies and damned lies". My brother, who doesn't sustain e-mail exchanges to much length and is riveted on gun rights and adverse to the BLM movement, didn't respond. My cousin, who has great promise and writes well, offered up a pile of statistics about crime rates and black populations, thinking that this was all about the race issue, BLM and related things. He's a climate change denier, supports his right to an AR-15, and concocts many criticisms of government in general, but he has a CAL-PERS retirement for working in the DMV bureaucracy. Now, for failing to get a COVID booster, he's got long-term COVID symptoms. But he still has "promise", even for being 60 years old.

My cousin's response was similar to the high-school classmate who made it through Cal-Poly for his BA in business. He's psychologically damaged from childhood, but I won't go into the pathologies.

At some point, planning to send around another e-mail pointing out this very simple observation about the misrepresentation of data, I just gave up. Particularly, the high-school classmate (and closet-racist) just ignored my explanation. I challenged him to find any similar instance of such deception on MSNBC, CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS. I never heard a word from him to continue that discussion.

Now examine the sieve of possibilities about the source of the misinformation. There are about two possible explanations, but not mutually exclusive. Either the journalists at FOX are stupid and unable to meet longstanding standards of journalistic practice, or -- they regard their audience as significantly stupid enough to believe what they're fed. Could they have made a "mistake"? Let's go back to the days of Edward R. Murrow, the network channels, the major newspapers -- and -- again -- reasonable standards of journalistic practice. It's impossible that FOX would just "make a mistake." Every broadcaster has a large staff of people behind those you actually see on the TV screen.

Therefore, FOX's story about the people killed by police was a deliberate lie. Even if the basic numbers "-killed per year" were correct, the news broadcast was a lie. It was a deception. It was a deliberate deception.

None of the other media reported it. They find plenty of other things wrong with FOX. I only took about four or five courses in statistics and econometrics, but in my career during half a decade I had to be a statistician of sorts. At the beginning of the millennium, formal education long since past, I had an interest in an important post-war event, the serious study of which carries a stigma. Books published about it are called "part of a publication industry." Putting that aside, I started reading up on propaganda and psychological warfare.

The first observation I made independently and on my own arose in 2004 January when Sen. Ted Kennedy was announced by FOX a week in advance as scheduled to deliver a presentation at the National Press Club. The announcement was repeated every day, several times per day. At the end, I sat on the edge of my chair until Kennedy appeared on TV. For four minutes. Followed by a half-hour of FOX "comment". I later found the hour-long presentation on CSPAN. I had to conclude that FOX's actions were deliberate.

Every so often, I would tune in to FOX and find something else which -- based on only knowledge that I myself had acquired -- was a deliberate attempt to mislead or deceive the viewer. Some of these observations were quite stupid. For instance, on the matter of the Hunter Biden inquiry, Laura Ingraham concluded that "Even if there are no evidentiary facts, it doesn't mean there wasn't a crime." There are several other similar observations I made over the years. Of course, they are "my" observations. The pathological high-school classmate would simply discard my recount of these things, as if I just made them up.

500 years of western intellectual history. Bacon and Descartes the basis of "scientific method" -- which has a euphemism -- "Common Sense". But let us cut to the chase.

Our political system, our democracy, provides a campaign process with debates that are published in media and broadcast on TV. At a high standard for exchanges about policies, ideas, and other matters, it should be assumed that the two opposing parties (candidates, opinion sources -- even "political parties") would first have a commitment to The Truth.

But that is no more the case now. Take your political beliefs and wipe them off the table first. Gather the facts. Vet the facts and their sources. What is The Truth? Should not any person with Common Sense be able to do this?

Because if we are not Truth-Seekers, we have no basis to justify any argument, any policy, any candidate.

The pathological high-school classmate still concludes that I watch MSNBC because it reflects my political views. Better -- my "political religion". I blew him off as a friend, because he can't see it as I explain it.

I don't have a "polticial religion". I'm a democrat because I'm a refugee, much like refugees from Afghanistan or Ukraine. I have no other place to take refuge.

It isn't because "I believe shit". I want to know the Truth, and I want to make rational decisions on the basis of the Truth.

I apologize for this lengthy post. But this is what I see now in our political discourse, the media, and the people who claim that the "mainstream media" is "out to get the GOP".

It's true that newspapers and TV stations choose the facts to rank-order in importance and headlines size. All information has an aspect of propaganda. But there aren't "alternative facts" -- that's a defense attorney's argument. More facts are better than less facts, and only the most possible facts assure that logical inferences lead to the Truth.

Once one has the Truth, then we can talk politics or engage in political discourse.

Otherwise, we live in an Age of Ignorance, and even the elections are crap-shoots.

Put it another way. If you can find instances on your own and independently showing that certain news media engage in deceptive practices -- perhaps given what you know from sources other than "other media" -- why waste your time listening to them parrot your beliefs -- nonsense or otherwise?

Or -- is it just that you are troubled by facts and sound inferences that undermine your beliefs? Common sense -- in any field -- suggest that maybe you should change your beliefs according to what The Truth proves to you.

All that wonderful stuff about "Self-Reliance", "Lower taxes", so on and so forth. But what about even a reluctant acceptance of the Problems, and a recognition that solutions may only be available through "collective action"? Oh -- I get it. Collective action is really "Sooooo-sha-lizm".

What can anybody do to bring people to their senses -- and to Common Sense?

 

[woolfe9998]

MSM does misuse statistics on a semi-frequent basis. An example, "new study on the effects of second hand smoke finds that on average, daily indoor exposure to second hand smoke increases your risk of lung cancer by 25%!"

Because people in general are poor at math and statistics, the typical reader or viewer thinks this means that their chance of getting lung cancer after exposure to second hand smoke is somewhere north of 25%. When in reality, if the base chance of a non-smoker getting lung cancer is .4%, a "25% increase" means that it has increased to .5%, a net increase of .1%.

It's different issues that you may find on Fox News versus MSM. MSM leans toward alarmism on any and all health issues. They love to tell you that things are bad for you, and so they won't clarify what a statistic like that actually means.

 

[pmv]

MSM does misuse statistics on a semi-frequent basis. An example, "new study on the effects of second hand smoke finds that on average, daily indoor exposure to second hand smoke increases your risk of lung cancer by 25%!"

Because people in general are poor at math and statistics, the typical reader or viewer thinks this means that their chance of getting lung cancer after exposure to second hand smoke is somewhere north of 25%. When in reality, if the base chance of a non-smoker getting lung cancer is .4%, a "25% increase" means that it has increased to .5%, a net increase of .1%.

It's different issues that you may find on Fox News versus MSM. MSM leans toward alarmism on any and all health issues. They love to tell you that things are bad for you, and so they won't clarify what a statistic like that actually means.

As in The Daily Mail's Canonical Oncological Ontology Project?
"A never-ending mission to classify every inanimate object in the world into two categories - things that cause, and things that cure, cancer."

 

[DaaQ]

Just watched a judge chastise Alex Jones that just because you "believe it to be true" "Does not make it TRUE" "We deal with facts in this courtroom".

 

[Moonbeam]

That's only maybe a 5% lesser risk risk of getting cancer if you are a non-smoker, but what I am curious about is who survives temperatures that would cause you to smoke and why would only some start smoking at those temperatures and not others? Could it be high fat to body water content? Anyway it seems to me these kinds of theoretical studies shouldn't be allowed to reach the test stage.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

MSM does misuse statistics on a semi-frequent basis. An example, "new study on the effects of second hand smoke finds that on average, daily indoor exposure to second hand smoke increases your risk of lung cancer by 25%!"

Because people in general are poor at math and statistics, the typical reader or viewer thinks this means that their chance of getting lung cancer after exposure to second hand smoke is somewhere north of 25%. When in reality, if the base chance of a non-smoker getting lung cancer is .4%, a "25% increase" means that it has increased to .5%, a net increase of .1%.

It's different issues that you may find on Fox News versus MSM. MSM leans toward alarmism on any and all health issues. They love to tell you that things are bad for you, and so they won't clarify what a statistic like that actually means.

I wouldn't call that deliberate deception. If they said the risk increases by 25% -- as you say in the hypothetical, an increase of 0.5% -- they've presented the facts accurately or stated them accurately. The viewer is obliged to do the simple math. It may be that media could take the time to explain the matter of 4% risk.

I don't think your example shows a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Here's another example from FOX.

As I said, I'd done some reading to familiarize myself with the history and methods of propaganda and psy-war. On scholarly work was written by Jacques Ellul: "Propaganda", 1964. At some point, he observes that the reason propaganda can have its intended effect on a population derives from the thinking of individuals in the public. He says it is because "They think they are too smart to be deceived, they are individuals and not part of an average" -- referring to an "average of the mass.

When Glen Beck was still a regular figure on FOX, he gave a lecture to his viewers on propaganda. He had outfitted himself like Bishop Sheen, if you remember the television appearances of the well-known cleric. He had a blackboard, chalk, the whole enchilada.

Beck insisted the propaganda (a science and an art) originated with people of a socialist inclination -- people nobody ever heard of. But, shown in the simple fact that the US had rescued sociologists and psychologists who had worked for Josef Goebbels under Hitler and salted them away in various universities, the origins of it go back to Goebbels and Harold Laswell -- among other Americans. CIA began funding projects with the university professors -- $1 billion per year over about 15 years. Walter Bedell Smith, an early CIA Director under Eisenhower, had been quoted saying that propaganda or psy-war project were a kind of prophylactic, which could significantly reduce the need for military hardware expenses.

But back to Beck. I nearly jumped out of my chair when i heard this, as he told his viewers that they couldn't be deceived by propaganda, because they were smart, they were individuals, and not part of an average. It was almost a direct quote from Ellul, turned on its head.

Now it also comes to a point where one has to ask whether some media organization has an agenda. Conversely, one could ask whether all the other media sources are somehow acting in unison, justifying the idea of the "Media Propaganda Ministry". However, in terms of simple logic, probability and the instability of networks beyond some number, it is impossible that they are all somehow working in unison to deceive the public.

There is a school of objective journalism, and a "school" of advocacy journalism. Most of the media organizations practice the former. On the other end, you have the example of the Hearst newspapers of long ago, and FOX news today.

Take for instance the matter of Trump's criminality. There are so many news stories, it is hard to enumerate or summarize them all. But every news medium is trying to get a scoop on facts. They know there are a dozen news agencies like AP, UPI, Reuters. They know they have many competitors. They know that if a competitor caught them in a deception, they would be in the news spotlight, and they would be discredited.

Some people somehow think that the prevailing media reflects some conspiratorial arrangement with an agenda for mass mind-control. But they are all just acting independently to report facts. If they have a "liberal" inclination, perhaps it is because they have some commitment to the Truth, and the only inferences one can make from the facts they present just lead in that direction.

Take for instance again the news about Trump's criminality. Enough independent sources investigating everything from Michael Cohen and Trump's criminal violations over FEC law and Stormy Daniels, to the unearthed boxes of tax returns from years earlier. And so one has to ask: Well, why haven't the media dug up all the dirt on Obama? Concluding, of course, that the entire media is bent on destroying Trump. And, because they are "liberal", because they are "soo-shal-ist" -- they treated Obama differently. But with multiple media competing and keeping their eyes on each other in the matter of what is True and what isn't, that's an ignorant conclusion -- a fantasy.

The simple answer with that: Obama wasn't a criminal. Like Laura Ingraham, you can defy sane human understanding and say that he was a criminal anyway -- even if there aren't any facts to prove it. But with no facts, you're either living in a bubble or deceiving yourself -- almost to the point of being insane.

You don't have to be a Lemming to feel some comfortable trust in a handful of media organizations. You can cross-verify what they report, unless you are lazy or stupid. The reason some people gravitate toward FOX derives from at least a handful of their personal traits.

They believe that everything people with contrary beliefs read is simply absorbed without question. In fact, in their laziness, they have no inclination to gather facts on their own and prove to their own satisfaction that something is TRUE or FALSE. They are the ones who simply accept what they read or view as true, when it supports their beliefs. That explains their urgency to ban books in public schools. Pure belief has no factual foundation. It is the cart put before the horse. If facts and the truth are troubling or frightening, they have to find an alternative to sooth themselves, even if the palaver whips them into an angry frenzy.

So they'll pick the maverick -- with the cart before the horse, with "alternative facts' cherry-picked to comfort the Lemmings in their desire about how the world should really be, when they're disturbed at confronting how it really is.

It just gets back to a simple matter. If you find a campaign and agenda of deception in a news source, even if it comforts your beliefs about the world as you want it to be, why would a person in their common sense continue to waste their time with an unreliable source of fact or an unreliable presentation of fact?

I suggest it points up a deficiency in our educational system. People either don't have the time or they don't have the inclination to fully inform themselves. They simply want to be told what to think, or to be comforted that what they think is a matter of Common Sense.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess that’s where I differ from the average person…I think I am too stupid to not be deceived by propaganda, therefore it’s important to me to know the truth rather than feel I’m right.

Along the same lines; it’s also why I’m not a registered democrat. It’s not because my political views don’t align with theirs, it’s because I understand and worry about group think and the “my team” mentality. I understand that humans, of which I am one, can and do ignore abhorrent behavior when it’s committed by one of their “own”. Besides, loyalty to a party makes no sense to me.

Often times on this forum people think my negative attitude towards them is simply the result of them not being on “my team”, the truth is, it’s because I get frustrated and annoyed at counterpoints that fail basic fact checking. In fact learning something new and being wrong about an opinion I hold because of new factual information is awesome to me.


We know why (at least I think we do) people don’t like to be wrong or fall for propaganda, or suffer from group think or hold on to irrational viewpoints but how do we change that behavior of which is connected to our primitive mind?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I guess that’s where I differ from the average person…I think I am too stupid to not be deceived by propaganda, therefore it’s important to me to know the truth rather than feel I’m right.

Along the same lines; it’s also why I’m not a registered democrat. It’s not because my political views don’t align with theirs, it’s because I understand and worry about group think and the “my team” mentality. I understand that humans, of which I am one, can and do ignore abhorrent behavior when it’s committed by one of their “own”. Besides, loyalty to a party makes no sense to me.

Often times on this forum people think my negative attitude towards them is simply the result of them not being on “my team”, the truth is, it’s because I get frustrated and annoyed at counterpoints that fail basic fact checking. In fact learning something new and being wrong about an opinion I hold because of new factual information is awesome to me.


We know why (at least I think we do) people don’t like to be wrong or fall for propaganda, or suffer from group think or hold on to irrational viewpoints but how do we change that behavior of which is connected to our primitive mind?

This response of yours is insightful, even enlightened. First, it shows that you have something I'll just call "intellectual humility." We are all ignorant in some way. I have a cousin who knows automobiles, if only the ones that burn gasoline. He's out there wading through all sorts of other information and confused between beliefs he's held and aspects that fall under the heading I mentioned of "common sense", and he's ignorant about other things. I have a dentist -- of Indian ethnicity, originally Canadian and a naturalized citizen. He's a great dentist, he has magic hands and eyes (but getting older). But he's also ignorant about a lot of things.

I was naive and ignorant when I undertook my "great" career in the civil service. Particularly, I was ignorant about politics. I somehow imagined that it shouldn't matter -- that only competence should matter. Because of Lyndon Johnson's cornpone mannerisms shared with my west-Texas uncle who had personally known George Wallace when they both served in the 509th Atom Bomb Squadron, I was not inclined to be a Democrat. I wasn't really inclined to be anything.

I began to think of myself as a Republican because I thought that the free market for my talent and industry was being swamped by affirmative action. I began to feel that I was in competition with women and minorities. In the civil service, I slowly discovered that the African-American colleagues often had more on the ball than their entitled white contemporaries. Why? Because, if they were in any way headed toward a college education, they were taught that they had to be better, they had to try harder, because they had to surmount racism in many manifestations, often subtle.

Then, during the Reagan years, I was getting close enough to the political-appointee level to see who those people really were, what they knew, what they could do. On the GOP side, they were constantly testing you about your "beliefs". You had to believe as they believed, or you weren't going to belong to the club, or get lifted up on their shoulders. I never encountered that among any Democrats I knew. You didn't have to "believe" shit.

Around the time of the Nixon presidency, you'd get the feeling that many of the GOP crowd actually believed in something I can call "good government -- people like Frank Carlucci, Casper Weinberger or Elliot Richardson. [I actually met all three at different times, but at receptions and gatherings under ASPA, so nothing of any significance relevant to me or my advancement.] There were always the myths about Democrats, like "tax and spend". But those days are gone. My grandfather was a "Republican". He walked to work with a metal lunchbox wearing bib overalls. He was the salt of the earth. He taught me to ride a bicycle. He was a good, kind person. He would never have countenanced that party as we see it today.

So you have to ask yourself some fundamental questions. First, do you believe in an ideal of "good government"? Or, do you believe in no government? Or least government? What sort of government do you want? Then, ask yourself who seems most bent on destroying our institutions, and who seems most inclined to make things work? In these last several years, there have been sharp contrasts.

You can try and look at the landscape as scientifically and objectively as you possibly can. Maybe you can make smorgasbord choices: a little of this, a little of that. Or define your self-interest, but then there is enlightened self-interest -- which we call "the public interest". Who wants to drag more of the jungle into our civilization? Who wants to expunge it? How much of the jungle do you really want? But also, what do other people want, and are their wants reasonable?

Go back and look at the Civil War. What were they thinking? One side was champion of human rights; the other side arguing for property rights. They were talking past each other, but it ultimately came down to Moral Choice. At some point, you cannot compromise on a serious matter of Moral Choice.

The Founders warned about parties -- "factions". These legislators and candidates we vote for are supposed to be "The Congressman from X District of Y county", the "Senator from ( or for) the State of Z". I don't think they were supposed to be the Congressman for the Republicans of Y county, or the Senator for the Democrats in the state of Z.

But that's not the landscape before us today. The idea, I think, in the minds of the Founders was to put Wise Men into office. Time and distance separated them from their constituencies. Even four decades ago, people would sit at a typewriter and try to compose well-written and polite letters to their elected leaders.

Today, people spit in each other's faces with 140-word drivel in Tweets.

So it's not so much about being a joiner. Everyone -- many of us -- have been fence-sitters. Many of us thought of ourselves as "Independents". Now, it comes down to a matter of Moral Choice. You never get everything you want. These are collective choices we make. We don't get a smorgasbord, unless we talk about local, state, and federal government tiers. But if it all comes down to Moral Choice, you have to choose sides, and from the recent news, one side is making war at the state level so they can override the popular vote.

Graham Greene wrote some powerful novels. He was a British journalist in Vietnam during the early 1950s. He was a devout Catholic, and many will remember "The Power and the Glory" -- which will bring many people to tears at the climax and end of the story. The most recent film rendition of "The Quiet American" was released around 2001, featuring Michael Caine and Brendon Fraser. There is an exchange between Caine's character (Greene) and a Vietnamese journalist.

"Are you a Communist?"
"I am a journalist by day, and a communist by night."
"What should I do? Should I choose sides?"
"If you are human, you should choose sides."

All the "-ism" shit is philosophy and normative idealism. It becomes political symbolism for slinging mud.

If we want to worry about belief, then it is appropriate to believe in two things.

Common sense. And the Constitution.
==========
A FOOTNOTE about name-dropping
I mentioned blowing off a high-school classmate I described as "pathological". That, and our discussion here, made me think of my earlier life, where I had been, what I had done -- people I'd met. These memories served as a sort of antidote.

I also met Clarence Thomas for about ten minutes, to get a signature on a statistical study we'd done to support a landmark civil-rights court case. There was a Coke can on his desk; I don't remember any pubic hair on it. I remember leaving his office thinking "JEEE-sus! Why do I think that guy is a real prick!?"

Then, there was Linda Chavez. She gave me advice as to whether I should stay where I was, or seek another job. I didn't take her advice. It was a mistake. I remember leaving her office -- also around 1982 -- thinking "Damn! What a hot babe! That tight gray wool skirt! Wow!"

Look at them now. What does the hot babe think about the prick?

So who was the greatest Republican I ever knew or even met?
ANSWER: My working-class grandfather

Who was the second greatest Republican I ever met?
ANSWER: Elliot Richardson

Linda turned out well. Clarence should be impeached. I almost had it in mind to write him a scathing letter, CC'ing the other Supremes. No sense in it.

 

[HurleyBird]

"During 2020 [approx year IIRC], 50 black males were shot and killed by the police, and 52 white males were shot and killed by police . . . .
"There must not be a problem then . . . . "

That is indeed dumb, but taking it only one step further to look at per capita without trying to account for other confounds is more or less equally bad. Easy example: if you're male, you are many, many times more likely to be shot and killed by police. The obvious explanation here isn't an anti-male bias (well, that might exist, but not to an extent which would come close to explaining the discrepancy), but that males, especially young males, are more prone to acts of physical violence.

When it comes down to racial discrepancies, if you normalize to something like violent crime or homicide rate then the discrepancies trend to insignificance. This works in both directions -- for African Americans who are far more likely to be killed than Caucasians, for Asians who are far less likely, and for groups in-between. It's a simple and certainly not perfect metric. The data collected by various law enforcement agencies is unfortunately not great, and agencies may also have their own agendas which impact reliability. You could try to incorporate more confounds (although after awhile there's a risk of finding just enough of the right factors to fit some narrative). There's also an argument that over-policing is skewing both the crime and police shooting rates. At the end of the day, it's not a simple matter.

The one thing that is indisputable is discrepancies in prosecution and sentencing. To the extent you are black, male, poor, and unattractive you get the book thrown at you. To the extent you are white, female, affluent, and attractive you get a pass. The judges and prosecutors who commit these injustices are far, far more privileged than any police officer who is not in leadership. I wish more attention was focused here, although it's understandably overshadowed by the pure emotional resonance of "the police are murdering black people."

 

[cytg111]

This response of yours is insightful, even enlightened. First, it shows that you have something I'll just call "intellectual humility." We are all ignorant in some way. I have a cousin who knows automobiles, if only the ones that burn gasoline. He's out there wading through all sorts of other information and confused between beliefs he's held and aspects that fall under the heading I mentioned of "common sense", and he's ignorant about other things. I have a dentist -- of Indian ethnicity, originally Canadian and a naturalized citizen. He's a great dentist, he has magic hands and eyes (but getting older). But he's also ignorant about a lot of things.

I was naive and ignorant when I undertook my "great" career in the civil service. Particularly, I was ignorant about politics. I somehow imagined that it shouldn't matter -- that only competence should matter. Because of Lyndon Johnson's cornpone mannerisms shared with my west-Texas uncle who had personally known George Wallace when they both served in the 509th Atom Bomb Squadron, I was not inclined to be a Democrat. I wasn't really inclined to be anything.

I began to think of myself as a Republican because I thought that the free market for my talent and industry was being swamped by affirmative action. I began to feel that I was in competition with women and minorities. In the civil service, I slowly discovered that the African-American colleagues often had more on the ball than their entitled white contemporaries. Why? Because, if they were in any way headed toward a college education, they were taught that they had to be better, they had to try harder, because they had to surmount racism in many manifestations, often subtle.

Then, during the Reagan years, I was getting close enough to the political-appointee level to see who those people really were, what they knew, what they could do. On the GOP side, they were constantly testing you about your "beliefs". You had to believe as they believed, or you weren't going to belong to the club, or get lifted up on their shoulders. I never encountered that among any Democrats I knew. You didn't have to "believe" shit.

Around the time of the Nixon presidency, you'd get the feeling that many of the GOP crowd actually believed in something I can call "good government -- people like Frank Carlucci, Casper Weinberger or Elliot Richardson. [I actually met all three at different times, but at receptions and gatherings under ASPA, so nothing of any significance relevant to me or my advancement.] There were always the myths about Democrats, like "tax and spend". But those days are gone. My grandfather was a "Republican". He walked to work with a metal lunchbox wearing bib overalls. He was the salt of the earth. He taught me to ride a bicycle. He was a good, kind person. He would never have countenanced that party as we see it today.

So you have to ask yourself some fundamental questions. First, do you believe in an ideal of "good government"? Or, do you believe in no government? Or least government? What sort of government do you want? Then, ask yourself who seems most bent on destroying our institutions, and who seems most inclined to make things work? In these last several years, there have been sharp contrasts.

You can try and look at the landscape as scientifically and objectively as you possibly can. Maybe you can make smorgasbord choices: a little of this, a little of that. Or define your self-interest, but then there is enlightened self-interest -- which we call "the public interest". Who wants to drag more of the jungle into our civilization? Who wants to expunge it? How much of the jungle do you really want? But also, what do other people want, and are their wants reasonable?

Go back and look at the Civil War. What were they thinking? One side was champion of human rights; the other side arguing for property rights. They were talking past each other, but it ultimately came down to Moral Choice. At some point, you cannot compromise on a serious matter of Moral Choice.

The Founders warned about parties -- "factions". These legislators and candidates we vote for are supposed to be "The Congressman from X District of Y county", the "Senator from ( or for) the State of Z". I don't think they were supposed to be the Congressman for the Republicans of Y county, or the Senator for the Democrats in the state of Z.

But that's not the landscape before us today. The idea, I think, in the minds of the Founders was to put Wise Men into office. Time and distance separated them from their constituencies. Even four decades ago, people would sit at a typewriter and try to compose well-written and polite letters to their elected leaders.

Today, people spit in each other's faces with 140-word drivel in Tweets.

So it's not so much about being a joiner. Everyone -- many of us -- have been fence-sitters. Many of us thought of ourselves as "Independents". Now, it comes down to a matter of Moral Choice. You never get everything you want. These are collective choices we make. We don't get a smorgasbord, unless we talk about local, state, and federal government tiers. But if it all comes down to Moral Choice, you have to choose sides, and from the recent news, one side is making war at the state level so they can override the popular vote.

Graham Greene wrote some powerful novels. He was a British journalist in Vietnam during the early 1950s. He was a devout Catholic, and many will remember "The Power and the Glory" -- which will bring many people to tears at the climax and end of the story. The most recent film rendition of "The Quiet American" was released around 2001, featuring Michael Caine and Brendon Fraser. There is an exchange between Caine's character (Greene) and a Vietnamese journalist.

"Are you a Communist?"
"I am a journalist by day, and a communist by night."
"What should I do? Should I choose sides?"
"If you are human, you should choose sides."

All the "-ism" shit is philosophy and normative idealism. It becomes political symbolism for slinging mud.

If we want to worry about belief, then it is appropriate to believe in two things.

Common sense. And the Constitution.
==========
A FOOTNOTE about name-dropping
I mentioned blowing off a high-school classmate I described as "pathological". That, and our discussion here, made me think of my earlier life, where I had been, what I had done -- people I'd met. These memories served as a sort of antidote.

I also met Clarence Thomas for about ten minutes, to get a signature on a statistical study we'd done to support a landmark civil-rights court case. There was a Coke can on his desk; I don't remember any pubic hair on it. I remember leaving his office thinking "JEEE-sus! Why do I think that guy is a real prick!?"

Then, there was Linda Chavez. She gave me advice as to whether I should stay where I was, or seek another job. I didn't take her advice. It was a mistake. I remember leaving her office -- also around 1982 -- thinking "Damn! What a hot babe! That tight gray wool skirt! Wow!"

Look at them now. What does the hot babe think about the prick?

So who was the greatest Republican I ever knew or even met?
ANSWER: My working-class grandfather

Who was the second greatest Republican I ever met?
ANSWER: Elliot Richardson

Linda turned out well. Clarence should be impeached. I almost had it in mind to write him a scathing letter, CC'ing the other Supremes. No sense in it.

Dude you should publish somewhere with a broader audience than ATPN.

 

[uallas5]

In response to the original question my answer would be the one thing I remember from business class in college (Art major). The professor always had 3 words to say for questions like this:

"Compared to what?"

 

[pmv]

I guess that’s where I differ from the average person…I think I am too stupid to not be deceived by propaganda, therefore it’s important to me to know the truth rather than feel I’m right.

Along the same lines; it’s also why I’m not a registered democrat. It’s not because my political views don’t align with theirs, it’s because I understand and worry about group think and the “my team” mentality. I understand that humans, of which I am one, can and do ignore abhorrent behavior when it’s committed by one of their “own”. Besides, loyalty to a party makes no sense to me.

Often times on this forum people think my negative attitude towards them is simply the result of them not being on “my team”, the truth is, it’s because I get frustrated and annoyed at counterpoints that fail basic fact checking. In fact learning something new and being wrong about an opinion I hold because of new factual information is awesome to me.


We know why (at least I think we do) people don’t like to be wrong or fall for propaganda, or suffer from group think or hold on to irrational viewpoints but how do we change that behavior of which is connected to our primitive mind?

I haven't been a member of any party for a long time, but I don't see that as a positive or something to be proud of, on the contrary it's just a symptom of my selfishness and extreme preoccupation with my own problems!

I think (in theory, because I'm no longer prepared to actually do it!) I think making a commitment to a 'team' is an admirable thing.

It's too easy to be a 'free thinker' or 'independent' and keep one's precious conscience pristine clean (at the expense of not actually accomplishing anything useful for anyone) - it's infinitely harder to accept the moral compromises and grubbiness of actually picking a side in the real world as it is.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wouldn't call that deliberate deception. If they said the risk increases by 25% -- as you say in the hypothetical, an increase of 0.5% -- they've presented the facts accurately or stated them accurately. The viewer is obliged to do the simple math. It may be that media could take the time to explain the matter of 4% risk.

It sure as heck is, to the exact same extent as your example in your OP. Both involve leaving out crucial information about base rates. Neither is a "lie" in the strictest sense of the word. Both are purposefully concealing information. I knew immediately what was wrong with the example you gave in your OP, and I always immediately know it when I see things like this in the MSM. But you and me and others in this thread are more savvy about math and statistics than average readers and viewers.

And I would add, that is not a lone example of this sort of reportage when it comes to its reporting on health and medical issues. It's all over their reporting, all the time. There are scads of related deceptions.

I don't think your example shows a deliberate attempt to deceive.

It might not be, if it was just this one example. However, as I said above, this kind of deception where you technically don't lie but purposefully leave out crucial information is done all the time in relation to reporting on medical and health issues. How many more examples would you like? I could write a post longer than all the existing posts in this thread combined.

Should we talk about misreporting death rates during COVID by using the wrong statistical measure, and what it did and still is doing to our economy by causing a wave of germphobia which is directly responsible for our labor shortage, which in turn is increasing inflation and hurting the dems?

Should we talk about the media's hatchet job on electronic cigarettes? Reporting that a study shows "there are carcinogens!" in e-cig vapor but not telling you the concentration found was 1/10,000th of what is found in cigarettes? Or never reporting anywhere that NiH's summary of all e-cig related research shows that on average, cigarettes have 600:1 the carinogens as e-cigs. And reporting only "studies show there are fewer carinogens in e-cigs" while never quantifying the difference for their readers?

Consequences. And after years of bombardment with this kind of propaganda, surveys show that those who believe e-cigs are safer than cigarettes went from ~70% to ~40%. There had been a big spike in long term quitting of cigarettes after e-cigs first hit the market, then years later after these surveys started showing how swayed Americans were by biased media reporting, the spike went away. In the UK, where their medical establishment and government health authorities are following the actual science, their public health doctors are starting to warn UK residents to not read US news relating to e-cigs because it isn't accurate and it's making people think e-cigs are as bad or worse than cigarettes, which is impairing their ability to reach the target goal of having a smoke free UK by 2030.

What else should we talk about? Articifial sweeteners? GMO's? We could go on and on. It's always the same issue, some study or some piece of data is reported, while other studies and other data are not. And there's a pattern to what information is given and what is not. It is undeniably an intent to deceive readers and viewers.

Here's another example from FOX.

As I said, I'd done some reading to familiarize myself with the history and methods of propaganda and psy-war. On scholarly work was written by Jacques Ellul: "Propaganda", 1964. At some point, he observes that the reason propaganda can have its intended effect on a population derives from the thinking of individuals in the public. He says it is because "They think they are too smart to be deceived, they are individuals and not part of an average" -- referring to an "average of the mass.

When Glen Beck was still a regular figure on FOX, he gave a lecture to his viewers on propaganda. He had outfitted himself like Bishop Sheen, if you remember the television appearances of the well-known cleric. He had a blackboard, chalk, the whole enchilada.

Beck insisted the propaganda (a science and an art) originated with people of a socialist inclination -- people nobody ever heard of. But, shown in the simple fact that the US had rescued sociologists and psychologists who had worked for Josef Goebbels under Hitler and salted them away in various universities, the origins of it go back to Goebbels and Harold Laswell -- among other Americans. CIA began funding projects with the university professors -- $1 billion per year over about 15 years. Walter Bedell Smith, an early CIA Director under Eisenhower, had been quoted saying that propaganda or psy-war project were a kind of prophylactic, which could significantly reduce the need for military hardware expenses.

But back to Beck. I nearly jumped out of my chair when i heard this, as he told his viewers that they couldn't be deceived by propaganda, because they were smart, they were individuals, and not part of an average. It was almost a direct quote from Ellul, turned on its head.

Now it also comes to a point where one has to ask whether some media organization has an agenda. Conversely, one could ask whether all the other media sources are somehow acting in unison, justifying the idea of the "Media Propaganda Ministry". However, in terms of simple logic, probability and the instability of networks beyond some number, it is impossible that they are all somehow working in unison to deceive the public.

There is a school of objective journalism, and a "school" of advocacy journalism. Most of the media organizations practice the former. On the other end, you have the example of the Hearst newspapers of long ago, and FOX news today.

Take for instance the matter of Trump's criminality. There are so many news stories, it is hard to enumerate or summarize them all. But every news medium is trying to get a scoop on facts. They know there are a dozen news agencies like AP, UPI, Reuters. They know they have many competitors. They know that if a competitor caught them in a deception, they would be in the news spotlight, and they would be discredited.

Some people somehow think that the prevailing media reflects some conspiratorial arrangement with an agenda for mass mind-control. But they are all just acting independently to report facts. If they have a "liberal" inclination, perhaps it is because they have some commitment to the Truth, and the only inferences one can make from the facts they present just lead in that direction.

Take for instance again the news about Trump's criminality. Enough independent sources investigating everything from Michael Cohen and Trump's criminal violations over FEC law and Stormy Daniels, to the unearthed boxes of tax returns from years earlier. And so one has to ask: Well, why haven't the media dug up all the dirt on Obama? Concluding, of course, that the entire media is bent on destroying Trump. And, because they are "liberal", because they are "soo-shal-ist" -- they treated Obama differently. But with multiple media competing and keeping their eyes on each other in the matter of what is True and what isn't, that's an ignorant conclusion -- a fantasy.

The simple answer with that: Obama wasn't a criminal. Like Laura Ingraham, you can defy sane human understanding and say that he was a criminal anyway -- even if there aren't any facts to prove it. But with no facts, you're either living in a bubble or deceiving yourself -- almost to the point of being insane.

You don't have to be a Lemming to feel some comfortable trust in a handful of media organizations. You can cross-verify what they report, unless you are lazy or stupid. The reason some people gravitate toward FOX derives from at least a handful of their personal traits.

They believe that everything people with contrary beliefs read is simply absorbed without question. In fact, in their laziness, they have no inclination to gather facts on their own and prove to their own satisfaction that something is TRUE or FALSE. They are the ones who simply accept what they read or view as true, when it supports their beliefs. That explains their urgency to ban books in public schools. Pure belief has no factual foundation. It is the cart put before the horse. If facts and the truth are troubling or frightening, they have to find an alternative to sooth themselves, even if the palaver whips them into an angry frenzy.

So they'll pick the maverick -- with the cart before the horse, with "alternative facts' cherry-picked to comfort the Lemmings in their desire about how the world should really be, when they're disturbed at confronting how it really is.

It just gets back to a simple matter. If you find a campaign and agenda of deception in a news source, even if it comforts your beliefs about the world as you want it to be, why would a person in their common sense continue to waste their time with an unreliable source of fact or an unreliable presentation of fact?

I suggest it points up a deficiency in our educational system. People either don't have the time or they don't have the inclination to fully inform themselves. They simply want to be told what to think, or to be comforted that what they think is a matter of Common Sense.

I'm not going to defend Fox News on anything. They are a cesspool of rightwing propaganda, and it extends to out and out lying. And it's threatening democracy itself. There's a good reason they will likely be found liable and have to pay 10 figure damages to Dominion and Smartmatic. Rupert Murdoch and Fox News will go down in history as a major force in destablizing western democracy and empowering fascists.

But there are consequences to cherry picking imporant information, no matter what outlet is doing it. I don't care if the media's motive is to increase their revenues through promoting sensationalism, or if it's a different agenda. A responsible media treats their readers and viewers like adults, and provides them with all pertinent information so that they can make informed decisions.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

HurleyBird

I think I totally agree with your observations here. Of course, this was the focus of my high-school classmate and my cousin: addressing the issue that FOX had presented and then casually dismissed.

You could design some statistical tests, even, as you say and I agree, the police department data is not accurate and often white-washed. If one were planning to use "discriminant analysis" or "probit-and-logit" or several other techniques or even several different tests, they may prove the case, but the deniers would reject it all for the complexity. To them, it would all be mumbo-jumbo. Again, I think that basic statistics and probability should be part of a high-school curriculum along with traditiional algebra. But imagine your alternative Christian "Day School". You want the students to experiment with dice, playing cards -- tossing pennies. It wouldn't go over well.

See, I don't think a year's collection of the shooting data proves anything conclusively, even as the suspicion of it leads a sensible person to "believe" that it does. Instead, we have the clear, cellphone-video recorded anecdotal information and other facts going back to Trayvon Martin. You can go back further to the Tyeesha Miller shooting here in my home town. Go back further to the time I was still in college with the "Riverside Three" and the Ambush Murders of Christensen and Tiel. None of those three men had ever met before their initial arraignment. They were caught up in a police dragnet, pushed through three successive trials. I personally knew Larrie Gardner: his life was ruined. Gary Lawton, the USMC veteran and community activist -- ruined as well, and he moved to the Bay Area.

But those events occurred a long time ago, and we're interested in what has happened -- say -- since 2013.

My main point stands. The FOX presentation was an outright lie, whatever it proves or doesn't prove.

cytg111

Sometimes, the forums give me a chance to vent and rattle on. I have software and hardware questions. In "Garage", I've posted about my beloved Trooper. I've got nimble fingers, and can find time for this even if I have housework and other monumental chores.

There was once an archaeologist named Heinrich Schliemann. Throughout a good part of AD history, people thought that the city of Troy was mythical, or that Homer's Iliad was a mythological fiction. Schliemann discovered the lost city of Troy.

I made a discovery. I mentioned earlier my interest in psy-war and propaganda and how it arose. I could publish a sample of it here. I was supposed to write a book, analyzing the printed works of two low-level CIA men -- one a Watergate burglar. I can tell you that what Jim DiEugenio and Oliver Stone suspect, I know. People aren't interested anymore. The last November propaganda-fest on TV was in 2013. If they're not attentive, if they don't know anything, if they're confused with the many stories of the propaganda-fests, they laugh with a dismissal that suggests you're off your rocker.

But, I was getting started on that project in 2016, and in 2017, Moms had her first accident and broke her hip the first time. I have been tethered to this house since 2005 since she stopped driving her Toyota. I'm the primary caregiver. My disabled brother who lived with us died in January, and this year has been the worst of my 74 years. I'm exhausted. I think we'll be getting veteran's benefits because of my father's service, and I've finally got an in-home-care outfit coming in here three times a week. Even at $33/hour, it is a serious burden lifted from my shoulders. Moms is getting her diaper changed right now as I write this. If the VA benefits are approved -- no reason they shouldn't be -- we'll go from paying out $1,200/mo for 9hrs/wk to $600/mo for 15hrs/wk. Just a couple more loose ends to tie up about COVID boosters and medical transport, then my eye surgery in October.

After that, I can see tapping an occasional tablet from Moms' Xanax bottle because I worry incessantly about the future -- what of it there is left. I think it's the End Of The World -- water depletion, bad weather, wildfires; dangerous people in politics, then later -- maybe food shortages, panic migrations from around the equator. I want plenty of steaks in the freezer and a well-stocked pantry, because I plan to punch out gracefully and well-fed. I just hope the freezer keeps getting power. Moms could live well past 100. If not, I hope there's still cheap property in Alaska.

pmv

I always laughed during campaign season, with the bunting and the straw hats. Looking back, I was keeping my head buried in my textbooks then, but I wish I'd joined the demonstrators at the 1968 Chicago convention. About that, I recommend a PBS "Independent Lens" film entitled "Chicago 10".

The only way a two-party system serves the country, is with a custodial sense of responsibility on both sides. There are hot issues, like abortion, voting rights, immigration. But running the government requires a team; the leader and spokesperson must have administrative experience and skill. This last time around, we've had serious damage done to various agencies and institutions, and the civil service, and they intend to do more harm to the civil service if re-elected. We had elected a life-long criminal who had the resources to walk between the raindrops of the justice system all his life.

We're at a crossroads. If you want to believe in some ideology -- fine. But consider the practical matters, the common sense, and the history. We now have threats to institutions that have been established over the last 100 years and likely contributed to a general sense of well-being and prosperity along with everything else. They shouldn't be able to turn it upside down in a presidential term. That's a matter for Congress. Grid-lock? The 60% rule for Senate decisions? Change it, or too bad. If they want to eliminate Social Security, let the congressmen take the heat for it. I can assure you -- it won't happen, and it shouldn't happen.

I've been watching the election returns from the state primaries. I think I'm agnostic -- haven't been in a church for 27 years. But I don't know what else to do. Let us pray . . . .

 

[Zorba]

As an MD it's my duty to inform everyone (even though you admit to making up the numbers for illustrative purposes here) that in reality only 10-20% of lung cancers are in never-smokers.

But to answer your question, you can't interpret those findings without knowing how many people in the study population are smokers and non-smokers. If your population has significantly less than 50% smokers, then smoking would be a serious risk factor. That is, of course, ignoring confounders.

OT: My friend's dad never smoked and lead the lobbying effort to ban smoking in indoor spaces in Oklahoma. He later died of lung cancer.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

OT: My friend's dad never smoked and lead the lobbying effort to ban smoking in indoor spaces in Oklahoma. He later died of lung cancer.

Heh. Did I mention this before? I love classic cinema, and that includes great American westerns. "Hombre" was released in 1967, with Paul Newman, Richard Boone, Frederic March, Martin Balsam, Frank Silvera, Barbara Rush and Diane Cilento. I always remember the climactic scene at the end:

GRIMES [Boone]: Mister -- you gotta lotta hard bark on you . . .
JOHN RUSSELL [Newman]: Everybody's gotta die sometime -- it's just a matter of when . . .
[THE GUNS . . . . ]
MORTALLY WOUNDED BANDIDO [Silvera] TO THE SURVIVORS: Thee HOM-bre! I wan' . . . . to know . . . . hees name . . .

What do we worry about most? The pain and discomfort of our passing? Dying alone? Leaving a mess behind us? Whether the road forks or just ends, and which way after that?

Or just having someone remember us?

I think about this often these days . . . Does that mean something that I also need to worry about? More Xanax!

 

[DaaQ]

Heh. Did I mention this before? I love classic cinema, and that includes great American westerns. "Hombre" was released in 1967, with Paul Newman, Richard Boone, Frederic March, Martin Balsam, Frank Silvera, Barbara Rush and Diane Cilento. I always remember the climactic scene at the end:

GRIMES [Boone]: Mister -- you gotta lotta hard bark on you . . .
JOHN RUSSELL [Newman]: Everybody's gotta die sometime -- it's just a matter of when . . .
[THE GUNS . . . . ]
MORTALLY WOUNDED BANDIDO [Silvera] TO THE SURVIVORS: Thee HOM-bre! I wan' . . . . to know . . . . hees name . . .

What do we worry about most? The pain and discomfort of our passing? Dying alone? Leaving a mess behind us? Whether the road forks or just ends, and which way after that?

Or just having someone remember us?

I think about this often these days . . . Does that mean something that I also need to worry about? More Xanax!

This one here, what do we worry about the most.

I never wanted to bring children into this world. I am now 49.

I have custody of my 2 granddaghters from my oldest son. I have ALOT of resentment because of it. I now must keep on keeping on for them.

My wife and I were divorced for 8 or 9 years, IDR it really don't matter. We got back together though. Been like 15 years now, I still don't remember how correct this is.

Main point is we did not suffer empty nest syndrome at all. But we were forced into our situation. Now I know I will work until I die or cannot any longer. There will be no inheritance really, other than employer provided life ins stuff. Which isn't all too much.

I guess what I worry about most, is the movie A Quiet Place, I think is the name of it. Or really any post apocalyptic type movie, I will probably not survive to see these girls be successful, or even worse is I will survive to see them turn out to be unsuccessful.