THE DOG THAT DIDNT HOWL! Steve Benen marveled at one machine, but averted his gaze from another: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010
Climate change, the Post and dream logic: Man [sic] is the rational animal, we western-worlders keep telling ourselves. Alas! A look at the way we actually reason appeared in yesterdays Washington Post.
The news report in question (click here) dealt with climate change.
According to the APs Seth Borenstein, the UNs climate science panel (the IPCC) is seeking independent outside review for how it makes major reports. This raises an obvious question: Why would the IPCC do that?
Borenstein is a perfectly capable science reporter. But a peculiar dream logic invades his report in just its second paragraph, as he addresses that question. According to Borenstein, critics of the IPCC have found a few errors in the bodys reports. To our taste, the logic on display in this passage seems to be that of the dream:
Strange. According to Borenstein, critics have found a few errors in the IPCCs reports. But these reports run thousands of pages, he goes out of his way to note. This raises another fairly obvious question: Why would anyone be surprised (or unsettled) if they found a few errors in such a large body of detailed work? Wouldnt a sensible person expect to find a few errors?
In our view, the puzzle grows stronger as Borenstein continues. In the second paragraph weve quoted, he reports that scientists say the errors in question are minorthat they range from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing. (By the way: If were talking about a few errors, have these critics really found typos in key dates? Typos? In the plural?)
Further questions from inside this dream: Why would a few errors resonate in poll results and news media coverage? Why would a few errors put climate scientists on the defensive? Borenstein never speaks to these basic questions. Sadly, the process he describes, and largely accepts, typifies the broken way our public discourse routinely works:
Routinely, interest groups seek out trivial errors, or trivial misstatements, by some person or group they oppose. (If they cant find any actual misstatements, they may just make a few up.) They will then screech, howl, rend their garments and wail, claiming that these trivial errors discredit some very large body of work. (Interests groups may even seize upon a few snowstorms, proceeding to screech about them!) And alas! If the interest group is backed by sufficient power, journalists and news organizations may defer to their screeching and wailing. Instead of questioning the basic idea that a few errors could undermine a large body of work, they may advance this peculiar dream logiceven where, as in this case, the writer seems to see that the logic may not be real strong.
Should these few errors be unsettling? Borenstein makes no attempt to say. He quotes one critic, Roger Pielke, who hits the IPCC fairly hard. But he doesnt ask Pielke an obvious question: Why exactly should a few errors leave us rubes unsettled?
There may be an answer, but Borenstein doesnt ask. We have our own question: Why is that?
Background on a few errors: If you want more detail about a few errors, just click this trio of links:
For Borensteins original report (January 20), just click this.
For a subsequent front-page report in the Washington Post (February 16), just click here.
For a letter complaining about that report, click this link.
Should those few errors be resonating in media coverage? We link, you decide.
Fred Hiatt wouldnt name names: After that ludicrous screeching about a few snowstorms, the Washington Post semi-pushed back in a scientifically strong editorial. But even here, the Post failed to name the three Republican senators who had so loudly played the fool about those meaningless storms. Sean Hannity didnt get mentioned either. Instead, the Post bravely attacked the know-nothingism of a no-name Virginia state official. To see power eat Fred Hiatts board for lunch, you know what to do: Click this.
THE DOG THAT DIDNT HOWL (permalink): Oof. In yesterdays Washington Post, David Broder adapted an old suggestion. Lets take took a look at the numbers, The Dean of All Pundits said.
The Dean had attended a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. Granted, the featured guests at the breakfast were both Republicans; one was Bill McInturff, a well-known Republican pollster. But McInturffs data seemed fairly standard. In this passage, Broder rattled a few numbers off:
If you support the congressional bills, those are gruesome numbers. But they seem to track the Washington Posts own recent poll, in which 38 percent strongly opposed the health reform bills, with only 22 percent strongly in favor.
A bit later, Broder discussed some basic differences in the ways the two parties approach health reform. At one point, he cited more McInturff data:
Oof. If McInturffs polling can be believed, the public isnt clamoring for the extension of coverage we liberals tend to talk about. According to Broder, twice as many people said that making health care more affordable is an important goal.
Warning! Polling can be tricky in matters like this, where voters are asked to state a vew about something they may not have considered in depth. That said, lets return to the basics: The Washington Posts poll, like McInturffs, found beaucoup people strongly opposed to the existing plans. This follows a year of discussion about health reform, our sides top domestic goal.
Simple story: Within those basic polling numbers, our side is getting mangled. Again.
Yesterday, Steve Benen marveled at this general syndrome. He cited this front-page report in the New York Times, written by reporter Reed Abelson. In Steves view, Abelson did a great job today exploring the real-world consequences if Democrats fail to follow through by passing their health reform plan. If reform comes up short, Steve wrote, costs will soar, budgets will be pushed towards bankruptcy, the ranks of the uninsured will grow, those lacking coverage will die, premiums will get even more unaffordable, and our economic growth and workers' wages will be stunted. As he closed his post, he stated his general reaction:
Steve marveled at the publics oppositionthe opposition reflected in McInturffs poll. As he closed, he stated his own reaction: The efficacy of the right-wing noise machine is really a sight to behold.
We dont disagree with Steve about that. But we were struck by the dog which didnt howl. Is the ineptitude of the liberal machine also perhaps a sight to behold?
Despite our own acknowledged brilliance, we liberals rarely ask that question. We would suggest that it really is, a point well discuss all week.
Tomorrow: Sean Hannity clearly explains.