[ POLL ] Principles of Journalism.

Post Reply New Topic

Overall, those seem reasonable. I think when looking at the details things begin to fall apart. If I use my conscience as my guide and I am deeply religious, then how do I view that bias? I would also question if "both sides" of a story need to be addressed. For example, climate science has basically one side--any "science" showing he current state of climate science is "wrong" is just erroneous. Likewise, articles on the causes of autism do not have to put in vaccines as a cause as that has been debunked even though that is a "side."

Maybe what you are getting to is how do you eliminate bias in reporting? How do you eliminate bias in a person, who by definition will be biased? No reporter or publisher is free from bias.

Which kind of leads to the consumer. Why do we have so much questionable journalism. Mostly because it sells. And just as journalists are biased, so are readers. And there are no professional code of ethics for readers.

Basically, it comes down to an information ecosystem. Right now, not only is information widely available, the tools to publish are as well.

BTW, if you want to see how far attitudes to journalism have changed, watch the 1940s movie His Girl Friday.

I agree with the ethics statements.

A lot of this is also applicable to scientific research. No surprise.

Lots of climate sciences involves forecasting. By providing both min/max estimates based off of different scenarios, they are providing multiple sides/interpretations.

That would not be multiple sides or interpretations, but simply difference in degree--the model does not change, just the values in the underlying variables based on differing assumptions.

What I am talking about is contrary hypotheses denying the science. There is no other side to anthropomorphic warming.

Providing multi scenarios is most certainty multiple interpretations and there is a lot more differences than just the values of underlying variables. Climate models are big complex things. You can read more about them here if you're interested:

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

An important note is that models DO NOT provide the truth, merely the best approximation of the complex natural world. The above website uses a bad term 'valid'. What they really mean is calibrated.

Climate modelers have tested the hypothesis on nonanthropomorphic climate change, i.e. natural climate variations. That was certainly a part of the process for reaching the conclusion of anthropomorphic climate change.

Lastly, questioning the basic physics of earth processes that go into the architecture of making models due to either lack of education or dubious motives is not a side.

This is all just informational

Sorry for going off topic of the thread