For most of the past year I have been hammering on the media for their destructive COVID fear-mongering. By always cherry-picking the most alarmist opinion on every topic, and filling articles with carefully calibrated fear-provoking language, they have made us all dumber.
Let me give you one example. For literally months, day after day, our AZ papers have been screaming that emergency rooms are filling up and telling the public they may soon be lying untreated on some hallway floor or not allowed into a hospital at all. The articles were in my email every morning -- maybe some day I need to piece together a supercut montage of them all but my guess is most of you have experienced something similar.
I know zero about hospital management but even I can look at ICU data and see that the narrative is substantially more complex than what is in the media. Here is the AZ state tracking report on state ICU bed utilization -- dark gray is total and red is COVID-related in some way.
The implication in the media is always that a 80% full ICU plus the equivalent of 30% of the beds with new COVID patients = zero capacity and people dying with no treatment. But that is clearly not what happens. AZ ICU's have run at 80+% capacity utilization since June 1, while COVID bed use in that time has drifted from 10% to 60% but we were never out of capacity.
There is clearly some complex management process the goes on with the management of ICU capacity. In fact, it seems like someone knows what they are doing here. Why don't we ever, ever get to hear that story? I can't think of one hospital administrator I have seen interviewed in our local papers discussing how this management process works. The only people they ever interview seems to be that one nurse with PTSD screaming that her hospital is a dystopian nightmare.
Perhaps this capacity management is being done with little cost, deferring non-urgent cases. Perhaps someone is missing out on care to defer to the COVID folks. Perhaps this is entirely normal in every winter flu season. We don't know because apparently the media has decided it is not interesting, or at least not as interesting as the reactions they get when they have everyone as scared as possible.
the Dallas Cowboys cheerleader reality show — consider it the Hard Knocks of cheerleading — is back for its 15th season. CMT announced today it’s bringing back Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team for one of the more interesting seasons in show history due to COVID-19.
I have never even heard of this show, much less seen it, and it is on its 15th season**. In my youth, any show on its 15th season would have been known to all, whether one watched it or not. Fewer than 10 prime-time series before the year 2000 even made it to 15 seasons, and even the ones that made only 9 or 10 seasons were part of the national zeitgeist and familiar to about everyone (e.g. Gunsmoke, MASH, Cheers, Hawaii 5-0, Perry Mason, Beverly Hillbillies, etc.). It's amazing to me how niche shows can find an audience and continue to make economic sense today in a totally different way than used to be possible.
Modern music, of course, has been through roughly the same changes. Of the eleven albums with the longest runs as Billboard #1, only one (Adele 21) was released in this millenium and only one other after 1990.
Quick: According to Wikipedia, what is the longest running show on cable at 44 seasons? That is 5 more seasons than ESPN SportsCenter. I could not have named it if you had given me 200 guesses.
** I am not dissing the show or its audience. If you love this show, there likely is another example out there of a show on its 15th season of which you have never heard.
Last weekend I watched both the Leaving Neverland documentary about Michael Jackson and the Out for Blood documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos.
The Theranos documentary was fine -- Theranos is an amazing story and any documentary on it is naturally going to be engaging. My only issue with it was that it was very spare compared to the depth of the Bad Blood book. The documentary worked a bit too hard trying to be too stylized. I would have rather a faster-paced, harder hitting approach. But if you have not read the book, it is definitely worth your time.
On the other hand, the Michael Jackson documentary was simply riveting. I really had zero desire to sit and watch 4 hours on child molesting, but I was totally engrossed. The individuals telling the story were so articulate and honest that I just got sucked in to the story. The whole thing was simply devastating. And as an aside, the B-reel footage used in cut scenes and such was simply beautiful.
I find the WSJ to be more readable than most modern newspapers, but that does not mean it doesn't play exactly the same silly media games every other media outlet does.
This article is about a legitimately dangerous dam in California that is being rebuilt to accommodate new learning about how earthen dams behave in seismic events. The authors attempt to extrapolate from this example to highlight a larger threat to the nation. They use this chart:
A reader who is not careful and does not read the fine print, which means probably most all of them, will assume that "dangerous" and "hazardous" as used in this chart refers to dams that are somehow deficient. But in fact, these terms in this chart refer only to the fact that IF a particular dam were to fail, people and property might be at risk. The data here say nothing about whether these dams are somehow deficient. Actually, if anything, I am surprised the number by this definition is as small as 30%.
The actual number of deficient dams that are dangerous to human life is actually an order of magnitude smaller than these numbers, as given in the text:
An estimated 27,380 or 30% of the 90,580 dams listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn’t break out which ones are deficient.
So if we accept the ASCE numbers as valid (and I am always skeptical of their numbers, they tend to exaggerate in order to try to generate business for their profession) the actual numbers of dams that are really hazardous is no more than 2,170. That strikes me as a reasonably high number, and certainly a good enough reason to write a story, but the media simply cannot help themselves and insist on exaggerating every risk higher than it is.
Why would a public broadcast channel air a documentary that is produced by a right-wing think tank and funded by ultra-conservative donors, and that presents a single point of view without meaningful critique, all the while denigrating public education?
Well, if public funding means that PBS should not air anything critical of public institutions, its time to end the public funding. Robertson simply confirms what critics have been saying for years, that public funding makes PBS an agent of the state, and there is not much we need less today than state-sponsored television**
** I will add that I watch way more PBS than the average person and donate to it every year. I often don't agree with their editorial policy and if it really ticked me off enough I suppose I would stop donating. My opposition to state funding of PBS has nothing to do with my enjoying its product. Ironically, I actually think that it might be worse without state funding because I think the shaming about lack of balance that goes with the funding tends to put a small brake on its management's tendency to go hard Left. But that is irrelevant to the principle that state-funded media is a bad idea.
I use the term "publication bias" to describe how easy it is to confuse the frequency with which the media reports on a phenomena with the underlying frequency of the phenomena itself. A great example is Summer of the Shark:
...let's take a step back to 2001 and the "Summer of the Shark." The media hysteria began in early July, when a young boy was bitten by a shark on a beach in Florida. Subsequent attacks received breathless media coverage, up to and including near-nightly footage from TV helicopters of swimming sharks. Until the 9/11 attacks, sharks were the third biggest story of the year as measured by the time dedicated to it on the three major broadcast networks' news shows.
Through this coverage, Americans were left with a strong impression that something unusual was happening -- that an unprecedented number of shark attacks were occurring in that year, and the media dedicated endless coverage to speculation by various "experts" as to the cause of this sharp increase in attacks.
Except there was one problem -- there was no sharp increase in attacks. In the year 2001, five people died in 76 shark attacks. However, just a year earlier, 12 people had died in 85 attacks. The data showed that 2001 actually was a down year for shark attacks.
A lot of folks are now commenting on the apparent "spate" of airline incidents. This "spate" began with United dragging Dr. David Dao, a man who would not give up his seat for a United employee, off an aircraft. Seemingly every day sees a new story. This headline about "yet another airline incident" is typical.
I have no data on the underlying phenomenon here, but I would be willing to bet there is no upward trend in airline incidents of this sort. My guess is that the combination of increasingly ubiquitous cell phone cameras, publication platforms like Instagram and Facebook, and most importantly a focus by the media on looking for this sort of story after the United incident are causing an uptick in coverage rather than an uptick in actual incidents.
I don't know if this is coming from the media folks present in the room or the Trump side, but the New York Post has a pretty complete record of Trump's "off the record" meeting with the media. Yet another reason not to trust the media -- they don't follow their own rules.
I wrote last week that I thought the whole "fake news" thing was just another excuse for censorship from the Left. I think the problem in online political discourse is not so much with "fake news" but mis-characterized news -- ie the problem is not the news itself but the headline and spin that are layered on top of it.
From time to time I get absolutely inundated with comments on some post from folks who are not regular readers. When I read these comments, my first question is, "did they even read the article?" And you know what I have learned? They did not. Someone on some other web site has written some odd summary of what I have written, spun to fit whatever narrative they are pushing, and then sent folks to my site, who comment on the article as if that 3rd party summary was an accurate precis of the article, eliminating the need for anyone to actually read it. The article I wrote years ago called the Teacher Salary Mythstill to this day generates hostile comments and emails because the NEA and various other organizations love to link it with some scare summary like "this author is happy you can't afford to feed your family" and send 'em on over to troll.
Here is my experience from reading most partisan websites on both sides of the aisle: the facts of an article linked, if you really read it, seldom match the headline that sent me over to it. Here is an example I pick only because it is the most recent one in my news feed. Apparently, according to blog headlines all over, a professor at Rutgers threatened on twitter to kill all white people and was thus dragged off to well-deserved psych evaluation. The Breitbart headline, for example, was: "Rutgers University Professor Taken in for Psych Evaluation for Tweets Threatening to Kill White People."
But if you read even their own article, you can find the tweet in question: "will the 2nd amendment be as cool when i buy a gun and start shooting at random white people or no…?” Yes, I know it is horrible that a professor at a major university has so little facility with English, but beyond that I am not sure how any reasonable observer can take this as a threat. He is clearly making a point that folks might change their opinion on gun control if lots of white folks, rather than black folks I assume, got shot. I actually think he is wrong -- people would have the opposite reaction -- but it is true that a far higher percentage of blacks fall victim to gun violence than whites and I don't think this formulation of his is an unacceptable way to raise this topic. It is really no different than when I asked, any number of times, how New Yorkers' opinion of stop and frisk would change if it was done at the corner of 5th and 50th (in Midtown) rather than in black neighborhoods. The scary part of this, if you ask me, is a professor was dragged into psych evaluation like he was Winston Smith or something.
So here is my advice for the day -- before you retweet or repost or like on Facebook -- click through to the link and see that it says what you think it says. I have not always followed my own advice but many times when I have not, I have regretted it.
When some sort of "bad" phenomenon is experiencing a random peak, stories about this peak flood the media. When the same "bad" phenomenon has an extraordinarily quiet year, there are no stories in the media. This (mostly) innocuous media habit (based on their incentives) creates the impression among average folks that the "bad" phenomenon is on the rise, even when there is no such trend.
Case in point: tornadoes. How many stories have you seen this year about what may well be a record low year for US tornadoes?
Extreme lack of extreme with tornadoes. Will need "second season" to stop it from being quietest year on record! pic.twitter.com/PuBvgjJBvn
Postscript: By the way, some may see the "inflation-adjusted" term in the heading of the chart and think that is a joke, but there is a real adjustment required. Today we have doppler radar and storm chasers and all sorts of other tornado detection tools that did not exist in, say, 1950. So tornado counts in 1950 are known to understate actual counts we would get today and thus can't be compared directly. Since we did not miss many of the larger tornadoes in 1950, we can adjust the smaller numbers based on the larger numbers. This is a well-known effect and an absolutely necessary adjustment, though Al Gore managed to completely fail to do so when he discussed tornadoes in An Inconvenient Truth. Which is why the movie got the Peace prize, not a science prize, from the crazy folks in Oslo.
I have written a numberof times in the past that the media is often reluctant to publish potential issues about pending legislation that they support -- but, once the legislation is passed, the articles about problems with the legislation or potential unintended consequences soon come out, when it is too late to affect the legislative process. My guess is that these media outlets want the legislation to pass, but they want to cover their butts in the future, so they can say "see, we discussed the potential downsides -- we are even-handed."
I don't know if this practice spills over from legislation to elections, but if it does, we should see the hard-hitting articles about Hillary Clinton sometime in December.
To measure the states that are most attractive to Americans on the move, we developed an “attraction” ratio that measures the number of domestic in-migrants per 100 out-migrants. A state that has a rating of 100 would be perfectly balanced between those leaving and coming.
Overall, the biggest winner — both in absolute numbers and in our ranking — is Texas. In 2014 the Lone Star State posted a remarkable 156 attraction ratio, gaining 229,000 more migrants than it lost, roughly twice as many as went to No. 3 Florida, which clocked an impressive 126.7 attraction ratio.
Most of the top gainers of domestic migrants are low-tax, low-regulation states, including No. 2 South Carolina, with an attraction ratio of 127.3, as well as No. 5 North Dakota, and No. 7 Nevada. These states generally have lower housing costs than the states losing the most migrants.
So what would you expect to see next? A nice graphic -- a bar chart perhaps but at least a color-coded map -- showing the data for all 50 states. But no, we can't have that. All we get is this clicky thing -- the same technology used by web sites to show the "you won't believe what these 10 child actors look like today" results. 20+ page views to see 20% of the data.
There appears to be no rational way to explain Ryan Lochte's bizarre need to make up a story about being the victim of an armed robbery. The media seems to be pushing the notion that he made up the story to cover up his own vandalism at a gas station, but that makes zero sense. He had already defused the vandalism incident with a payment of cash to the station owner. The rational response would be to just shut up about the whole thing and let it be forgotten.
But instead, he purposely made a big deal about the incident, switching around the facts until he was a victim of an armed assault by men posing as police officers, up to and including harrowing details of a cocked gun being jammed into his forehead. The incident, likely ignored otherwise, suddenly became a BIG DEAL and subsequent investigation (including multiple video sources) showed Lochte to be a bald-faced liar.
The only way I can explain Lochte's motivation is to equate it with the lies by "Jackie" at the University of Virginia, whose claims of being gang-raped as published in the Rolling Stone turned out to be total fabrications. Like Lochte, she dressed up the story with horrifying details, such as being thrown down and raped on a floor covered in broken glass. The only real difference I can see, in fact, between Lochte and Jackie is that the media still protects Jackie (via anonymity) from well-deserved humiliation for her lies while it is piling on Lochte.
I can sort of understand Jackie's motivation -- she was by all accounts a frustrated, perhaps disturbed, certainly lonely young woman who was likely looking for some way to dramatically change her life. But Lochte? Ryan Lochte has won multiple Olympic medals, historically in the sports world a marker of the highest possible status. But in today's world, Lochte viewed victimhood as even higher status.
I don't have any particular comment on the Supreme Court decision in Voisine v. United States, but I have to highlight the headline that was just shared with me on Facebook:
Another Big Win: SCOTUS Just Banned Domestic Abusers From Owning Firearms
Um, pretty sure that is not what happened.
First, convicted domestic abusers generally are already banned from owning firearms.
Second, I am fairly certain that SCOTUS did not ban anything (not surprising since they don't have a Constitutional power to ban anything). There was some legal uncertainty in the definitions of certain terms in a law (passed by Congress and signed by the President) that restricted gun ownership based on certain crimes. This dispute over the meaning of these terms bounced back and forth in the courts until the Supreme Court took the case and provided the final word on how the terms should be interpreted by the judicial system.
This decision strikes me as a pretty routine sort of legal result fixing a niche issue in the interpretation of terms of the law. How niche? Well apparently Voisine was convicted (multiple times) of "“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” hurting his girlfriend. The facts of the case made it pretty clear that he was beating on her on purpose, but he argued that due to the "or" in the wording of the crime he was convicted of, as far as the law is concerned he might have only been convicted of recklessness which shouldn't be covered under the gun ownership ban. Really, this silliness should never have reached the Supreme Court, and did (in my interpretation) only because second amendment questions were involved, questions stripped off by SCOTUS. Freed on any Second Amendment implications, SCOTUS rightly slapped his argument down as stupid and said he was subject to the ban. Seems sensible to me, and this sort of thing happens literally constantly in the courts -- the only oddball thing in my mind was how this incredibly arcane niche issue made it to the SCOTUS.
Instead, the article is breathless about describing this incredibly niche case as closing a "gaping loophole." It is written as if it is some seminal event that overturns a horror just one-notch short of concentration camps -- "This is a win for feminism, equality in the home, and in finally making movements on reigning in this country’s insane, libertarian approach to gun-owning." And then of course the article bounces around in social media, making everyone who encounters it just a little bit dumber.
A while back, I was asked to write a short essay answering the question of whether the National Parks should be privatized.
Let me show you the first paragraph and a half of my answer, because I want to use it to make a point:
Should National Park’s be privatized, in the sense that they are turned entirely over to private owners? No. Public lands are in public hands for a reason — the public wants the government, not, say, Ritz-Carlton, to decide the use and character and access to the land. No one wants a McDonald’s in front of Old Faithful, a common fear I hear time and again when privatization is mentioned.
However, once the agency determines the character of and facilities on the land, should their operation (as opposed to their ownership) be privatized? Sure. The NPS faces hundreds of millions of dollars in capital needs and deferred maintenance. It is crazy to use its limited budget to have Federal civil service employees cleaning bathrooms and manning the gatehouse, when private companies have proven they can do a quality job so much less expensively....
It goes on from there, but I think that is a fairly nuanced and balanced answer, particularly given that I am probably the most vocal advocate in the country for public-private partnerships in public recreation.
But that nuance is not really interesting to the media. They like point-counterpoint polarization. So a web site called Blue Ridge Outdoors reprints me answer, but they edit it:
YES
No one wants a McDonald’s in front of Old Faithful, a fear I hear time and again when privatization is mentioned. However, once the government determines how to manage a particular park, should its operation be privatized? Sure. The National Park Service faces hundreds of millions of dollars in capital needs and deferred maintenance. It is crazy to use that limited budget for federal employees to clean bathrooms and man the gatehouse, when private companies have proven they can do a quality job much less expensively.
So my answer, which is pretty much "no" gets edited to a "YES" and the entire first paragraph of nuance is deleted. And we wonder why the world seems polarized?
Here is the magazine rack at my local Fry's Electronics store. They used to sell a huge array of magazines. Now they are selling blank notebook paper and spiral notebooks
It is bad enough that magazines were seen as a poor enough product that they get replaced by a bunch of generic, low-value, presumably low-margin items. But I find it especially ironic that periodicals have been replaced by blank bound paper. It implies that the paper in the magazines had value but the writing on them somehow reduced that value, such that they would rather just sell paper that is blank.
How did Disney buy Star Wars for only $4 billion? I first saw this question asked by Kevin Drum, though I can't find the link (and I am not going to feel guilty about it after Mother Jones banned me for some still-opaque reason). But Disney is going to release a new movie every year, and if it is anything like the Marvel franchise, they are going to milk it for a lot of money. Plus TV tie-ins. Plus merchandising. Plus they are rebuilding much of their Hollywood Studios park at DisneyWorld in a Star Wars theme.
The answer is that this is the kind of deal that makes trading in a free market a win-win rather than zero-sum. Lucas, I think, was played out and had no ability, or no desire, to do what it would take to make the franchise worth $4 billion. On the flip side Disney is freaking good a milking a franchise for all its worth (there is none better at this) and so $4 billion is starting to appear cheap from their point of view.
By the way, Disney is going to need the profits from Star Wars to fill in the hole ESPN is about to create. A huge percentage of the rents in the cable business have historically flowed to ESPN, which is able to command per-subscriber fees from cable companies that dwarf any other network. Times are a-changin' though, as pressure increases from consumers to unbundle. If cable companies won't unbundle, then consumers will do it themselves, cutting the cable and creating their own bundles from streaming offerings.
ESPN is already seeing falling subscriber numbers, and everyone thinks this is just going to accelerate. ESPN is in a particularly bad position when revenues fall, because most of its costs are locked up under long-term contracts for the acquisition of sports broadcasting rights. It can't easily cut costs to keep up with falling revenues. It is like a bank that has lent long and borrowed short, and suddenly starts seeing depositors leave. And this is even before discussing competition, which has exploded -- every major pro sports league has its own network, major college athletic conferences have their own network, and competitors such as Fox and NBC seem to keep adding more channels.
The date was September 15, 2004. Trends take years to manifest, but often there is a watershed event at which one can say a tipping point has been reached. Such was the case when the New York Times ran the headline:
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: NATIONAL GUARD; Memos on Bush Are Fake But Accurate, Typist Says
"Fake but Accurate" has become, even when the words differ slightly, a common refrain in post-modern journalism. It is a statement that the narrative matters more than facts, and that the truth or falsity of a narrative would no longer be judged solely on facts and logic.
I have zero opinion about the quality or quantity of President Bush's military service, but the memos in question were unquestionably fake. They used printing technology that did not exist at the time. They exactly mirrored Microsoft Word's default settings for font and margin. The person who supposedly typed the memos said she never did so, and no one could provide any plausible chain of possession for how the documents reached CBS. So fake. But CBS and many outlets stuck with the story in the face of all these facts because the narrative was one they so desperately wanted to be true, and fit so well their pre-existing opinions of Bush. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes have apparently never admitted they were fakes.
Recently, Robert Redford has reinforced this event as a seminal turning point in journalism by making a movie called, of all things, "Truth", which essentially still sticks to the story the memos weren't faked. He couldn't be more clearly making the point that in post-modern media, "truth" is the narrative, not the facts.
By the way, I find this every day in the climate world, where I hear "fake but accurate" all the time in defense of the narrative of apocalyptic man-made climate change. I can't tell you how many times that, having demolished some analysis as flawed (e.g. Michael Mann's hockey stick), I am told that, "well, that study may be wrong but it's still accurate."
One of my critiques of global warming alarmists is that they are trying to use a type of observation bias to leave folks with the impression that weather is becoming more severe. By hyping on every tail-of-the-distribution weather event in the media, they leave the impression that such events are becoming more frequent, when in fact they are just being reported more loudly and more frequently. I dealt with this phenomenon in depth in an older Fortune article, where I made an analogy to the famous "summer of the shark"
...let’s take a step back to 2001 and the “Summer of the Shark.” The media hysteria began in early July, when a young boy was bitten by a shark on a beach in Florida. Subsequent attacks received breathless media coverage, up to and including near-nightly footage from TV helicopters of swimming sharks. Until the 9/11 attacks, sharks were the third biggest story of the year as measured by the time dedicated to it on the three major broadcast networks’ news shows.
Through this coverage, Americans were left with a strong impression that something unusual was happening — that an unprecedented number of shark attacks were occurring in that year, and the media dedicated endless coverage to speculation by various “experts” as to the cause of this sharp increase in attacks.
Except there was one problem — there was no sharp increase in attacks. In the year 2001, five people died in 76 shark attacks. However, just a year earlier, 12 people had died in 85 attacks. The data showed that 2001 actually was a down year for shark attacks.
Yesterday I was stuck on a stationary bike in my health club with some Fox News show on the TV. Not sure I know whose show it was (O'Reilly? Hannity?) but the gist of the segment seemed to be that a recent murder by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco should be taken as proof positive of the Trump contention that such immigrants are all murderers and rapists. The show then proceeded to show a couple of other nominally parallel cases.
Yawn. It would be intriguing to flood an hour-long episode with stories of legal American citizens committing heinous crimes. One wonders if folks would walk away wondering if there was something wrong with those Americans.
One could pick any group of human beings and do a thirty-minute segment showing all the bad things members of that group had done. What this does not prove in the least is whether that group has any particular predilection towards doing bad things, or specifically in the case of Mexican immigrants, whether they commit crimes at a higher rate than any other group in this country. In fact, everything I read says that they do not, which likely explains why immigration opponents use this technique, just as climate alarmists try to flood the airwaves with bad weather stories because the actual trend data for temperatures does not tell the story they want to tell.
The WSJ, like many other media sites, has a headline today that says "U.S. Suspects China in Huge Data Breach of Government Computers." Then, when you read the article, it says "Chinese hackers" or "hackers in China".
There is an enormous difference between saying China is responsible and saying hackers in China are responsible. The first would be a very serious affair, implying the Chinese government was engaged in hacking of US Government records. The latter is virtually meaningless. It simply means that the hackers happened to be Chinese. They could have easily been Russian or American.
The media claims to be largely pacifist, but has anyone else noticed that they sure seem to be trying to stir up Americans in some sort of anti-China fever of late?
I had not seen this feature before, but I wanted to give the New York Times some kudos for its "retro report" which apparently looks at past news articles and predictions and wonders what happened to those issues since. This report is on the failure of Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb predictions. It is the kind of feature I have wanted to see in the press for a long time. Good for them.
Sort of. They fairly ably demonstrate that this 1970's-era doomster prediction was overblown, but then simply substitute a new one: over-consumption. Ironically, the "over-consumption" doom predictions are based on the exact same false assumptions that led to the population bomb fiasco, namely an overly static view of the world that gives little or no credit to market mechanisms and innovation combined with an ideological bias that opposes things like technological progress, increased wealth, and free exchange. The modern "over-consumption" meme shares with the Population Bomb the assumption that the world has a fixed carrying capacity, that we have or will soon exceed this capacity, and that actions of man can do nothing to change this capacity.
In essence, the over-consumption doom scenario is essentially identical to the Population Bomb. In essence, then, the New York Times ably debunks a failed prediction and then renews that prediction under a new name.
Six of the 10 highest-paid CEOs last year worked in the media industry, according to a study carried out by executive compensation data firm Equilar and The Associated Press.
The best-paid chief executive of a large American company was David Zaslav, head of Discovery Communications, the pay-TV channel operator that is home to "Shark Week." His total compensation more than quadrupled to $156.1 million in 2014 after he extended his contract.
Les Moonves, of CBS, held on to second place in the rankings, despite a drop in pay from a year earlier. His pay package totaled $54.4 million.
The remaining four CEOs, from entertainment giants Viacom, Walt Disney, Comcast and Time Warner, have ranked among the nation's highest-paid executives for at least four years, according to the Equilar/AP pay study.
More power to 'em, as long as their shareholders are happy. But I am tired of these self-same individuals attempting to bring regulatory pressure on the rest of us in the name of high CEO pay.
I am not sure why someone has to have journalist credentials to read from a teleprompter every night for 25 minutes. I never watch the evening news -- haven't since I was a kid. Honestly, I think the Huntley-Brinkley Report was the last network news I watched regularly, so that will give you some idea. But I do hear it sometimes, because my wife still likes to watch and I hear it in the next room, or while I am having a glass of wine with her.
So I vote for a good voice, and since I am male I vote for a sexy female voice. My two favorites were both Bond girls or one sort or another:
Lois Chiles (have no idea how she sounds today, but in Moonraker listening to her was absolutely the only reason to watch that movie)
Eva Green
Update: If he were still alive, I would vote for John Facienda, preferably doing the news in verse
Watching the Superbowl, and seeing the McDonald's commercial where the company announced a policy that they will ask their customers to do various kinds of performance art rather than pay, I said to my kids, "well, I guess I am avoiding McDonald's for a while." Not only do I not want to sing a song to avoid paying my $5 bill, I probably would pay them $50 to shut up and just give me my damn food.
Early on Monday morning I paid a visit to the Golden Arches while traveling through Union Station in Washington, D.C. After a moment’s wait I placed my order with an enthusiastic cashier, and started to pay.
Suddenly the woman began clapping and cheering, and the restaurant crew quickly gathered around her and joined in. This can’t be good, I thought, half expecting someone to put a birthday sombrero on my head. The cashier announced with glee, “You get to pay with lovin ’!” Confused, I again started to try to pay. But no.
I wouldn’t need money today, she explained, as I had been randomly chosen for the store’s “Pay with Lovin’ ” campaign, the company’s latest public-relations blitz, announced Sunday with a mushy Super Bowl TV commercial featuring customers who say “I love you” to someone, or perform other feel-good stunts, and are rewarded with free food. Between Feb. 2 and Valentine’s Day, the company says, participating McDonald’s locations will give away 100 meals to unsuspecting patrons in an effort to spread “the lovin’.”
If the “Pay with Lovin’ ” scenario looks touching on television, it is less so in real life. A crew member produced a heart-shaped pencil box stuffed with slips of paper, and instructed me to pick one. My fellow customers seemed to look on with pity as I drew my fate: “Ask someone to dance.” I stood there for a mortified second or two, and then the cashier mercifully suggested that we all dance together. Not wanting to be a spoilsport, I forced a smile and “raised the roof” a couple of times, as employees tried to lure cringing customers into forming some kind of conga line, asking them when they’d last been asked to dance.
The public embarrassment ended soon enough, and I slunk away with my free breakfast, thinking: Now there’s an idea that never should have left the conference room.
It didn't look touching on TV, it looked awful. I had already decided to avoid McDonald's for the time being based on the commercial but my thanks to the author for confirming it.
This correction by Michel Taylor of something called the Australian Independent Media Network has got to be the longest correction in history. You know it is an incredible correction when this is just a tiny part of the errors admitted:
Evans does not believe, and has never believed, that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Rothschild family, that US President Barack Obama is a secret Jew, that the Holocaust never happened or that Jewish bankers and the Rothschild family have assassinated at least two US Presidents.
The author also admits to getting Evans' education, occupation, organization, and sources of funding wrong.
In part I suppose kudos are owed to Mr. Taylor for being so honest, but seriously, how can one be so comprehensively wrong? (I will actually explain why in a minute). The correction runs on so long in part because he Taylor also has to correct an earlier correction where he blamed one of his original sources for being intentionally misleading. He also apologizes for that.
I would likely have posted this anyway just because it is sort of funny. But it just so happens to tie into what I wrote yesterday here. Because it is clear that Mr. Taylor's core mistake is that he researched the positions of a climate skeptic (Mr. Evans) solely by asking climate alarmists (and climate alarmist web sites) what this skeptic believed. He felt no need to hear the skeptic case from the skeptic himself. And what do you know, the descriptions of Mr. Evans' beliefs as portrayed by his ideological enemies were full of errors, exaggerations, straw men, and outright lies. Who would have thought?
We can laugh at Mr. Taylor, but at least he admitted his mistakes in great depth. But outlets such as the LA Times and the BBC have recently made it a rule they will never allow skeptic voices into their reporting. They have institutionalized Mr. Taylor's mistake.
