-- Will we say goodbye to free speech?
Reality bites – especially in a war
Disinformation – what it is, who promotes it, and how to combat it.
Nord Stream terrorism, UN failure, and “Official Secrets”
Secret “war-crime” warrants by International Criminal Court is mischief-making
Getting the full story about Ukraine
The west vs the rest – the world is changing
Ukraine commemorates Nazi collaborators
Do New Zealanders no longer support Ukraine?
The subtlety of neo-Nazi influence in Ukraine – ignored by our media
Where are Ukrainian refugees going? – an update
Is New Zealand covertly supporting the glorification of neo-Nazism?
Following the war in Ukraine – an update
Russian anti-war protester goes to see for herself
You can’t understand Ukraine without acknowledging its deep divisions
Once again, those Russian neo-Nazis – the Wagner group
A heartwarming story about a Ukrainian prisoner of war
Over 50 POWs killed. A military accident or a cynical war crime?
Ukraine/Russia war, an intelligence operation or a sting, Ukrainian and UK spies, and Bellingcat
Mainstream media defends poor journalism by smearing good journalism
Ukraine war – a shocking failure of our mainstream media
How is the war going?
Why should Ukraine listen to lame duck Boris Johnson?
Ukraine war – a failure of honest diplomacy and reason
British volunteer soldier in Ukraine speaks up
What about those Russian neo-Nazis?
Neo-Nazis in Ukraine – stages of denial
Confusion about neo-Nazis in Ukraine-Russia war
Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Comedians are often more truthful than politicians.
Ukraine – a beginner’s guide
Why the silence on censorship?
Everything You Know About Ukraine Is WRONG
Some sense on the Russia-Ukraine war
British volunteer soldier in Ukraine tells his story
Virtue signaling over Ukraine
Fluoridation and child IQ – the problem of counting chickens before they hatch
August ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
July ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
June ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoridation group tells porkies about NZ fluoridation review
Opponents of fluoridation all at sea with new legislation
Update of NZ fluoridation review timely and useful
May ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation contribution to heavy metals in drinking water is too low to measure
April ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Hip fractures in the elderly and fluoride – contradictory evidence
March ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
An open letter to Paul Connet and the anti-fluoride movement
February ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Data dredging, p-hacking and motivated discussion in anti-fluoride paper
Censorship: Thinking you are right – even if you’re wrong
Embarrassing knock-back of second draft review of possible cognitive health effects of fluoride
The promotion of weak statistical relationships in science
Can we trust science?
January ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
I don’t “believe” in science – and neither should you
December ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Science is often wrong – be critical
November ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Hyping it up over fluoridation
September ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
August ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
July ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Even studies from endemic fluorosis areas show fluoride is not harmful at levels used in fluoridation
Canadian studies confirm findings of Broadbent et al (2015) – fluoridation has no effect on child IQ
Child IQ in countries with endemic fluorosis imply fluoridation is safe.
Anti-fluoride 65 brain-fluoride studies not evidence against fluoridation
June ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking delayed
Another study used by anti-fluoride activists actually shows community water fluoridation OK
May ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
When scientists get political: Lead fluoride-IQ researcher launches emotional attack on her scientific critics
New study touted by anti-fluoridation campaigners actually indicates fluoridation is safe
No relationship of bone cancer to fluoridation – another new study the anti-fluoride brigade will attempt to ignore
New review finds fluoride is not a developmental neurotoxicant at exposure levels relevant to fluoridation
April ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride campaigners still rely on irrelevant studies
Author confirms anti-fluoridation activist misrepresentation of her work
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 6: Incestuous relationship of these studies
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 5: Don’t censor yourself
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 4: Till et al (2020)
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 3: Riddell et al (2019)
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 2: Green et al (2019)
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 1: Bashash et al (2018)
March ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
No; a new study from Ethiopia does not indicate fluoridation is bad for your bones
Anti-fluoridationists put faith in new “strong” studies to provide evidence missing in draft NTP review
Industry-funded translation can introduce bias in selection of studies for scientific review
Another embarrassment for anti-fluoride campaigners as neurotoxic claim found not to be justified
February ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Beware of scientific paper abstracts – read the full text to avoid being fooled
January ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation and sex steroid hormones – or the mouse that roared
What are the recent fluoride-IQ studies really saying about community water fluoridation?
December ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation science and political advocacy – who is fooling who?
Scientific integrity & fluoridation – Dr Ghali responds
Sleep disorders and fluoride: dredging data to confirm a bias
Some fluoride-IQ researchers seem to be taking in each other’s laundry
Statistical manipulation to get publishable results
Scientific integrity requires critical investigation – not blind acceptance
November ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride propagandists appear not to read the articles they promote
The anti-fluoride brigade won’t be erecting billboards about this study
October ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
ADHD and fluoride – wishful thinking supported by statistical manipulation?
Experts complain to funding body about quality of fluoride-IQ research
What do these mother-child studies really say about fluoridation?
September ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Biostatistical problems with the Canadian fluoride/IQ study
Fluoridation – A new fight against scientific misinformation
An evidence-based discussion of the Canadian fluoride/IQ study
More expert comments on the Canadian fluoride-IQ paper
Politics of science – making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear
August ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Bye, bye to the collusion lie
If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help
Anti-fluoride activists misrepresent a new kidney/liver study
July ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
MH17 tragedy- 5 years on
June ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Chemical watchdog confirms suppressed report but justifies the suppression
May ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Does international chemical watchdog cherry-pick evidence to confirm a bias?
Psychology of Russiagate – an adult discussion for a change
April ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Russiagate – Some insights into its origins and results
Russiagate: Lessons for the media. But will they listen?
March ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Aftermath of the Mueller report – the media starts looking at itself
Mueller report to be released mid April – but it will be redacted
Collapse of the “Russiagate ” myth exposes how corporate media has failed
Getting out alive – why we should always demand evidence
Terrorism in Christchurch – some thoughts
“Disinformation” and the mainstream media
February ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
January ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Preempting the annual misrepresentation of NZ dental health data by anti-fluoride activists
December ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation: Another study shows stopping fluoridation bad for child tooth decay
November ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Media manipulation – the tail wags the dog
Protection of teeth by fluoride confirmed – yet again
And you thought Russiagate could not get sillier.
Trump and the media – codependents wallowing in the mud
Julian Assange’s mother appeals for her son’s freedom
October ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Nuclear dangers if INF treaty abandoned could be worse than in the 1980s
Fluoridation and ADHD: A new round of statistical straw clutching
September ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
September ’18 NZ blog ranking – delayed
Flight MH17 tragedy in Ukraine – new evidence
Novichock detection and the Salisbury tourists
A more convincing take on prenatal maternal dietary effects on child IQ
Fluoridation: “debating” the science?
Opportunities and problems for grassroots activism offered by the internet
August ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Who is weaponising the vaccination debate?
Another BUK accident in Ukraine
Policing social media – who is coming next and who is behind it?
Political interference prevents investigators from considering the “bleeding obvious”
July ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Mainstream media “mob violence” over Helsinki summit
Blatant misreporting of latest OPCW report on chemical weapons in Syria
Time for a serious auditing of Porton Down’s nerve agent stocks?
June ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride campaigners exhaust their legal channels with another loss
Magical World Cup Gala Concert
May ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoridation activists buy scientific credibility using a predatory publisher
Another shonky OPCW chemical incident report on Syria
Not just another rat study
Russian sports doping scandal looking like an illusion?
April ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Mainstream media-political alliance gets vindictive
Novichock – a marketing ploy?
The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed?
OPCW on Salisbury poisoning – one step forward, two back?
Anti-fluoridationist Paul Connett misrepresents NZ data
Anti-fluoridationists rejection of IQ studies in fluoridated area.
March ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
A conference paper on the maternal prenatal urinary fluoride/child IQ study has problems
The 52 IQ studies used by anti-fluoride campaigners
The real lessons from Vladimir Putin’s re-election
Why is it so difficult to get an open discussion on fluoridation?
Mary Byrne’s criticism is misplaced and avoids the real issues
Anti-fluoride group coordinator responds to my article
Where could you get a nerve agent in Salisbury?
The first casualty . .
Paul Connett’s misrepresentation of maternal F exposure study debunked
February ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride activist commits “Death by PowerPoint”
Paul Connett “updates” NZ MPs about fluoride?
Anti-fluoride activists misrepresent another thyroid study
Fake news from the White Helmets returns
RT election subversion – yet again?
January ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Yet another fluoride-IQ study
So you are saying . . . . . !
Jordan Peterson demonstrates the importance of free speech
Select your conspiracy theory and connect the dots
Whose who in the Russiagate affair – an infographic
A week of good news in New Zealand
Is “Russiagate” another deception like Iraqi WMDs?
“Fire and Fury” exposes the fundamental problems of the anti-Trump movement
Confirmation bias – we all suffer from it but how can we reduce its effect?
December ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Yet another way Russia is undermining our society
Anti-fluoridationists misrepresent New Zealand dental data – an annual event
Fluoridation means money in the pocket
Anti-fluoridation campaigners often use statistical significance to confirm bias
November ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The problem with scepticism
Chemical weapons use in Syria UN report flawed by political bias
Anti-fluoride “expert” finds the real reason oral health has improved – and it’s not fluoride
Meat substitutes – prospects and new ethical questions
October ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
New fluoride debate falters
Political maturity in New Zealand – at least compared to the US
Flaw and porkie in anti-fluoride report claiming a flaw in Canadian study
Do we need a new fluoride debate?
September ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Endemic fluorosis and its health effects
Maternal urinary fluoride/IQ study – an update
Fluoride, pregnancy and the IQ of offspring
Facts about fluorosis – not a worry in New Zealand
We need more post-publication peer review
Cassini plunges into Saturn tonight – a grand finale
What’s with the anti-fluoridationist promotion of dental health programmes?
Non-violence in the defence of free speech
August ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation not associated with ADHD – a myth put to rest
From Charlottesville to Boston – a lesson
Hypocrisy, irrationality and wise words from Monty Python
Are we all anti-fascist now?
Are fluoride researchers sacked for their findings?
Fluoridation and cancer
Local anti-fluoride activists tell porkies yet again
July ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The main stream media is out of touch
Don’t rely on sources – follow the evidence
Stovepiping to produce fake news
June ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Darwin, sexual selection and Putin
Fluoridation: Open letter to Democrats for Social Credit
Fluoridation: What’s happening with the New Zealand legislation?
May ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The “information war” and social media, or how to tell if you are a Kremlin troll
Anti-fluoridationists commonly misrepresent Ministry of Health data
ChildSmile – a complement, not an alternative, to fluoridation
Fluoridation helps protect adult teeth as well as children’s
Fluoridation: the truth about heavy metal contamination
Visualising the numbers – The Fallen of World War II
Bottle fed infants: fluoridated water not a problem
April ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Citing scientific studies and the arrogance of ignorance
No, fluoridation is not associated with leading causes of death
Anti-fluoridationists exploit infant deaths by fiddling statistics
Here we go again
The Putin Derangement Syndrome
Bottle fed infants: fluoridated water not a problem.
March ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Another anti-fluoridation whopper
2018 Global Atheist Convention
Fluoridation: Making sense of the Ministry of Health data
Fluoride, coffee and activist confusion
Trump didn’t invent the problems – and his opponents didn’t invent protest
Anti-fluoride authors indulge in data manipulation and statistical porkies
Be careful what you wish for
An Oscar for Al Qaeda?
February ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
EPA comprehensively debunks anti-fluoride claims of a fluoride-IQ effect
Anti-fluoridationists go to Supreme Court – who is paying for this?
Debunking a “classic” fluoride-IQ paper by leading anti-fluoride propagandists
Islamophobia or mental illness?
Tha Amnesty report – and a response from Syria
Non-fluoridated Christchurch does not have better teeth than fluoridated Auckland
January ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Debunking anti-fluoridationist’s remaining 12 reasons for opposing fluoridation
Madonna teaches us a lesson in critical thinking
New research confirms adults benefit from community water fluoridation as well as children
Premature births a factor in cognitive deficits observed in areas of endemic fluorosis?
Sources our mainstream media uses to promote their narrative about Syria
More nails in the coffin of the anti-fluoridation myths around IQ and hypothyroidism
Water fluoridation – what to expect in the near future
Fluoridation: New scientific review of fluoride and oral health
Critical thinking, not censorship, is the solution to fake news
Anti-fluoride IQ claims are false
December ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Large Swedish study finds no effect of fluoride on IQ
Fake news and the new fact-free reporting paradigm
Fluoridation: New research confirms it is cost effective – yet again
Fluoridation: members of parliament call from submissions from scientific and health experts
Fake news, human suffering and the fight against terrorism
November ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Sometimes I think the world has gone mad
Leader of flawed fluoridation study gets money for another go
White Helmets confirm authenticity of acted “rescue” video
Manufacturing news, and opinion, about Syria
Why should we subsidise religious leaders and their silly statements?
Warriors, scouts, Trump’s election and your news media
US elections – who should you be angry with?
Trump’s victory – why the surprise, why the anger?
Anti-fluoride claims often not relevant to New Zealand
October ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
White Helmets dupes New Zealand government?
Voluntary media censorship is ethically wrong
Fluoridation not associated with hip fracture, heart attacks of osteosarcoma – new study
Anti-fluoridation activist Paul Connett has a senior moment about our debate
“Humanitarian” intervention and war crimes
Crocodile tears over Syria at UN security council
Anti-Syrian propaganda and the White Helmets
Shyness of anti-fluoride election candidates
Syria & the fog of war
September ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
But will it stand up in court?
Flogging a dead horse – anti-fluoridationists lose in court again
Syria UN Ambassador makes sense of the war in Syria
The shaky Syrian ceasefire agreement staggers on – or does it?
Fluoridation & democracy: Open letter to DHB candidate Andrew Buckley
When will they ever learn?
Ceasefire in Syria is exposing real nature of “moderate” rebels
What do Syrians think of the new cessation of hostilities agreement?
Dissecting pseudoscientific and political propaganda
August ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
An anti-fluoride trick: Impressing the naive with citations
Does community water fluoridation reduce diabetes prevalence?
“Filtering” out fluoride
Rio Olympics – what are those gold medals worth?
Fluoridation – freedom of choice
Is water fluoridation better than salt fluoridation?
Ethics and the doping scandal – a response to Guest Work
Being better informed – unexpected advice from The Guardian
July ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Quantifying the problem of international sports doping
Dental health – it’s not all about fluoride
The Putin diversion
The insult of low expectations
MH17 tragedy – 2 years on
Misrepresenting fluoride science – an open letter to Paul Connett
Are you really right?
June ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Why don’t feminists fight for Muslim women?
Permission to have that conversation
A cynical take on effective speakers
Richard Dawkins – speech to Reason Rally, 2016
Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing
MH17 tragedy – new investigation launched
Fluoridation: News media should check press releases from anti-fluoridationists
Fluoridation debate: Responding to Tom O’Connor
May ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
New review shows clear economic benefits from community water fluoridation
Debating fluoridation and tyranny – Tom O’Connor responds
Attempting a tyranny of the minority on fluoridation
Writing to please the reader’s ear
Fluoridation: One small step sideways?
New research confirms water fluoridation does not cause bone cancers
Public discussion of science can be toxic
Fluoridation cessation studies reviewed – overall increase in tooth decay noted
Mistakes were made – but by who?
Don’t be fooled by simple media “science”
“Do the math” – a bit like “Do the research!”
Victory Day celebration of defeat of terrorism in Palmyra
Will we be using contact lens cameras in future?
Barrel bombs, hell cannons, Aleppo and media bias
April ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Korean community water fluoridation supported by new evidence
Science and management – a clash of cultures
Anti-fluoride campaigners cherry-pick irrelevant overseas research but can’t find relevant New Zealand research
Cochrane fluoridation review described as “empty”
Anti-fluoridationists misrepresent new dental data for New Zealand children
A challenge to anti-fluoridationers to justify their misrepresentation of New Zealand research
Fluoridation decisions to be made by District Health Boards
Nadine gives a necessary message to her fellow Muslims
Anti-fluoridationists now scaremonger about silica in your drinking water
Reversed responsibility and the burden of proof
Anti-fluoridation cherry-pickers at it again
March ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation: My podcast with with Howard Farran
Why is Donald Trump so successful – and will he win?
Why are our politicians so silent on Palmyra’s liberation from clutches of Daesh?
The US speaks in two tongues on terrorism
Chemistry is everywhere – even in those natural products
Life for women under Daesh (ISIS)
The toxicity of chemophobia
Anti-fluoridation campaigner, Stan Litras, misrepresents WHO
Hiding behind “experts”
The “interfaith” trap – particularly for atheists
A Chinese study the anti-fluoridation crowd won’t be citing
Misrepresentation, misogyny and misandry – these should concern sceptics
Searching articles on fluoride
February ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Big business funding of anti-science propaganda on health
Anti-fluoridationist’s flawed attacks on Calgary study
Media misleading on Syria
Stephen Fry on Twitter
Richard Dawkins and the Skeptics Conference controversy.
Is the media lying to you about Syria?
Fluoridation: Whakatane teaches us something we should already know
Chemistry – “to dupe, to cheat?”
What a pleasant surprise!
Censorship by demonisation
Once more on the IQ and fluoride myth – why ignore other factors?
January ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation: Whakatane District Council makes the Hamilton mistake
New study finds community water fluoridation still cost effective
“Crusade Against Multiple Regression Analysis” – don’t throw baby out with bathwater
Fluoridation: Some simple chemistry
The danger of insisting on your own facts
Flight MH17 in Ukraine – what do intelligence services know?
Iron and fluoride in human milk
Hubris of the google researcher
The Harvard study and the Lancet paper
Cultural and ideological bias in scientific literature reviews
Facts, beliefs and delusions
Science – a method of investigation, not a belief system
Yet another misrepresentation of a dental health study
December ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peer review – the “tyranny” of the third reviewer
Christmas – “White Wine In The Sun”
Community water fluoridation still cost-effective
Democracy and expert advice on scientific issues
Fluoride and IQ – another study coming up
The hardest thing in life . .
Climate deal signed – now for the hard bit: action
Traditions and social arrangements out of step with social diversity
“Natural News” on trial in The Hague for crimes against science
Rejection of scientific studies in online discussions
Another defeat for anti-fluoridation claims about arsenic
November ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The problem with reasoned discussion
John Pilger on Paris, ISIS and Media Propaganda
Science is never done – some scientific terms explained
Studies show – or do they?
Should we trust science? – Wellington talk
Can world leaders learn from the Paris terror attacks?
Anti-fluoride hypothyroidism paper slammed yet again
Cyberchondria and similar “illnesses”
Onehunga and the “fluoride-free” myth
Thames voters decisively support fluoridation
Why doesn’t Putin shirtfront someone?
October ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific papers, civil disobedience and personal networks
The quackery of anti-fluoride internet trolls
Our beautiful planet: Astronaut art works
Christian co-option of karakia
Combatting anti-fluoride Gish gallopers
MH17: Final technical report
Responding to Tracey Brown on fluoridation
“The ugly truth” – Tracey Brown ticks me off
MH17 – another Boeing sacrificed for investigation.
The ugly truth about critics of “the ugly truth” in science
Many Syrians see Russians as saviours
Door knockers should pay to interrupt us
September ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoride: More scaremongering using drug warnings
Putin’s UN address: “Do you realise what you’ve done?”
Obama’s United Nations address: “We Must Stamp Out ‘Apocalyptic Cult’ ISIS”
European and Māori major non-believers in NZ
Cochrane responds to misrepresentation of their fluoridation review
ChildSmile dental health – its pros and cons
Should all scientists really be militant atheists?
The Alternative Medicine Racket
The chemical party
A job with a view – but not for the clumsy
Fluoridation: Freedom of choice – and responsibility
My talk to the Reason & Science Society – an invite
Why the internet annoys chemists
Freedom of religion and belief – not a license to interfere with others
Humanitarian intervention – but when & how?
Discussing science on social media
August ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Australian census religion question – progress
In the end, it came down to the science in Denver
Subverting democratic consultation on the fluoride issue
Religious instruction scrapped from school curriculum in Victoria
Alternative reality of anti-fluoride “science”
What is life?
Anti-fluoride propagandists get creative with statistics
Fluoridation: Connett’s criticism of New Zealand research debunked
Fluoridation: Connett’s naive use of WHO data debunked
Time to give up on Sitemeter
70th anniversary of first use of atomic weapon against civilians
Connett misrepresents the fluoride and IQ data yet again
Fluoridation: Newsweek science journalism bottoms out
July ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The bureaucratic solution to a problem
Fluoridation: “Sciencey” sounding claims ruled unacceptable
Comparing the Cochrane and NZ Fluoridation Reviews
Rapid change in attitudes to marriage equality
Scaremongering and chemophobia
MH17 tragedy: 1 year on
Talk of “mini ice age” bunkum
Progress in removing religious instruction from public schools?
Fluoridation: Beliefs about safety and benefits
Climate change: Our time really is running out
Cochrane fluoridation review. III: Misleading section on dental fluorosis
June ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Cochrane fluoridation review. II: “Biased” and poor quality research?
Cochrane fluoridation review. I: Most research ignored
What is causing warming of the earth?
New science bloggers wanted for Sciblogs 2.0
Gagging of scientists – a common problem?
I wish more people were aware of this
Misrepresentation of the new Cochrane fluoridation review
News media – telling us how to think
Misrepresenting the York fluoride review
Fluoridation: Misrepresenting the “saliva theory”
Something to consider
Fluoridation and horses – another myth
Science and social media in new Zealand
Monday morning proverb
Fake weight-loss study example of wider problem
Calcium fluoride and the “soft” water anti-fluoridation myth
May ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Connett & Hirzy do a shonky risk assesment for fluoride
Making mountains out of scientific mole hills
Don’t expect to see chemical safety data sheets in restaurants
RSNZ Science Book Prize winner – Tangata Whenua
Don’t put all the blame on the Germans – a lesson from World War II
The problem of “Fact-Resistant Humans”
What a nice idea
Water fluoridation effective – new study
Follow the money?
The distrust of science – a task for science communication
We always seem to ignore the causes
April ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Wise words from Carl Sagan
Poor peer review – and its consequences
Connett fiddles the data on fluoride
ADHD link to fluoridation claim undermined again
Commercial and ideological support of anti-fluoride activity
Why is Vladimir Putin so popular in the USA?
Is comfirmation bias essential to anti-fluoride “research?”
The will to find out
IQ not influenced by water fluoridation
Making sense of scientific research
The frustrations of modern technology
March ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Poor peer-review – a case study
The arrogance of science?
New Zealand science book prize – 2015 Short list
ADHD linked to elevation not fluoridation
Anonymous comments on social media
More poor-quality research promoted by anti-fluoride activists
Free download – “Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits”
Are submissions on fluoridation worth it?
Social media and science – the problems and the challenge
A couple of “oldies” inject some sense into international politics
Open letter to Lisa Hansen on NZ Fluoridation Review
February ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Paper claiming water fluoridation linked to hypothyroidism slammed by experts
Dirty tactics by anti-fluoride activists in Taupo
NZ Fluoridation review – Response to Micklen
NZ Fluoridation review – HS Micklen responds to critique
Did business interests interfere with Hamilton’s fluoride tribunal process?
A perspective of distances in space
Download report analysing anti-fluoride attacks on NZ Fluoridation Review
Social health policies, freedom of choice and responsibility
Reality of war for civilians
Stephen Fry not pulling any punches
January ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
US meddling in Ukraine behind coup
Sunday reading – Richard Dawkins reads some of his “fan mail”
Is debating with anti-science activists worth the effort?
Six months on – concerns about MH17 investigation
Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits – now peer reviewed
Those evil chemicals
“Internet and social media misinform thousands daily”
“I just know”
The victims of terror
Fluoride Free NZ report disingenuous – conclusion
Spotting Bad Science
October ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
December ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The MH17 blame game
Science never claimed to know everything
Special pleading by Philippe Grandjean on fluoride
The inverted ethics of doxxing?
Fascinating and painless chemistry lessons
Did the Royal Society get it wrong about fluoridation?
“Do your own research!”
Dirty politics over MH17?
Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article
Today’s fantasy, tomorrow’s possibility
The farce of a “sciency” anti-fluoride report
November ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Creationist ‘audits’ science museum
“Real” experts’ on climate change? Really?
Water fluoridation and dental fluorosis – debunking some myths
Proving anecdotes are reliable
Declan Waugh pushes another anti-fluoride myth
Severe dental fluorosis the real cause of IQ deficits?
Catch 22 in Ukraine
Let’s rely on anecdotes instead!
Standing up to junk science in New Zealand
Declan Waugh claims it’s “clear as day”
Unusual photo of Moon and Earth.
Criminal investigation of MH17 tragedy – where is it at?
There is something about those climate records that keep getting broken
Putting politicans in their place on climate change
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 – what really happened?
Fluoridation – a racist conspiracy?
Curiosity’s historic comet photo
When science deniers turn to science
Fluoride debate: Second response to Rita Barnett-Rose – Daniel Ryan
Fluoride debate: Response to Daniel Ryan’s critique – Rita Bartlett-Rose
Fluoride debate: A response to Rita Barnett-Rose – Daniel Ryan
Fluoride debate: The scientific evidence against fluoridation – Rita F. Barnett
Another legal defeat for NZ anti-fluoridation activists
Anti-fluoridation propagandists promoting shonky “review”
How to change your Mind – and why it is good for you
The science and politics of climate change
Science and belief
September ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peer review of an anti-fluoride “peer review”
The information war – The NZ Listener takes up arms
MOM “a thousand times better than cricket”
Activist’s anti-science adverts found misleading – again
Don’t you get tired of this?
It’s time we did something about sugar
Crude dredging of the scientific literature
Anti-fluoride activists define kangaroo court as “independent”
MH17 – Preliminary report leaves most conspiracy theories intact
Do you prefer dental fluorosis or tooth decay?
Emotion Drives Decision
Ingested fluoride, dental health and old age
August ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Sad news – Victor Stenger has died
Making money out of fanatics
Dirty politics on the Royal Society fluoride review
Review finds community water fluoridation safe and effective
Anti-fluoride activists unhappy about scientific research
The Mind of the Science Denier
Open letter to Jane Nielson – a “fluoridation convert.”
Accidental Renaissance – or intuition?
Tactics for science denial
Natural News comes out with a load of heavy metal rubbish on fluoride
July ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Declan Waugh continues his distortion of Finnish fluoride research
Another fluoridation whopper from Declan Waugh
I am still waiting for my cheque
An answer to the anti-fluoride critics – in one image
Some answers to the confusion about the #MH17 crash site
Informed parents know water fluoridation is good for their children
Making political capital out of the deaths of innocents
Elected officials must ignore activists and listen to own voters
The irony of some peer-review and citation complaints
Ken Ring pontificates on climate change
Anti-science US Congressman on House science Committee!
“Creative” reporting of fluoridation science
What happens when fluoridation is stopped?
June ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Controversial IQ study hammered in The Lancet
New group challenging the anti-science brigade
Fluoridation: what about reports it is ineffective?
Approaching scientific literature sensibly
Declan Waugh’s misinformation on fluorosilicic acid
A healthy attitude towards quantum mechanics
An open letter to Declan Waugh – new mechanism for fluoride toxicity?
Toxicity is in the dose or concentration of fluoride
Councils and scientists targeted by anti-fluoride activists
Lugansk – a modern Guernica?
Inna Kukuruza – “her eyes spoke to the whole world”
Connett’s hypocrisy on fluoride & IQ
May ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Confirmation blindness on the fluoride-IQ issue
Where do teeth come from? The stork theory
There is research and there is “research”
Fluoridating water does not lower IQ – New Zealand research
Fluoride and IQ – once more
Another anti-fluoride myth in the making
A balanced debate
It’s all the fashion in Ukraine
Fluoridation: What a difference a year makes?
Wishart misrepresents fluoride science to advance his extreme ideology
Fluoridation: emotionally misrepresenting contamination
April ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peer review, shonky journals and misrepresenting fluoride science
Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health.
Anti-fluoridation advertising deceptive
Fluoridation: putting chemical contamination in context
The first victim!
An outdated tax anomaly – charitable status of relgion
Declan Waugh scaremongers over fluoride – again
Arrogance of ignorance?
Pandering to anti-fluoridation campaigners
International cooperation in space serving humanity
Is anyone listening?
March ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific cooperation despite political posturing
Fluoridation returns to Hamilton City.
European border changes over 5000 years
Dental fluorosis: badly misrepresented by FANNZ
What makes something right or wrong?
How do we know what is true?
Cherry-picking and ring-fencing the scientific literature
Fluoride and heart disease – another myth
Graphic information in science
Corporate backers of anti-fluoride movement lose in NZ High Court.
Terry Pratchett making sense
Fluoride and the 5 easy steps of a conspiracy theory
February ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Pseudoscience in your supermarket
Another god debate
Repeating bad science on fluoride
Truth about those science fairs
Quality and selection counts in fluoride research
The precautionary principle
How can scientists use social media?
Curiosity sees a familiar “evening star.”
The fluoride debate – what do the experts say?
January ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Entertainment is brain exercise
Download The Fluoride Debate
Determining scientific knowledge by petition
Fluoride debate: Final article – Ken Perrott
Fluoride debate: Paul Connett’s Closing statement
The good(?) old days of scientific writing
Most of us missed this one
False balance and straw clutching on fluoridation
Who is funding anti-fluoridation High Court action?
Astro-turfing for scientific credibility
Losing trust in religious leaders
Conspiracy theorists misuse analytical evidence
All things bright and beautiful
December ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoride debate: Ken Perrott’s closing response to Paul Connett?
Putting vaccination risks into context
Fluoride debate: Arguments Against Fluoridation Thread. Part 8. Paul
Alan Turing receives royal pardon
The true meaning of Christmas
Where is the heat going?
Fluoride debate: Response to Paul’s 5th article
Back to the moon!
Fluoride debate: Arguments Against Fluoridation Thread. Part 5. Paul
Census 2013 – religious diversity
Fluoride debate: Response to Paul’s 6th article.
Testing the God theory
Fluoridation debate: Against Fluoridation Thread. Part 6.
November ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
‘The particle at the end of the universe’ wins Winton Prize
Fluoridation debate: Why I support fluoridation – 2nd reply to Connett
Psychics have it easy these days
Fluoride Debate: Why I support fluoridation – 2nd response from Connett
From dental neglect to child abuse?
Fluoride Debate: Why I support fluoridation – response to Connett
Fluoride debate: Why I support fluoridation – Response from Connett
Word of wisdom, and otherwise
Have local climate pseudosceptics come to the end of the road?
Fluoride debate: Why I support fluoridation
Sin is relative
Fluoride debate – I get email
Fluoride debate Part 1a – response to Connet’s response: Perrott
Fluoride debate – some housekeeping
Fluoride debate Part 1a – response: Connett
October ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoride debate Part 1: Perrott
Fluoride debate Part 1: Connett
The fluoride debate – introduction
The origins of ethics and violence
What’s really true?
Anti-fluoridation porkies – Mullinex’s rats
Science and faith
NZ climate change “sceptics” abandon appeal
Christianity has hijacked human values
Fluoridation: Hangout with the University of Waikato
The universe – it is bigger than you think
Our Far South – time we learned about it
Christian ethics and Peter Singer
Fluoride – friend or foe: a lecture
Cyber bullying of science
Fluoridation: the hip fracture deception
September ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Tim Minchin – an inspirational speech to graduates
Jon Stewart interviews Richard Dawkins
Anatomy of an anti-fluoridation myth
NZ experts deplore anti-fluoridation misrepresentation of science
Helping kids to wonder
Fluoridation – the IQ myth
When politicians and bureaucrats decide the science
Welcome counter to scientific and health misinformation
New “evidence” for global cooling?
Phobos eclipses the sun – as seen by Curiosity
Dentists you can trust?
Activists peddle chemical misinformation for fluoridation referenda
August ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Cherry picking fluoridation data
Anti-fluoridationist astro-turfing and media manipulation
Anti-fluoride activists attempt to silence science
Crazy ideas and “supernatural” phenomena
Experts speak out on fluoridation
Fluoride sensitivity – all in the mind?
Earthquakes and twitter
Cyber-bullying – what’s with sunscreen?
Anti-fluoridation study flawed – petition rejected
News media influences public trust in science
The “consensus message” in communicating science
Hamilton – the water is the problem, not the fluoride!
Topical confusion persists
Celebrate your curiosity – one year on
July ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Is this the way to reorganise science?
The limits of science and a world record
Water treatment chemicals – why pick on fluoride?
Are you qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell?
The Galileo fallacy and denigration of scientific consensus
A new Cosmos
Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit on track
Is fluoridated water a medicine?
Debunking anti-fluoridation myths
Source of moral authority has shifted
Fluoridation – an organised campaign to misinform.
Hamilton gets its fluoridation referendum
Not your usual rocket launch
Fluoridation – topical confusion
Communicating climate science – Michael Mann comments
Fluoridation and conspiracy theories
Richard Dawkins learns about the Bible
Fluoridation – the violation of rights argument.
June ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The victim mentality of conspiracy theorists
Poisoning the well with a caricature of science
Fluoridation petition – for Hamilton citizens
The importance of books for kids
Fluoridation – it does reduce tooth decay
Stop feeling guilty
Getting a grip on the science behind claims about fluoridation
Is fluoride an essential dietary mineral?
Will Hamiltonians finally get a voice on fluoridation?
Scientists, political activism and the scientific ethos
Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies?
When science is under attack
Tactics and common arguments of the anti-fluoridationists
Hamilton City Council reverses referendum fluoridation decision
Global warning in science fiction
May ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peter Singer on effective charity
The science of consciousness
Collapse of Arctic sea ice
An eReader breakthrough?
Singing about the periodic table
Black cat in a dark room – and the role of science
A New Zealand climate change pseudosceptic apologises!
Pseudosceptics are at it again – misrepresenting and attacking climate scientists
Chris Hadfield’s 5-month Space Mission in 90 Seconds
Confusion and distortion – has global warming stopped?
“Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney?
Video coverage of astronauts’ return to earth next Tuesday morning
A beggar’s market?
The limits of philosophy
April ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
‘The Unbelievers’ and science
A global warming hoax meme is born – in New Zealand too!
Friday follies – what happened to the “official AGW hypothesis?”
Fiddling with census figures for religion in New Zealand
The beginning (of the universe) for beginners
Terrorism and the West’s obsession with oil
Marriage equality, retribution and moral progress
A sombre night in Boston
Moving into the mainstream – on the coat tails of the “New Atheists”
Thatcher, Monckton and Pinochet
Potty Peer in Waikato
New Zealand Blog ranking Montage
What is global temperature?
I was wrong about Lord Monckton
New “Hockey Stick” but same tired old denial
March ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
April Fools and Agenda 21
Christchurch from space
A war between religion and science?
Climate contrarians/deniers are cherry picking again
Dishonesty of intelligent design “research”
Something for all those lapsed catholics
Dawkins’ new book
Our world from the International Space Station
Creationists prefer numerology to real scientific research
Talking sense about morality
Extreme confirmation bias in action
Greedy Lying Bastards
Those arguments against marriage equality
Census 2013: That religion question
Climate change is not simple
February ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
A sensible Christian perspective on Peter Singer
No immutable truths, no eternal dogmas
Global climate – and your grandchildren
Entertaining – and the science is good
The truth about the hockey stick
Origins of religious ethics and violence
Sean Faircloth, Director of Richard Dawkins Foundation, visiting NZ
The Russian meteor – what we know
Should we be prepared?
Does religion blur understanding of evolution?
The “dynamic duo” of science?
A day for cheap shots
Science as the best, possibly only, way to truth
The reality of cancer
Education should never validate ignorance
“Divine commands” and personal conscience
January ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Is your region warming?
No cause for alarm – if you cherry pick
The political alarmism behind climate change denial
Can philosophers, or anyone, tell us what is “right” and “wrong”?
History of science – for Kiwis
What a shock!
Who is guilty of misusing science?
Deconstructing climate change, and its deniers
Amazing photos of Shuttle Endeavour flight deck
Australia’s “New Normal?”
Going beyond the evidence
A time for hypocrisy
Historians and sociologists just as human as scientists
December ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
A problem with logic
Historians and sociologists lecture scientists – about science
Wonders of Life coming – we hope
A dose of reality
Pulling the wool over the eyes of the faithful
Scientists and philosophers discuss morality and meaning
Christmas present from NASA
At last – Moving Naturalism Forward videos
Getting the Book Invented
Sense on evolutionary psychology.
Does science have a cognitive privilege?
Sceptical humility and peer review in science
Cancer – an emotional rollercoaster
Sceptical arrogance and evolutionary psychology
And now for a bit of drama
Agreement polar ice sheets are melting
November ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Regarding women as animals
Christmas present for nerds – what about science books?
Time for philosophical honesty about Darwin
Religion in schools – a sensible approach
Climate change deniers don’t understand expertise
The arrogance of supernatural privilege
Morality and non-human animals
More damage from megastorm Sandy
Capturing kid’s minds with emotions
That particle again
Who were Stalin’s victims?
Reports from the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop
The elephant in the US elections
October ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life. Episode 3: Meaning
Who are these “credible experts”?
The mini-iPad and original sin
Death – part 2 of a series
Beer, anxiety and depression – their origins
Why (some) Christians support discrimination
Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life – Sin
Moving Naturalism Forward
A concise summary of climate change – science and politics
From evolution to belief
Are you offended yet?
This has to stop
Sneaking in the magic man
Naturalism and science are incompatible
None so blind
A Kiwi makes it to Mars!
September ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The most important place you didn’t know about
A useful map of the human body
The paradoxes of theological gullibility
The internet – Yeah, right!
US air traffic on a typical day and on September 11, 2001
Finish the sentence . . .
People saying stupid things on the Internet
Another anti-science attack on Mann fails – but the lies continue
Secularism – its internal problems
Politics and economics of Arctic ice loss
Internet silos become ideological ghettos
Climate change denier’s false “deep distress” fools no-one
Changing that light bulb while in denial
High Court ruled on integrity – not science
New Zealand climate change denial defeated
I don’t know!
Making giant flowers out of fireworks
Moral evolution in today’s society
August ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Drifting moral values
Subjective morality – not what it seems?
Objective or subjective laws and lawgivers
Neil Armstrong by Buz Aldrin
The science philosophy “conflict”
Making sense of religion, science, and morality
Kiwi science fiction with a message
Science – the greatest story ever told
A sundial on Curiosity?
Scientific shift work
Cynical evangelisation of children
Curiosity requires patience
Going for gold – on Mars
A load of science
July ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
NZ Blog Rankings FAQ
So scientism = non-theism?
Saying it with flowers
What really happens in religious instruction classes?
What Is Life? From Schrödinger to Watson to Venter
Their mission – values or advancement of religion?
The story behind the High Court action
Ethical enquiry or moral instruction?
Scepticism, denial and the high court
William Lane Craig’s philosophy – the condensed version
So you think science has a problem?
Peter Singer on the misrepresentation of Peter Singer
Human values are secular
End of life decisions
Why the Higgsteria?
Cost of scientific research – and political naivity
The creationism controversy – a summary
Is there room for religion in science?
June ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific knowledge should trump “belief”
Seven Minutes of Terror
Australian census confirms healthy trend
Science is messy – for girls too!
Print-on-demand books – what’s the hold-up?
How to write a best-seller!
Sharp increase in “nones”
A disciplined discussion
What did Galileo ever do to you?
Gnu bashing once again
The prejudiced journalist
Do atheists need religion?
Mixing values and Jesus in secular education
The Scamtific Method
May ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific knowledge – reliable but not certain
Weather extremes and climate change
“Web monkeys” and science presentation
Dementia – There’s an app for that!
Give them enough rope . . .
Why won’t Inland Revenue subsidise my life expenses?
Human morality is evolving
So you’re considering switching to eBooks?
Welcome to the Anthropocene
Naturalism in science
“Lose” your faith, gain your life?
What’s in store for eBook readers
Heartland ignorant of public relations – let alone science
Belief and morality
What has science ever done for us?
April ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The problem with philosophy
Puddles and “fine-tuning”
Great science talks in Auckland
Science denial is a diversion from the real problems
When the “best explanation” is the worst explanation
Toss out the moderator for a better discussion
Jesus heals – but not cancer!
Emotional time for Shuttle fans
Catholic popes victims of sexual abuse!
Who is committing fraud here?
Morality and the “worship” of reason
The silliness of a self-proclaimed “investigative journalist”
Moral behavior in animals
Conservatives, liberals and purity
The trouble with physics?
Is God incredible – or what?
Science and the folly of faith
March ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Another lousy photo of the sun?
The Sand Creatures
A fuzzy photo of the sun
The “public square” myth
Yes, please try this at home!
Whanganui District Council comes to senses
“Good faith” science – and its enemies
Climate change controversy in context
Shy climate denier in “science team” reveals himself.
The chickens are hatching
February ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The size of things
Theological pretzel twisting
A universe in an eBook (or app)
Souvenirs for scientists
Heartland Insitute gets mail
Heartland’s climategate – and Mann’s book
Bioluminescence in space!
Defeat for imposed prayer
ID research and publications
Theological mental gymnastics over evolution
“What, me worry?” – distorting climate change data
Free will – problems of definition
January ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The scientific method – what about the philosophical method?
In the front lines of the “climate wars”
Who is funding the climate change denial groups?
Our fingerprints are all over it!
The [in]compatibility of science and religion
Comprehending reality – Should we give up so easily?
Nothing is something
Who drives the science/religion conflict?
Choosing your religion
Open letter across the barricade
New book formats
The argument from authority (or lack thereof)
December ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peter Jackson – Satan’s Little Helper”
“Other ways of knowing” and their result.
Slaughtering some sacred seasonal cows
Reacting to a death with respect and hatred
Christmas present ideas: This Hell would be useful!
Higgs and homeopathy
Christmas gift ideas: Aussie wisdom
Christmas gift ideas: The human mind – a history
Christmas gift ideas: Evolution of gods, morals and violence
Christmas gift ideas: Working on Mars
Christmas gift ideas: One for the kids
Christmas gift ideas: Why we deny climate change
Christmas gift ideas: Thinking of our grandchildren
Christmas gift ideas: How We Know What’s Really True
Christmas gift ideas: Kids – it’s OK to be different!
A debunking handbook provides lessons in science communication
November ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Finding out about the astronomers who found the universe
Climategate 2.0 and “toecurling” journalism
It’s crowded up there
Creative science writing
Royal Society’s science book of year Winton Prize winner.
Reclaiming ‘intelligent design’
A lesson in human logic
Is Keith Ward really that naive about science?
Demolishing Craig on morality
Cultural effect of The Big Bang Theory
Answer simple question – win an iPad
New Zealand in good company. Pity about the USA
October ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
What’s your number?
Concern over William Lane Craig’s justification of biblical genocide
Outsourcing moral decisions to justify genocide
New Zealand happy – some preachers upset!
The never ending battle
Having it both ways
Ranking human conflicts and tyrannies
Dawkins responds to a stalker – Craig gets his debate
Avoiding possible catastrophe – even if you are confused
You CAN be good with God!
Big money behind local climate change deniers?
Historians of science sometimes miss the wood for the trees
Approaching morality scientifically
Ethicists have problems with ethics!
The climate change denial machine
How do you know that?
How We Know What’s Really True
Problems with pdf eBooks – metadata issues
September’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Compulsory payments for advancement of religion – let’s get rid of that.
Some recent recommended science books
Art in science
Where have we been?
Rings around Uranus
William Lane Craig’s “logic”
Science and the “supernatural”
Empathy for colleagues
Approaching a Middle East peace
Atheists aren’t shrill – just disgusting?
What’s this about cosmic rays and global warming?
Making life from the primordial soup
A fight-back – or simply spite?
Evolution and education – advice for teachers
That’s what I like to see in a young woman!
A reminder of reality’s magic
August ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Religious theology of secularism
Martydom of the priveliged
Another book for the kids
Secular democracy and its critics
2012 Global Atheist Convention – Melbourne
Hitler objects to atheist charge
440 FOI requests in one day! From one person!
There is something about Wellington
Some things for the kids
The blinkered view of politics?
I get email
NZ blog rankings update
Is Monckton good value?
The reality of scientific research
Monckton messes own nest
July ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Videos on morality
Pat Churchland on the science of morality
Breivik’s terrorism and science
Terror in Norway
Atlantis returns home – viewed from ISS
Background Briefing for Mockton’s NZ visit
Science has the real debate
Bias in the history of science
Seven years of discovery
Your chance for a free book
That hacking scandal
Are scientists hostile to religion?
Galileo’s modern critics
Debates in the philosophy of science
Does science lead to secularism?
June ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Personal attacks on climate scientists
A silver lining to Expelled?
Galileo’s revolutionary contribution
Science, religion and respect for meaning
Protecting yourself against bullshit
Clarifying some myths in the history of science
Early history of science
Converting beliefs to “truths”
Ideology and violence
Painless science writing
May ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Waking from a coma!
American Imams supporting evolutionary science
A secular bible
Daniel Dennett on conflict between religion and science
Visible signs of the rapture
The Magic of Reality for young people
Don’t drink the punch!
Working on Mars
A non-theist feast down under!
The chances of Royal Weddings arising randomly…
Designer spin II
What’s special about religious “knowledge?”
Climate change lectures in Auckland
April ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Exposing the pretense of Christian unity
Is there a role for science in morality?
Philosophical justifications for morality
Answering questions on morality
Problems with philosophers and theologians
More on the science of morality
Selling the family silver!
Craig brings some clarity to morality?
Foundations of human morality.
Church rejects power of prayer!
Limits of logic
Something to celebrate
Advocating or explaining secular moral values?
March ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
What is Life? Another Great Debate
The Galileo myths
Beauty, mystery and science
Christianity gave birth to science – a myth?
The implausibility of reality
Is atheism bad for science?
Myths within a myth
Thank goodness for eBook Readers
Theistic science? No such thing
The ethics of exploitation
Blogging for New Zealand
Science Under Attack?
Acceptance of science – dangerous for some
Making sense of Ring gate?
February ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
From “Grand Design” to “On Being”
A human response to Christchurch quake
Alan Turing documentary
Taking the census seriously
The future of books – and Santa?
On being philosophical about science
The secular Egyptian protest a good start for a successful revolution
Shonky climate-change denial “science”
Reinterpretation “research” on climate change
A hymn for Darwin Day
Celebrating Alan Turing’s life and achievements
The scientific study of religion
January ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Converging evidence on climate change
eBook “singles” – and the problems
Marie Curie Lecture Series – 2011
Comparing blog visit statistics
Shoddy reporting on “god genes”
The god gene – or is it a meme?
Certainty is useless – a scientific concept
The nature of the science-religion conflict?
“Other ways of knowing” – some sense at last
Culture and the scientific renaissance
Sharing a chemical moment
The moon and the ISS
Secular News Daily – useful source
New views of eclipses
Deriving “ought from is” scientifically?
December ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Science and morality – a panel discussion
A physicist comments on science and morality
A philosopher comments on science and morality
Telling right from wrong – unreligiously
Another local climate change denial meme
Wine and the Watchtower
It’s that time of the year
A handy app for your iPhone, iPod touch or iPad
A philosopher’s Christmas present
Painted into a corner?
Real science – warts and all
WikiLeaks and climategate
2011 – International Year of Chemistry
The “You Can’t Trust Science!” agenda
NASA and old lace
November ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Cutting off your nose for Christmas?
“Other ways of knowing” purpose?
What is the problem?
A victory for secular ethics
The Hitchens – Dembski debate
The joys of eBook readers – the Sony PRS-650 Touch
Secularism is important
Dawkins answers questions
Telling right from wrong?
Can science shape human values?
Some book ideas
The ISS – a decade of growth
October ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The human mind – a history
Check out those climate change claims on the internet
Waking up to morality
Four signs of a stroke
Can the “supernatural” be of any use?
Are ebooks taking off?
Some pesky delusions
Strident, militant atheists?
Why we deny climate change
Attitudes will change. Life will get better
Your computer is the enemy!
Death by stoning for adultery!
Scientific misconduct and skepticgate
Breaking away – an interesting case study
Sam Harris on The Daily Show
Move over – old fellow!
Hawking’s grand design – lessons for apologists?
Arrested moral development.
September ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Treating statistics sensibly
Not about Einstein
Bus adverts a human rights issue
Check out your ancestors
Trust the experts – if they say what we want
The Bible – a book review
A scientific consensus on human morality
Pope Benny’s speech – graphically
Putting the Pope in his place
Popes cunning straw mannery?
Human Evolution and the Organ of Mind
Mind change – a moral choice?
Putting the IPCC in its place?
Mapping modern science
An unnecessary being?
What is matter? What is materialism?
New science blogs in New Zealand
The Grand Design – neither God nor 42
Earth and Moon from Mercury
The Challenge of the Human Brain
August ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fallout from Hauser affair spreads
A lesson for NZ critics of climate science?
Nicholas Stern to present Robb Lectures
So you want a conversation?
The myth of the noble scientist
The heart of PZ Myers
After NIWA, God?
Marc Hauser replies – acknowledges mistakes
Hauser misconduct investigation – Full text of Dean’s statement
Fallacy of Fine Tuning
A desperate plea to be noticed?
A stormy future?
A sympathetic take on Marc Hauser and the “scientific misconduct” issue
A paper by Marc Hauser retracted – Harvard Magazine
Climate change is complex
A nice little tool for printing blog posts
“God of the surprises”
Recognising good science bloggers and Big Blog Theory winners
It’s politics, not science
July ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Suzan does a mini- Monckton
Evolution of gods, morals and violence
Is and ought
The new science of morality
Science, faith and limits of knowledge
Liability of scientific denialism to political conservativism
Evolution and the Holocaust
Life on the building site
Theological critiques of billboards required
Support John Abraham against Monckton’s bullying
Ways of not knowing
The changing face of science communication
A regular climate science podcast
Climategate – Journalist withdraws and apologises
Making room for faith in science?
Getting straight on marriage
“Climategate” smears found false – Mann cleared
NZ Atheists Swap Buses For Billboards
June ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Religion in public life – two approaches
Ridiculing ridiculous science commentary
Truth getting it’s boots on!
A question of expertise and credibility
Climate scientist’s’ register?
Kids – it’s OK to be different!
Twinning with Venus
Avoiding grown-up discussion
A competition for Aussie science blogs
Apologies would be nice
Historic shuttle launch photos
Australians concerned about tax exemption for cults
Pseudoscience and anti-science nonsense
Science on New Zealand TV
Hot science blogs
May ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Journalists create world’s first artificial news story!
Don’t trust Monckton!
This is scary!
Theological intrusions into science
God, stop ‘playing science’
Why Don’t We Go To Church?
The heart of opposition to climate science
Last chance – almost!
What’s that about global cooling?
Are you threatened by clarity?
Supporting good science communication
We don’t know!
Monckton and Shimkus get silly together
The Dawkins Delusions
Climate change and the integrity of science
Secularism in Australia and New Zealand
Natural selection or domestication?
April ‘10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Thinking of our grandchildren
Science, values and ethics
Avoiding tax – supernaturally
Climate scientist sues newspaper for false reporting
Climategate, Lord Monckton and Monty Python
Climate change deniers wallets threatened
Climategate summed up
Superstition – inevitable?
Libel Reform campaign continues
RIP Antony Flew
Officially a fake scandal from science perspective
Dangerous science denial
You have to laugh!
A more transparent approach
Orbital debris, the ISS, moon and sun
A space nerd’s Easter
Getting to the truth – gradually
March ‘10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Climate scientist Phil Jones exonerated
The origins of science?
The rickety bandwagon of climate change denial
Are religious scientists worried about their brethren?
The climate change denial industry
Can science answer moral questions?
Periodic Table of of science blogs
Creationism, climate change and scientific denialism
Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC
From Melbourne to Copenhagen
Are science and religion compatible?
Chris Mooney interviews Michael Mann on “climategate”
Science bloggers talk teaching
Great photo of the Solar Corona
Clear science communication
Institute of Physics in hot seat
Climate science for you and me
February ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Richard Dawkins – wrong again!
Freedom of information and responsibility
This game looks familiar
Anti-science lies being exposed – slowly
Deniers distort Phil Jones
New Zealand has bigots too
Belief and social identity
Etiquette for the office global warming denier
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – February ‘10
Climate change confusion – a conspiracy of sorts
WARNING! People might find us out!
One for the kids
Get your climate change science on the run
Can science solve all problems?
Spinning exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into “Whitewash”
Self-exposure – a journalist out of depth
A photographer’s dream
Get in line – who is the odd one out?
I want one of these!
The ISSS used for teaching
Overdosing on water
Car pool, string theory and human genetic history
CO2 emissions, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time
I thought the award for mistakes was mine!
Atheists provoke a reaction
Climate change deniers’ tawdry manipulation of “hockey sticks”
Journeys to the Ice – New SciBlogsNZ blogger
Martin Luther King’s dream
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – January ‘10
Monckton requires religious certification for scientists?
No gods required
Lynch mob mentality
Understanding the “multiverse”
A good climate change book
Beware the retired scientist?
Philosophers aren’t so bad!
NZ blog ranking – RSS subscriptions 2009
The dogma of paradigm shifts
Overcoming dogmatism in science
The “supernatural” and dogmatism in science
Scientific method and the “supernatural”
Belief, knowledge and science
The Unconsidered Life
“A plot to rule the world”
George Monbiot on ClimateGate & the climate denial industry
Testimony of non-believers
Becoming an atheist
The global warming debate summarised
Justifying child abuse
Sack all those scientists? yeah, right!
NZ Atheist Bus Campaign reaches fund raising target in under a week
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – December ‘09
Bus adverts and the 2011 NZ census
Are they sceptics or deniers?
New Zealand’s denier-gate
Environmental movement needs pragmatism
The global warming conspiracy?
New Zealand’s climate change deniers’ distortions exposed.
Remove support for child abuse
Deniers in denial over climate information
Richard Dawkins in Auckland – update
Being good – no gods required
Peer review – an emotional roller coaster
Climate change deniers live in glass buildings
Richard Dawkins in Auckland next March
“Climategate” – the smoking gun?
Awesome pictures from the Enceladus flyby
Those “climategate” emails
An Introduction to Evolution
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – November ‘09
Galileo and Hollywood
The rules of science
Twittering in space
Morality – from the heavens or nature?
This Hell would be useful!
Einstein on Galileo’s contribution
Why Evolution Is True
Richard Dawkins in Wellington next March
The clash of science and politics
RIP – Theo van Gogh
Judging the internet – and books
A Universe From Nothing
Defending science and reason
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – October ‘09
The Galileo Lectures
Lamenting loss of funerals
Galileo, Darwin and the new enlightenment
New bird designed!
BCA libels Simon Singh?
A victory for Simon Singh
The Earth and Moon – from Mars
Why We Are Atheists
Books in prisons
It’s all in the brain
Battle of the bus ads
Stars, earth and water
Humanity’s most important image
NZ’s largest science blog network goes live
Sustainability and ethics
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – September ’09
The naked emperor
From the keyboards of scientists…
Depressed? Anxious? Aren’t we all?
Saving the planet with condoms
Get in the sack!
Charles Darwin – Art & science
Evolution of human morality
Science communication in New Zealand
“We’re sorry: you deserved so much better”
New Hubble images
Chemistry for kids
The philosophy wars
Bright future for books
Brian Greene’s big idea
Global warming is real – climatologists
Behe’s “objectionable” interview reinstated
NZ blog ranks – August ’09
Carl Sagan’s challenge ignored
Behe’s “objectionable” interview
Religion in the public square
NZ scientists twittering
Biocentrism or eccentrism?
Dawkins bashing season upon us?
That ‘no’ vote
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – August ’09
The Big Bang Theory and sexism?
NZ science bloggers – new opportunity
Evidence, not lawyers
Social networking for scientists
From stones to atoms
Theistic mental gymnastics
“Smacking not an offence”
NZ blog ranks – July ’09
“Knowledge” from ignorance
Beware the Spinal Trap
The Atheist Camel Chronicles
Atrocious Science Clichés
Killing off Darwin?
Bible a favourite for atheists!
Science-religion conflicts. Who’s responsible?
NZ blog sitemeter ranking – June ‘09
Different ways of knowing?
This much I know
The facts of evolution – and jealousy
NZ blog ranks – June ’09
The entropy fib
Don’t encourage them!
Wave goodbye to email?
Do you believe in a god?
NZ Evolution Survey
The purpose of purpose
Kiwi Science Blogging
A NZ blog ranking tool
Charity and linked data
The Bain illusion
Morality and politics
NZ blog sitemeter ranking – May ’09
That’s telling them
Beyond the shouting
NZ entries in science blog awards
NZ Blog ranks – May ‘09
Subscription & email updates
Hand of God
Science blogging prize
Scientific laptop fashion?
Public hearing for Salinger case
Poles Apart – wrong process, right conclusion?
The greatest show
Religious moral relativism – another example
Richard Dawkins in Auckland
Human Morality V: The secular conscience
Ranking NZ blogs with sitemeter data
Human Morality IV: Role of religion
Good luck Jim
Human Morality III: Moral intuition
Human Morality II: Objective morality
Defining natural and supernatural
Human Morality I: Religious confusion
Whether we like it or not
Answering the big questions
Do whatever it takes…
Another chance to ignore our true religious diversity
The necessity of science
Why is science important?
Clamping down on science communication
NZ Blog ranks – April ’09
NZ Bloggers Badge
Middle east conflict in the NZ blogosphere?
PZ needs an iPod
Where is Galileo?
Belief not the same as truth
With God, anything can be permitted?
Where did we come from?
Hitchens in the lions’ den
How bacteria communicate
Scientific laws and theories
Blaming the victim
For Christian readers
Moral leadership on stem cells?
Dawkins on the Big Screen
Different ways of understanding?
Blog traffic to aim for?
Police ignore non-religious
NZ blog ranks – March ’09
Ranking methods for NZ blogs
Saturn opposes Uranus
New Zealand popular science books
Babies and bathwater
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Viability of Hope
Out of touch with reality
Stalinist behaviour at creationist blogs
“Scientific” debate on the internet
Intelligent design science publication policy?
Scientific investigation of morality
Creationism’s tactical blunders
Hidden religious agendas
Rating NZ blogs
Meditating on one’s own beliefs
How we all subsidise creationists
Theme testing – feedback welcome
Beware of science!
Only 25% of Americans oppose evolution
Pinker on morality
Cosmological cranes – not skyhooks
Darwin Is The 1000th Steve!
Human genetic history
Darwin, art and entanglement
The Lotto “miracle”
Psychological abuse of children
Mass atrocities require idealism
78% of Britons support Darwin?
Dawkins to appear at Auckland Writers & Readers Festival lineup
Bad science, bad theology
The Antony Flew controversy
Science and democracy
Darwin Week discussion topic?
We are “fine-tuned”
International Year of Astronomy
Science & Islam – doubt
My favourite podcasts
Neurons and free will
Science & Islam
Fiddling with “fine-tuning”
The ghetto of apologetics “science”
Missing fossils? From water to land
Carl Sagan’s search for God
A rational universe?
“Scientism” in the eyes of the beholder
The dogma of “paradigms”
Dogmatism of the “supernatural”
The wedge undermines Christianity
Fine tuning of the universe?
Dissent from science
No God? No Worries -Yeah right
Ex-Muslims speak out
Comment policy in flux
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
What is your purpose in life?
The immorality of conspiracy theories
Thoughts after watching “Expelled”
Denial not acceptable
Atheists not allowed to criticise Hitler!
Thanking those who deserve thanks
Society’s fear of science
Lysenko and the creationists
Being good for goodness’ sake
Global warming misrepresentations
The alternative to science?
A tale of two elections
Climate change: the science – public disconnect
Climbing into Dawkins’ boots
A naturalistic approach to human morality
Candles in the dark
“Probably” no God – probably acceptable
Belief – a curse?
Introducing humanism into politics
The materialist label
Weaving a web of lies
Defining oneself negatively
What a view!
The Archbishop’s straw man
Demolishing the icons of intelligent design
Science in popular culture
The Bible’s place in politics?
Lying to children
Is New Zealand ripe for science blogging?
Dawkins’ prayer for his daughter
The atheist label
Let’s count teeth
Our secular heritage presentations
New Zealand Skeptics conference
Attacks on freedom of expression go international
Secularism is good for religion
Where do our morals come from?
Redefining science by inference
A critique of the ‘Theory of Childhood’
Does religion threaten human rights?
A new science-bashing campaign?
Reading in retirement
“It’s a miracle!”
What is the Large Hadron Collider?
What is theistic evolution?
Embarrased by Darwin
Religious belief and age
Design – it’s everywhere
Reminder – Secular NZ and Australia
Darwin lectures in New Zealand
Is New Zealand a Christian nation?
An optimistic future for energy storage?
Fueling a new cold war
Why the “new atheism”?
Evidence should trump “legal muscle”
Being politically correct about Mars
Top 100 Cutting-Edge Science Blogs
Science blogging in New Zealand
Darwin’s theory – or “Finding Nemo”
Our secular heritage & its future
Climate change optimism
Spreading doubt on climate change
Help from your enemies?
Allan Wilson: Evolutionary
“Biblically correct” child abuse?
Interfaith dialogue and human rights
Does intelligent design make testable predictions?
Climate change and New Zealand
Is ID getting anywhere?
Intelligent design as a scientific idea.
Are ceremonies important to religions?
Send this DVD to our schools
Prayer refusal leads to discipline
I didn’t come from a monkey!
Most Americans do accept evolution
Culture wars come to New Zealand
Dogmatic falsification of science
Paradigms and dogma in science
Isn’t God convenient?
Dogmatism around science – the “supernatural.”
Scientific knowledge – not “just a belief!”
Evolution of New Zealand
Remarriage not an option
“Coming out” for evolution
Climate change controversy
Appealing to spirits
Dembski, peer review and supernova
Teaching science in faith schools
Let’s ban cluster bombs
Improving performance of your brain
Phoenix has landed!
Do you believe in God?
Exploiting the vulnerable
Good luck Phoenix!
Driving the wedge into Christianity
Dissent from Darwinism list – further analysis
Evolution – a theory or a fact?
Lets say the sun is pulled around the earth by horse-drawn chariots
Helpful applications for blogging
Darwinism and that dreaded E-word
Judgement & compassion
Is “Expelled” successful?
Psychological and religious abuse of children
Non religious in Australia and New Zealand
Lawrence Krauss – Richard Dawkins discussion
Exercising your brain – physically
Humanist and anti-human trends in modern religion
The Pope visits New York
Expelled for supporting evolutionary science
The Darwinian behaviour of creationists
Richard Dawkins in Inverness
Expelled – no integrity exhibited
Freedom of expression and human rights
Losing one’s faith
Interfaith dialogue to fight against human rights
The real climate change swindle?
Religious education should include secular humanism
So what does Dawkins think of “Expelled”?
Should Dawkins have been Expelled?
Arthur C. Clarke dies
Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
Exercising your brain
Expelled – the movies
Freedom of expression and offence – religious or otherwise
Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”
Fine tuning argument
Facing up to child abuse
Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection
The future of religion
Putting the Bible in its place
Intelligent design and depression
Beyond Tolerance – Toward Understanding and Respect
Replacing public prayers
Obama on religion
Scientific dissent from . . . science?
A respectable man with a dangerous theory
Life: a gene-centric view
From faith to hatred
Arguments against atheist morality
New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?
Secular alternatives to religious communities
New Secular Philosophy blog
Religion and the “New Atheists”
Gaza: Stop Blockade and War
Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?
Changing your mind
Dissenters from Darwinism in context
Heresy, or common sense?
Religious opposition to “intelligent design”
Intelligent design and the threat to Christianity
Intelligent design and scientific method
Religious diversity and human rights
Dealing with Dawkins
Can religion answer the questions science can’t?
My own miracle?
Religious attitudes to knowledge
Christian problems with morality
How to lower taxes
Atheism and religious diversity IV: Values, morality and spirituality
Atheism and religious diversity III: Conflict between science and religion
Atheism and religious diversity II: A personal perspective
Atheism and religious diversity I: Diversity in New Zealand
Bringing the supernatural into science
Hoping for justice
Does science involve faith?
Losing faith, gaining humility
For the glory of God
Faith – against all evidence
Intelligent design – a war on science
Dawkins responds to his critics
Moons of Saturn
Now I’m to blame for Stalin!
Human rights for the non-religious
A value in religious mysticism
From superstition to religion
Darwin descendent at AAI Convention
From faith to reason
Delusions about Dawkins
God’s not as popular as we thought
Using your brain
Neuron bombs in Pakistan
New Zealand supports evolution
Why do we believe?
Lies and misinformation
Thank God or Thank Goodness?
Sources of evil?
Problems with atheism?
Intelligent design at the shopping mall
Society’s ” Christian values”
The Atheist Blogroll
Stand with Burma petition
Most ideas in science are wrong!
Morals, values and the limits of science
Coming under the influence
Intelligent design attacks on Christianity
Discrimination at school
The “New Christians”
My senior moment!
Isaac Newton and intelligent design
Agnostics – what do they stand for?
Religion and violence
Is religion the source of morality?
Theology of the Emperor’s New Clothes
Family planning and the inhumanity of religion
Art and the limits of science
Atheism and religious diversity
Evolution’s threat to religion?
The atheist wars?
The Enemies of Reason
Science and the supernatural
Religion and Schools
Limits of science, limits of religion
Humility of science and the arrogance of religion
Richard Dawkins and the enemies of reason
What do we teach our children?
The Trouble with Islam
Crimes of Communism and Christianity
Intelligent design/creationism: Postscript
Intelligent design/creationism IV: The religion – science conflict
Intelligent design/creationism III: The religious agenda
Intelligent design/creationism II: Is it scientific?
Intelligent design/creationism I: What is scientific knowledge?
Religion and children
Religion and morality
Questions science cannot answer?
Do religious leaders believe their religion?
Debating science and religion
Do you believe your religion?
“Let There Be Brights”
What is religion?
Solution to climate change?
Faith and terrorism
“Let us pray . . . “
♦ Would we recognise the second coming?
♦ “I’m an atheist, but ……”
♦ Returning to the “dark ages”?
♦ Putting Dawkins in his place
♦ Overcoming religious problems
♦ A national anthem recognising diversity?
♦ International Atheist Convention
♦ Dalai Lama visit
♦ Limits of science or religious “fog”?
♦ Limits to respect and toleration
♦ Special rights for religion?
♦ Common values, common action?
♦ Atheist book sales overtake Christian books
♦ Can science enrich faith?
♦ Miracles and the supernatural?
♦ Christian prayer problems
♦ Atheist Blogroll
♦ Teaching religion
¶ Helen Clark’s diplomacy
¶ Blogs discussing religious diversity
¶ Destiny of Christian privilege?
¶ Trends in religious belief in New Zealand
¶ Religious diversity includes “non-believers”
¶ Science, art & pumpkins
¶ Religious Diversity Statement
¶ Should we teach creationism?
You’ve provided an interesting graphic choice to present your views. In fact, you not only provided this graph, it is your sole piece of evidence on which your entire argument rests.
I was curious about it because I found the graph so out of step with reality. I had never heard of “ricochet.com” so I took a look. The first post displayed was entitled, “Fighting Back: One Conservative’s Rather Modest Thoughts.”
Of course you would never use a biased source to present your views, because as you say, “This political campaign (of the MSM) is diverting media attention away from the things that really concern people.” . . So you would never use a source that has a blatant political agenda, because that would be like a “political campaign,” right?
And besides, the source doesn’t matter to you, does it. One must look intelligently and critically at what is being presented in order to derive a rational opinion.
So I did just that with your graph. Let’s take a critical look. Your graph says 13% of U.S. citizens are concerned about jobs (on July 17), but the media only spends 1% of its coverage on that issue (on June 27).
The Bloomberg figure claiming 13% are concerned about jobs is puzzling because in 2010, the United States had an unemployment rate of 9.9%. That number has steadily decreased to 4.3% in May of 2017. Why would 13% of the people be concerned about jobs when that number has been improving under the Obama Administration, and only 4.3% are actually unemployed?
That was fun, wasn’t it. Let’s do another one. Health Care. Your graph says 35% of the people are concerned with health care. I’ve got no problem with that. But the media only devotes 4% of its coverage to this issue? Bullshit. The media is all over the health care issue.
Of course to be fair, Ricochet Conservative LLC., did use a number from June 27. A lot has changed in the past few weeks.
I’m just thinking out loud here, bear with me, but this blatantly conservative source that you found, Ricochet, . . . Hmmm . . Well, conservative, by definition, is in itself a political agenda . . . political agendas fuel political campaigns . . . . This guy from “Ricochet,” Jon Gabriel, wouldn’t have just found two different surveys from two different points in time that when lined up next to each other try to prove some kind of political point. Would he?
Why would he have done that?
Ricochet, that’s not part of the Mainstream Media, is it. In fact, I would call it an alternative news source, wouldn’t you. Yes, I would call Ricochet a conservative alternative news source with a political agenda.
Well . . Why would an alternative news source with a political agenda want to make the mainstream media look bad?
Beats the hell out of me.
David, I, of course, refer you to my previous post Don’t rely on sources – follow the evidence. However, I know you have already attacked that so and your current comments display your resistance to the idea of that it is ignorant to avoid issues by shooting the messenger.
You ask “Why would an alternative news source with a political agenda want to make the mainstream media look bad?” And of course, the obvious extension of that question is to invert it – “Why would a mainstream news source with a political agenda want to make the alternative media look bad?” And we can extend that even further by asking “Why would politicians, governments and military organisations like NATO and its creation Stratcom with a political agenda want to make the alternative media look bad?”
It doesn’t take much intelligence to easily answer these questions. Hence my advice of not slavishly trusting any media – mainstream or alternative. Of approaching the media critically and intelligently. Something I advised you to do many times but it seems to be beyond you. You can only respond with “Beats the hell out of me.” Come on. Do you approach FAN and similar anti-science organisation with such a slavish attitude? 🙂
Your arguments come across as extremely defensive. OK, I may have hit you at a soft spot. But again, come on. Surely a rational person can get beyond their prejudices, stop such avoidance and look at the real issues.
I thought the graph was BS as well.
You say, ” “Why would a mainstream news source with a political agenda want to make the alternative media look bad?” ”
Show me one example of a Mainstream Media source openly attacking an alternative media source.
If you ask the opposite, show me an example of an alternate media source attacking MSM . . one only need look at an RT advertisement in the U.S. to see “The Death of Mainstream Media.” That advertisement is nothing less than an attack on the U.S. Free Press from a country known for the murders of its own journalists.
I liken pricks like you to Germans in 1936 walking into radio stations with machine guns as they sought control of information.
So please, back up what you’ve said. Show me anything from the mainstream media as blatantly and unashamedly attacking alternative media as you . . and alternative media have hurled at MSM.
Richard Christie, I agree. I’m not getting enough Russia. Now all we’re getting is health care.
Ken Perrott: ” . . it seems to be beyond you. You can only respond with “Beats the hell out of me.”
It seems to be beyond you, but I was being facetious.
David, I find it incredible that you request “Show me one example of a Mainstream Media source openly attacking an alternative media source.” As someone attacking alternative media sources all the time and demanding I only pay attention to the “official sources you recommend I don;t believe for one minute you have never come across mainstream mec=dia disparaging of competing alternative sources.
Just remember the Washington Post article (no I can no longer access Washington post – they demand a subscription from me) which use the propornot list of alternative media which they claimed were promoting fake news. Even providing a browser add-on to provide warnings to the reader whenever they accidentally landed on an alternative media site. I used the addon for a while – it was very intrusive.Talk about imposing blinkers.
Actually, the Post paddling of this was so blatant it evoked a reaction and they were forced to back peddle a bit publishing this statement:
I have to say, I love your post. It is So . . . . You.
This is classic. I took another look at the link you provided, “What Americans Care About vs. What The Mainstream Media Cares About,” (btw, This word, Americans, does that include Brazilians, Canadians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., or are we just talking about people in the United States here? A lot of morons get that wrong. It’s a good thing you look at your sources critically and intelligently, because I wouldn’t want to think you were using a moron as a source. — But I digress.)
Anyway, I read the article that you used as your sole piece of evidence for your entire argument. Jon Gabriel, Ed. wrote it. In fact, you took a graph from it to illustrate your entire point.
This is from Jon Gabriel’s article: “This lack of interest reminded me of a June 27 Media Research Center survey (link here) in which they calculated the amount of network news coverage of major issues.”
I was curious about this June 27 Media Research Center survey, so naturally I followed the link . . . and guess what, Ken (I’m also curious. Did you follow the llnk? Of course you did. Since you always approach media sources critically and intelligently. )
It led to a webpage on, (are you ready for this?) “mrc News Busters, Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias.” . . . Wow!
Let’s recap for those who might not have been paying attention: You posted an article condemning the mainstream media for its slanted journalism, and outright Fake News, and you lauded “alternative news” sources as surrogate sources where legitimate information can be found. Correct?
The sole piece of evidence that you used for this thesis was an article written by Jon Gabriel for “ricochet.com.” Is that about right?
From the website: “Ricochet.com is the leading place for civil discussion of the center-right and beyond.”
“Center-right and beyond.” So we know ricochet has a political agenda.
Jon Gabriel , in forming his argument, used some survey which was posted on some website whose only agenda is to “combat liberal media bias.” So, any critical or intelligent reader should know, right from the start, that this website would never present any form of evidence that would put the mainstream media in a favorable light.
But you used this evidence in presenting your argument. Since you are both “critical and intelligent,” I can only assume that you cherry-picked a source because it supported your bias: “TV News Obsessed With Russia Probe.”
David – you ask:
I have written again and again that we should approach ALL media intelligently and critically – that includes alternative as well as the media you disingenuously describe as “official.” That includes “liberal” as well “centre-right and beyond.”
Now, instead of actually dealing with the information in the graphic (which I do not find at all surprising and is in line with media comments about the public becoming pissed off with the current media hysteria regarding Russia) you are shooting the messenger again. I can only conclude that you are incapable of actually critiquing the data in the graphics so must fire away at alternative or other media which have published the surveys.
Our arguments continually come back to this. I can understand how configuration bias works to encourage people to find and trust sources that provide messages they agree with. But you should be aware from your own experience that is a trap.
Last October you pushed (here in our discussions) the Newsweek Kurt Eichenwald story as “proof” that Trump was getting intelligence information direct from the Russian Federation. Evidence of collusion. That writer and his story have been thoroughly discredited. Newsweek has withdrawn the story and there was a settlement with the reporter who Eichenwald had treated so badly.
Yet I do not recall you apologising for your mistake – a mistake you would not have made if you had looked at the substance of the story instead of being blinded by your view that Newsweek was an official source which always told the truth and Sputnik an unofficial or alternative source which could not be trusted.
Yes, the data in this graphic does support my understanding of the current situation in the US – an understanding which you may consider unjustified or a bias but I argue is based on my readings of various news media and watching TV programmes of various origins. This article is not meant to be a “proof” an in-depth analysis – simply an illustration of what I have observed and discussed.
I can only take your unwillingness to actually discuss the actual data or evidence (and instead rely on irrelevant attempts to discredit the media sources) as an admission you do not have a single argument you can put up against that data or against my arguments in the article. Now, Come on.. would you be bothered even considering my arguments against Eichenwald’s story if they simply involved discrediting Newsweek as a source?
You: “Now, instead of actually dealing with the information in the graphic (which I do not find at all surprising and is in line with media comments about the public becoming pissed off with the current media hysteria regarding Russia) you are shooting the messenger again.”
You: “I can only take your unwillingness to actually discuss the actual data or evidence (and instead rely on irrelevant attempts to discredit the media sources) as an admission you do not have a single argument you can put up against that data . . ”
Me (my first comment under this post): “Your graph says 13% of U.S. citizens are concerned about jobs (on July 17), but the media only spends 1% of its coverage on that issue (on June 27).
“The Bloomberg figure claiming 13% are concerned about jobs is puzzling because in 2010, the United States had an unemployment rate of 9.9%. That number has steadily decreased to 4.3% in May of 2017. Why would 13% of the people be concerned about jobs when that number has been improving under the Obama Administration, and only 4.3% are actually unemployed?”
Me (now): Learn to read.
(btw, did you check out current unemployment rates in the U.S. before posting that graphic? Did you really look at the “actual data or evidence?” Or did you just take it at face value because part of it supported your bias?)
Your obsession with re-writing history never ceases to amaze me.
I re-read your post and these comments from you —
Ken quoting me: “You posted an article condemning the mainstream media for its slanted journalism, and outright Fake News, and you lauded “alternative news” sources as surrogate sources where legitimate information can be found. Correct?”
The fact is, you posted an article . . . This article. My meaning here is clear. I am referring to This post. I’m not talking about your mindset or your worldview or anything you may have said in the past.
Ken’s response to me: “No, incorrect.
“I have written again and again that we should approach ALL media intelligently and critically – that includes alternative as well as the media you disingenuously describe as “official.” That includes “liberal” as well “centre-right and beyond.””
After re-reading this post, “The main stream media is out of touch,” I found the only time you ever came close to advising your readers to approach news critically was here: “They may now search for alternatives – and that is a good thing. They will also be a lot more critical of what is delivered to them by the news media – and that is also a good thing.”
And even here, you tell your readers to look at Alternative media sources.
I stand by my comment: “You posted an article condemning the mainstream media for its slanted journalism . . ” The great majority of your post is dedicated to condemning MSM.
There are 8 paragraphs in your post. In 6 of those 8 you blast the mainstream media. In some cases you use the word “media,” but in context you are clearly referring to MSM. (And I’m not even including your title, “The Mainstream Media is out of Touch.”)
You made one vague reference to approaching news sources critically (and in context, that looks like a reference to MSM, but I’ll be generous and give that one to you). And even when talking about using a critical eye, you are still advising the reader to look at alternative media sources.
So . . . you made more than 9 clear attacks on the mainstream media, and 1 questionable reference to approaching news critically, which, in context, looks like another attack on MSM.
Let’s do this again. You posted an article condemning the mainstream media for its slanted journalism, and outright Fake News, and you lauded “alternative news” sources as surrogate sources where legitimate information can be found. Correct?
One more thing, since we are talking about your love for alternative facts . .
Ken: ” . . that includes alternative as well as the media you disingenuously describe as “official.” ‘
You put the word “official” in quotation marks, meaning that somewhere I actually said that. Please show me any place where I ever called the Mainstream media the “official” media.
Once again, you are clearly lying.
This is your quote: “and is in line with media comments about the public becoming pissed off with the current media hysteria regarding Russia . . ”
Which “media comments?” Could you please tell us WHICH media outlets are commenting that the public is becoming pissed off with the current media hysteria regarding Russia?
David “did you check out current unemployment rates”
What the hell has that to do with it? The graphic simply demonstrated public concern over various issues compared with media space given to the issues. Also, your personal opinion is irrelevant – the data was from surveys – not form personally questioning you.
If you think the data is inaccurate or wrong (I certainly concede that possibility – let’s face it, so many poll results are – just ask Hillary Clinton) then you should present some other data – not attack me or the sources I link to. That is shooting the messengers to avoid the real issues.
David – it is not hard to find media comments questioning the current hysteria – even from extreme sources like Boycott Russia. Their concern is, of course, that the exaggerations and fake news have caused readers to turn off the story.
However, if you disagree that this hysterical campaign has got our of hand and think it is justified then supply your arguments. Also, what about backing up any arguments with evidence – the lack of evidence in this current hysteria is so obvious that even the mainstream media which promotes the lies has started talking about “alleged” Russian collusion.
After you accused me of being unwilling to “discuss the actual data or evidence” of a graphic in your Post that you presented to support your argument . . . that the mainstream media is out of touch with the actual concerns of the U.S. population, . . . I discussed one of the graph stats – Unemployment.
I asked you, “did you check out current unemployment rates in the U.S. before posting that graphic?” Did you look at the actual evidence behind the graph?
I’ll take your answer to be, “No.” You did not. You did not critically assess the correctness of that stat by looking at the facts. Please correct me if that is not accurate.
You also commented that “the graphic (that you presented) . . . is in line with media comments about the public becoming pissed off with the current media hysteria regarding Russia . . “
Along those same lines, you also said, “The data in this graphic does support my understanding of the current situation in the US – an understanding which you may consider unjustified or a bias but I argue is based on my readings of various news media and watching TV programmes of various origins,” unquote.
My response, . . . I asked you, “Could you please tell us WHICH media outlets are commenting that the public is becoming pissed off with the current media hysteria regarding Russia?” . . Could you tell us to which “various news media . . of various origins” you are referring when you say that the public is becoming pissed off with media hysteria about Russia?
Why would that question be important? Because, this is a very puzzling claim you are making. “Various media sources” is the source you have used to draw your conclusion that the public is pissed off about the media’s hysteria over Russia.
Obviously not all media sources are making this claim, or there would be no media hysteria over the Russia scandal in the first place. Therefore, only a portion of the media sources must be making this claim? But which portion? According to you, “Various” media sources, even extreme ones like “Boycott Russia (no link included).” Well that’s about as vague as it can get, isn’t it.
TO BE CLEAR, you are telling us that you find credibility in this graph that you presented from Ricochet, which used data from a website dedicated to combating the liberal media, . . you find that graph credible because it is in line with what you have seen from various media sources. . . but not all media sources.
In other words, in your mind, this right-wing graph, which used right-wing data is credible because right-wing news sources that you have seen agree with it. Isn’t that about the size of it?
As absurd as your reasoning is, my exposure of it is irrelevant.
HERE’S WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT GRAPH. For the sake of argument, let’s assume the data is correct.
The problem, is this right-wing website with a political agenda juxtaposed two sets of data: 1.) minutes of time media spends on issues, and 2.) THE MOST IMPORTANT issues facing U.S. citizens.
Because these two sets of data don’t line up . . he is implying that the media is out of touch with concerns of the public. He is being deceptive. And you carried forth his argument.
Let’s talk about the Russia stat: 75% of media minutes spent on Russia, and only 6% feel it is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.
Ok, what does that mean? Both you, and Jon Gabriel argue that this means people are “pissed off” about media hysteria over Russia. You use “various media sources” to support your position, and Jon Gabriel uses stats from a website dedicated to combatting liberal bias in the media. Unbelieveable (but it is worth repeating).
Let’s look at some actual data that may shed the light of reality on that stat.
Fact: President Trump’s approval rating is lower after 190 days than Bill Clinton’s was during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In fact, to date, Trump’s highest approval rating, according to Gallup, has been 45%—just after he was inaugurated in late January. Trump currently has an approval of 37%. This is lower than any president, at this 6 month point, since polls have been taken.
Bear in mind, that a President’s first year is office is considered the Honeymoon period, during which he (or she) always enjoys his (or her) highest approval ratings. This period of “political capital” is typically used to push an agenda. Trump has NO political capital. He is a complete failure. According to Gallup, between 55% – 60% disapprove of Trump’s job performance, depending on which day you look at.
So, 37% approve of Trump’s job performance. Between 55% – 60% disapprove of him. And the rest are somewhere in the middle.
Why is that important? Because you are using a deceptive juxtaposition to argue the public is pissed off about the media’s “hysterics” over the Russia scandal.
Are they really pissed off? In fact, why would they be? If someone disapproves of the President’s job performance, why would they be upset about the media looking questioning the validity of an election that put him in office? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
So, what does the graph that Jon Gabriel presented really mean?
The Bloomberg Graph is asking for THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE facing us. I agree with what is presented. In the U.S., it probably IS Health Care. People would naturally be more concerned about personal health issues than any political scandal.
However, the point of the Bloomberg graph is not to show us what people are NOT interested in. It doesn’t tell us that people are NOT interested in Russia-gate. Nor does it tell us what ARE interested in. It doesn’t tell us that people ARE interested in Russia-gate. It only tells us what THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE facing us is. And that is, naturally, Healthcare.
That graph is meaningless for the arguments made by both you and Jon Gabriel. There are people who have listed health care as a priority, who are still interested in the scandal facing the Trump Administration. Your graph doesn’t account for them.
So, what about the second graph, juxtaposed against the Bloomberg graph, media minutes spent on various issues? What does that say? It says nothing . . pertaining to the arguments made by you.
First of all, it’s not the media’s job to pander to polls in deciding which stories are newsworthy.
In the second place, I would disagree with those numbers for this past week. In the U.S., the Russia-gate scandal clearly took a back seat to Health Care during the week of July 23, 2017, no question about it, if for no other reason than to emphasize another of Trump’s failures.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the media does spend a disproportionate amount of time on Russia-gate than any other issue. So what? It is a completely Newsworthy issue. . . Why?
Because the United States might be headed for a constitutional crisis. But how can that be? According to you, and others like you who would like to see attention diverted away from Russia-gate, there is nothing there. . Really?
1.) According to the president’s own words, he fired FBI Director James Comey in part because he didn’t like Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation. The White House originally gave an entirely different explanation for the firing. That action could be considered obstruction of justice.
2.) The President tried to intimidate James Comey, in a tweet prior to Comey’s testimony. This is tantamount to witness tampering.
3.) According to testimony from Comey, the president once asked him if he could “let” an investigation into fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn “go,” and also told him he needed his “loyalty.” Trump denies both of these claims.
4.) The President has publicly denounced Attorney General Jeff Sessions because the AG recused himself from any involvement in the “Russia Investigation,” and its involvement with the Trump campaign. (The AG’s recusal meant that Trump lost a foothold of control over an investigation that involved not only his own campaign, but possibly his son, son-in-law, and possibly even him.)
5.) The President has taken to openly criticizing Attorney General Sessions, a pattern that Mr. Trump has used prior to the dismissal of his personnel. For example, in the President’s own words, “Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!”
What, if any, action Trump will take against Special Counsel Robert Mueller remains to be seen. However, there are indications, based on Trump’s own comments, that he is looking for reasons to disqualify Mueller from the investigation involving his own campaign, family, and possibly self. Fact: Members of Trump’s own party in the Republican Congress, have warned the President against taking any action against Mueller. If Trump ignores that warning, well . . . that is what we call a Constitutional Crisis.
How is that NOT newsworthy? The President of the United States may be guilty of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and who knows what he is hiding in his Tax Returns, (about which he has made veiled threats against Mueller, if THAT particular line is crossed) . . all which may lead to a constitutional crisis.
And why would you waste anybody’s time with a graph that tells us 75% of media minutes were spent on Russia-gate during one week? That number seems completely appropriate to me.
Two comments from your post:
“For one reason or another, they just can not accept the result of the 2016 election and would like to see that result reversed.”
And . .
“ . . the US mainstream media . . . . has become embedded in a partisan political campaign . . . in an apparent attempt to reverse the results of last year’s presidential elections.” (Portions removed for brevity. The meaning has not been altered.)
This is your opinion. It is irrelevant, and it is wrong.
No rational person actually believes the 2016 election can be reversed. I look at both right-wing and left-wing media. The only people discussing the “reversal of the 2016 election” is the pro-Trump right wing media. . . and you. They accuse the Left of clinging to this motivation. They, like you, use it as an excuse in a lame attempt to divert away from the President’s failures and scandals.
The election is over. The only one still discussing it is you. The only one obsessed with voter fraud is President Trump and his minions. There are no, US mainstream media outlets motivated by the hope of reversing the 2016 election.
The graph is presented in a highly misleading manner.
The percentages are drawn only from news coverage that concerns Trump, not from the total pool of broader issues outside Trump, yet the percentages have been presented as representative of ‘news coverage’ in general.
Are you sure about that Richard?
The Bloomberg National Poll did include questions about Trump but the specific data used in the graphic were about issues which concerned people. Not dependent on approval or otherwise of Trump.
The Media Research Center data specifically related to the coverage of Trump related to these items of interest to the public.
So, yes, that does relate to the coverage of Trump and the text in the graphic makes that clear. Maybe it would be nice to get data on the way the media has covered issues in general without relating them to the presidency but I am not convinced that would change the general conclusion:
The media is obsessed with a hysterical campaign against Russia (which is really part of a propaganda campaign aimed at constraining the president in his international relation activity. A campaign the media is actively cooperating in and which involves at least some illegal activity).
It states in plain English in title of data table.
“[the] Focus of Trump coverage”
Ignore previous comment, I was answering your first question without having read your reply in total, but I see you concede the point.
I’m inclined to go with David, those figures (Trump coverage) seem quite reasonable given that it is the “Russian” scandal that is the focus of the coverage. It’s not so much to do with Russia as it is to do with the Trump campaign and Trump’s subsequent handling of the situation. The cover up is always more scandalous than the misdemeanour.
I do part part from David and are in agreement with you in regard to the almost total anti Russian indoctrination foisted on us by the Western media. Citizens of USA seem particularly oblivious to the effect that a lifetime of such indoctrination has had on their world view.
Isn’t this a bit circular, Richard? Given that there is the current anti-Russian hysteria used to constrain trump then of course focus on “Russiagate” and
“Trumps handling of the situation is the same thing.”
Even the use of the term “cover up” is unsupported and simply part of the campaign. It’s a recognised technique to make a scandalous charge accusing someone of treason without any evidence and then divert the discussion to concentration on situations where the accused has neglected to provide some information or apparently misformed. Then the “evidence’ of treason relies on evidence on mistakes.
We could make the charge that Democratic leaders have been guilty of collusion with Russians. When they deny having met any Russians then we find examples where they actually have. Pelosi’s meeting with Medvedev was an example refuting her denial.
In this current political campaign, there is a complete absence of any evidence indicating anything wrong was done. But there will be plenty of “evidence” that specific people did not reveal meetings or all the meetings. This will be interpreted as lying.
I pick that if impeachment of Trump ever becomes a reality it impeachment will be for telling a lie or denying something and there will be absolutely no evidence of collusion.
It is disingenuous to “prosecute” for covering up when there is absolutely no evidence of something to “cover up.”
But, this is the sort of double talk we get from neo-McCarthyism.
The Russia connection is in my view quite secondary to the msm campaign to undermine the Trump admin (yes, I do view it as a campaign, but one based in quite a rational judgement of Trump’s suitability for the role as POTUS).
The fuss is over possibility of Trump having broken convention, if not the letter of the law by allowing a foreign nation to assist his campaign. It could have been any nation, although given Russia’s existing bogeyman status it makes the anti-Trumpist campaign all the easier.
The comparison to Clinton and rhetorical questions as to whether the same degree of scrutiny would be levelled at her is irrelevant, she is not POTUS. The question of illegal interference is serious, it warrants investigation. I would opine that the USA’s outrage at such interference in their democracy is the height of hypocrisy, given their own track record stomping over the affairs of other nations. I suspect we agree on that.
Trump is doing everything in his power to thwart the investigation. Any sane person in his position with nothing to conceal would have ignored the issue at the outset and got on with trying to implement governance. Trump fuels the campaign against him with his shear stupidity. He is digging his own hole. Don’t blame the media for that, that’s Trump’s tactic and using terms like fake media is also reminiscent of that tactic.
The investigation is now unstoppable and has been since he sacked Comey.
I do however take your point that their appears to be a lack of evidence thus far.
To conclude the same as you that there has never been any evidence or even prima facie cause for suspicion would require me to be more familiar with the ontogenesis of the investigation, of which, I admit, I am not familiar.
Richard, I disagree completely with your claim “The fuss is over possibility of Trump having broken convention, if not the letter of the law by allowing a foreign nation to assist his campaign.”
One does not make a fuss about a “possibility” unless there is evidence (there isn’t) or there are dishonest intentions to use the allegations for other purposes.
The evidence-free claims originally were asserted by Clinton to divert attention from the Wikileaks information. Think about it – of those leaked emails had influenced the election (which is possibly questionable) then their public disclosure was surely a good thing. Sensible people would be discussing their content – not unsupported claims about how they were leaked.
Clinton went on to use these false claims to make excuses for her electoral loss (again diverting attention away from her own responsibility as a bad candidate).
But the establishment – the deep state, the neocons, the media and sections of the intelligence community have taken up these unsupported claims to promote a campaign to constrain and control the new president’s actions.
Trump never broke any convention “by allowing a foreign nation to assist his campaign.” There is absolutely no evidence for that – any more than Clinton’s campaign did.
I do not attribute the “need ” for this campaign simply to constrain Trump regarding relaxation of tension with the Russian Federation. He is a buffoon and a maverick – not necessarily unusual for US president. But, more importantly, he came out of left field – as an outsider. Whereas we saw the establishment constrain Obama on many of his policies it was possible to do that behind the scenes. Given Trump’s nature, it has been necessary to do so using a public campaign.
So, while the “need” was wider than relationships with Russia most of the effect has been directed at that issue. And, let’s face it, Obama played an important (and probably unconstitutional) role in this campaign when he seized diplomatic property and expelled diplomats after the election but before the inauguration. So, I do see that issue as central to the campaign.
I think you let the media of lightly – and surely you are not so naive not to see the legitimate use I make of the term fake news. So much of the news we get from our media (much wider than Trump and the US elections) is outright fake? That is why I keep advocating that people should stop wearing blinkers and should adopt a critical and intelligent approach to all our media. I will not make any excuse for that – it is surely sensible.
Illegal interference in a nation’s election is indeed serious (and the USA is guilty many times over of that). Surely that is why this charge is central to the campaign. But I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence for this. Why don’t we have a campaign against Trump because the rape and murder of numbers of people are illegal. That would be exactly the same evidence-wise. Just because a charge is about a serious issue does not legitimise the charge.
Where the hell is tghe evidecne.
I don;’t disagree with yiou about trump being a fool. Tjher “investigation” m,ay well be unstoppable – but considetring it has been a years since the nori9gnal charges were amde I suspect there is never gpoi9ng to be a sigle scrap of credible evidecne for the proitgnal claim. Syure, we may be able to do someone for telliong lies or niot revealiong all the information – interntionallyu or unintenionallky, buty we would be extremely follosuih to treat that as evidecne for tyhe ortignal charge.
And meanwhile the only possible effects on the elction – whever leraked tghe emails, was surely to ake the behaviour of the Democrat leadership a bit more transpatrent.
And let’s nto forget the pother leg of thios hyusterioa is that alternative news media interfered with the elction by actually intetrivewing minor candidatyes!
I beleives these issues are exteemleys eriposu and we need to avpoid being fooled by this campaibng.
Trump never broke any convention “by allowing a foreign nation to assist his campaign.” There is absolutely no evidence for that – any more than Clinton’s campaign did.
“The allegations of of allowing a foreign nation to assist his campaign.”
if you prefer.
You inform me that the investigations were commenced in response to allegations (made by serious people with serious standing), initially undertaken by the Justice Dept (correct me if I’m wrong here).
Your beef in this regard is with the US Dept of Justice, not the media.
What, then are the justice dept guidelines on the commencement of an investigation? I don’t know, do you?
I think you are way off target in blaming the investigation on the media.
You inform me that the investigations were commenced in response to allegations (made by serious people with serious standing). These were initially undertaken by the Justice Dept (correct me if I’m wrong here).
Hillary Clinton – as “serious” person with “serious standing?” Come on – all sorts of charges are made by politicians in election campaigns. I don’t think that justification is at all credible. And surely only fools would excuse such allegations from the need for evidence.
I have not made any claims about the justice department but surely politicians can ask for investigations. The telling thing here is that despite such investigations the evidence remains absolutely zero. What supporters of this hysteria have relied on is the intelligence report – which is completely evidence free. But the media cites it as “evidence.” And even with that, they have had to withdraw their original description of the report and now acknowledge it boils down to a “belief” of a few hand-picked agents in 3 agencies.
I have never blamed the formal investigation on the media – I am blaming the media for its role in this hysterical and evidence free campaign. And let’s not forget the “investigation” also involves several congressional groups. Sort of like McCarthy’s un-American Activities Committee.
Let’s not deny that history can repeat itself – although I do rather like Marx’s description that history, when it repeats itself, does so as a farce.
The really sad thing is that despite history so many people can be fooled and manipulated by such campaigns.
The media on Trump are like a pack of hunting dogs with blood in their nostrils, even if, as you contend, the evidence blood is imaginary or yet to present itself. I presume you agree with that observation.
But I don’t find this at all surprising. As a phenomenon it isn’t novel, and again, Trump brought it almost all of it upon himself. He told the lies, he made the outrageous statements, grabbed the pussy etc, all well before he won the election. Don’t forget that it was Trump that declared war on the msm, seemingly because they called him to account over such garbage again, before his winning the election – which was part their function.
Trump sells. The more appalling his behaviour, the more newspapers they sell. He’s a gold mine.
I think you put too much emphasis on his being an outsider making him the target of the establishment, Again, it’s the line he spins. I believe that had he simply behaved better and thought before he ever opened his mouth and posit absurdities he would have reaped the benefit of the doubt from many, who in the absence of such sobriety correctly concluded that he is unsuitable for, or even incapable of, leadership of the USA.
I have no real problem with msm coverage of Trump. I do have problems with western media’s coverage of geopolitical issues, particularly in regard to US foreign policy and in consequence, Russia.
Richard, you say:
“He told the lies, he made the outrageous statements, grabbed the pussy etc, all well before he won the election.”
Telling lies is common to all politicians and is certainly not new to US presidential politics.
“Grabbing the pussy” illustrates the childishness of the person. Mind you it was said privately. Just imagine if he had on video gloried at the gang raping of a woman followed by her murder by the mob. You know – what Clinton did over the lynching of a president – on video. “We came, we saw, he died.”
I don’t know that it is accurate to blame Trump for his war with the media. The media was so partisan and anti-Trump from early on. They fooled themselves and I, for one, am pleased to see him criticising the media and calling them out for their bias. But he is a maverick, not part of the establishment and plays the media differently to other politicians. He has not been completely unsuccessful in this – after all, he won the election and still has quite a bit of support. (We probably find it hard to understand how many US voters who have suffered under previous presidencies think). And I think that really pisses the media off. I remember one reporter criticising trump claiming she thought he was trying to tell the public how to think – which is the job of the media!
I don’t disagree with your description of Trump’s failings. He is not suitable for the job. Unfortunately, his main opponent was no more suitable for the job either. And, let’s face it, there have been a few presidents who haven’t been suitable for the job. This does not justify a hysterical campaign to reverse the election undemocratically. To carry out a coup, soft or otherwise. If people really don’t support Trump he will be dumped in 3 years time. Meanwhile, we can all laugh at him. I think recent events show that he has no power and the harm that happens to the USA and that they do to the rest of the world probably won’t be directly attributable to Trump (although it might be him who has to sign the orders – the current sanctions imposed on him by the Congress are a clear example of this).
You may be exaggerating the emphasis I put on his being an outsider. I think it is part of the problem for the establishment (and a reason for the public nature of the campaign) but from the nature of the campaign, I suspect the main problem for the current power holders was calling out those who were admiring the Emporer’s new clothes. He has simply said what would be wrong with getting along with Russia and its president? What could be wrong with cooperating to fight terrorism? After all, it has become practically treasonous to question that Russia and Putin might be guilty of war crimes, that Putin is a dictator and murders his political opponents. It is no accident that these were specific questions put by house committees interviewing candidates for jobs in the new administration. The powers that be seem to be running scared that these lies might actually be questioned by people and are determined to prevent that catching on.
Actually, I don’t think you can (nor is it wise to) separate the extreme media coverage of Trump from their coverage of geopolitical issues. They are intricately connected and have been from early on in the election campaign, in the eyes of the media and their fellow conspirators in the intelligence community and the deep state.
Well, we’ll have to agree to differ on the media’s treatment of Trump as I don’t think it is a good example to hold up as evidence of western media’s bias on geopolitical issues. Other examples you have given in the past (e.g. Ukraine coverage) are far better.
I agree with you that Trump’s willingness to improve relations with Russia should be viewed as a positive rather than as a negative attribute.
I will add that Trump took the blatant lying aspect of politicking to a new level entirely. It was new game in that sense.
I am also a little uncomfortable however, with your throwing up Clinton in this discussion (not for the first time I think, but I haven’t checked) with the”hey look over there, she’s just as bad (or worse)” line. I don’t find that particularly convincing, just sayin’ but not making too big a deal of it…
Richard is correct. Trump declared war on the U.S. free press long before the press had, as you say, begun this campaign of hysteria in an attempt to constrain him. (Nobody is constraining Trump, other than Trump.)
Katy Tur, a mainstream media reporter, wrote about her time with Trump prior to the election. In it she illustrated the point perfectly by recounting one particular incident. She reported that during a Trump speech, he was interrupted by protesters ten times. Trump called her a liar. During another speech, he singled her out, pointed directly at her, called her a liar, and got the entire stadium to boo and jeer her. He is a bully who has tried to bully the free press. As we say, He Drew First Blood. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/katy-tur-crazy-year-with-trump
More than that, he has sought to delegitimize it. That should scare the hell out of you. He is trying to control the flow of factual information by throwing out “Alternative Facts” and labling legitimate information “fake news.” Forget about McCarthyism. Think more about Germany in 1936 and efforts by that government to control the press. Ken, you are part of the problem and you need to think long and hard about what you are doing here.
Beyond that, this comment jumped out at me and emphasized your own hysteria.
Ken: “ Obama played an important (and probably unconstitutional) role in this campaign when he seized diplomatic property and expelled diplomats after the election but before the inauguration. “
What are you talking about? How is that unconstitutional? The United States seizes foreign assets all the time. We seized $120 billion in Iranian assets after the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. The U.S. seized $1.5 billion of Qadaffi’s assets. . . . . But when Obama seizes a building from Russia – look out! It’s Unconstitutional! You’ll have to show me the actual Article and paragraph in the U.S. Constitution where that is referenced.
David, you have a short memory as we have discussed Obama’s possibly unconstitutional action before.
At the time I am sure you understood that I was referring to Obama taking such a dramatic action when he was on his way out, a new president had been elected and the new president had profoundly different policies on international relations to Obama. Obama’s action was clearly aimed at constraining the new president as it is hard to imagine Trump would have done this (although one should be careful of predicting what Trump would do).
You might remember I pointed out the same situation arose in New Zealand when an out6goign and defeated Prime Minister Muldoon refused to take an economic step (devaluation) demanded by the incoming government. The ensuing crisis was both financial and constitutional.
Perhaps your problems with memory and misinterpretation come from you own partisan bias which makes it difficult for you to read comments criticising the political campaign of the deep state and its co-conspirators in the media and political establishment.
Richard, it would be sad for you to ignore the blatant obscenity of Clinton’s behaviour over the lynching of the Libyan president and her role in creating such an anarchy which has dramatically affected Europe and strengthened terrorism by seeing it as somehow justifying Trump with a “she’s just as bad” line.
I do not have a partisan approach here. My criticisms of Clinton’s behaviour and her damage to world politics have nothing to do with Trump.
For me, the obscenity of what happened in Libya is a determining factor in looking at Clinton and her role. I am not sure, though, to what extent it would have influenced US voters who may have had more economic and personal security issues – at least in the case of those who voted for Trump.
But I do find it interesting that people who self-describe as “liberals” and “progressives” could be so dismissive of anyone concerned about the atrocities of regime change yet so concerned about the childishness of what someone said in private about “grabbing pussies.” Bloody hell, Trump did not kill anyone with his inane private comments!
This aspect has certainly influenced my thinking about “liberals” and “progressives” who have been acting so hysterically and childishly over an election result that did not go their way. So much for democracy. In the past I may well have been tempted to use those terms to describe my own outlook – but not anymore. These terms have now become so discredited and I want nothing more than to disassociate myself from such childish behaviour.
I also find it interesting that the media has also been far more concerned with this private childishness than with the real economic and security concerns of those who did vote, or consider voting, for Trump. There seems to be a real disconnect between the media and the people in the US – perhaps for regional reasons. The media and political establishment is very much concentrated in places like California, New York and Washington DC and seems oblivious to the people outside those areas. Hence they misinformed not only the public but themselves about the election. They were very partisan – something some of their members admitted after the election. But it hasn’t changed their behaviour.
I think the US media are treating Trump with the respect he’s due.
I don’t conflate the media’s treatment of Trump with their deficiencies in other areas.
Trumps approval rating is below 40% and is the lowest recorded for a president at compatible stage of his term so I do not think the media are out of touch with the US population on the issue of Donald Trump.
Actually a sizeable portion of the population probably prefer no news at all and would be happy on a complete diet of reality TV. But as I’ve said, there’s money to be made broadcasting the Trump soup opera ( Trump is reality TV personified) , and that money drives the focus of the news as much as any ideological program. Sad, but that’s human nature and the capitalist system.
You lose me talking about Clinton, when, in my mind anyway, the topic is Trump’s treatment by the media.
(Deleted sizeable ramble about US foreign policy as I think we are basically on the same page.)
Richard, I think a problem here is that you are seeing my criticism of the media as a partisan issue on my part. It is not. I am aware that Trump is a clown and there is a lot he should be and is criticised for. That is not what I am taking issue with.
Yes, criticise Trump when he lies and behaves in a clownish manner. But inventing a collusion as a way of constraining him in his foreign policy is not a matter of critiquing the personal behaviour of Trump. It is a matter of the deep state preventing relaxation of tension and cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
This campaign does rely on lies and distortions. It does promote fake news. And it has created a dangerous hysteria based on absolutely nothing. After a year of this campaign not a single scrap of evidence. And anyone pointing this out is accused of being a Kremlin troll. The story of the Emporer’s new clothes is very relevant here. As is the need for readers to adopt a critical and intelligent approach to all the media and to stop being forced into wearing blinkers. To not give into this neo-McCarthyist campaign. It is a very real issue.
And yes, the Libyan story (and Clinton’s behaviour in this area) is very relevant because regime change is still a policy the neocons are clinging to and wish to prevent Trump from doing anything to threaten. I am quite aware the Trump is not consistent – his policies towards Venezuela and Iran (and North Korea in effect) are ones with which the neocons agree. But relationships with the Russian Federation is something the neocons want to prevent any improvement in and yet it is a key area which should interest us all.
Congressional limits being placed on Trump’s ability to carry out his normal presidential role with respect to the Russian Federation is unprecedented and dangerous. It removes an element of the checks and balances. It is also clumsy and will lead to consequences congressional members did not consider. It has precipitated the delayed Russian response to Obama’s probably unconstitutional acts last December and the world is now a more dangerous place. But those members of congress who were pressured into an unprecedented, almost unanimous, support for the neocon policy will have unwittingly endangered the international position of the USA with respect to its allies in Europe. And they have not achieved the isolation of the Russian Federation they thought they were going to get.
Yes, Trump is a clown. But on this issue Congress is farcical. On this issue Trump was right. Congress was wrong.
What exactly have the media “invented” about Trump and Russia ?
That he had business contacts there? nope that’s not an invention, nor illegal, nor fake news.
That known Russian mafia figures have a penchant to stay in Trump Tower and buy up his condos? Not illegal, not fake news.
That the justice Dept have appointed a special investigator to investigate political allegations about his campaign’s possible connection with Russian state? nope, that’s factual, not fake news, moreover the Justice dept are seemingly responsible for that. Your beef there is with the Deep State and the arms of government, and I’d go along with that.
But it’s not fake news. In the Trump saga your complaint should be that the media neglect to hold those in the shadows to account and the system they (all) inhabit, not that the news they do present is fake.
The honest charge to level at the media is that they distort by omission and fail to look squarely at their own (the USA’s) failings, both as a democracy and a world leader. That’s not new in the USA.
I regard the term “fake news” as pejorative, designed to distort discussion and rational thought. Hence Donald Trumps love for the term.
I also return to one of my initial points.
The media story is largely now concerned with Trump’s (who has never before had bounds placed on his behaviour) bizarre responses to being investigated. That’s what feeds the media side show and baying of the press hounds. The Russian, the geopolitical and the so called threat to democracy aspect is almost secondary to the ultimate press prize: the scandal and resulting impeachment. It could have been something else providing the excuse, in the ’90’s it was Whitewater real estate deals and a White House intern. The press have always been like that in all counties..
In regards to your claim that President Obama’s seizure of a Russian compound was “unconstitutional,” you support your position with this:
“At the time I am sure you understood that I was referring to Obama taking such a dramatic action when he was on his way out, a new president had been elected and the new president had profoundly different policies on international relations to Obama.”
President Obama began his Term on January 20, 2009. He ended his Term on January 20, 2017. The United States Constitution affirms that there can only be One president of the U.S. at a time. End of story.
There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests, implies, or demands that an outgoing president must pander to what he believes the policy of his successor will be. Prove me wrong. Show me the Article and Paragraph in the U.S. Constitution which supports your odd claim.
Your bias has fogged your view of reality.
Ken: “But inventing a collusion (by the press) as a way of constraining him in his foreign policy is not a matter of critiquing the personal behaviour of Trump.”
Richard has rightly pointed out that the Press did not invent a story about collusion. And, as has been pointed out, the story now seems to be about the investigations and the cover up.
There are currently three formal investigations underway looking into this issue. One, by the U.S. House of Representatives, one by the U.S. Senate, and one by the U.S. Justice Department headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
This is newsworthy, and it is appropriate for the media to cover it.
President Donald Trump admitted to Lester Holt that he fired FBI Director, James Comey because of the Russia investigation. President Trump has openly criticized U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions because he, appropriately, recused himself from any investigations involving the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
These things are newsworthy, and it is appropriate for the media to cover it.
Meanwhile, you blast the media. You call it FAKE NEWS, and you support your argument by showing us a deceptive graph which has juxtaposed two irrelevant and unrelated graphs. More than that, your views are based on “various news sources.” That is about as hypocritical as it gets.
Richard rightly pointed out that the deceptive MRC graph only covers media minutes of Trump coverage. That’s why we don’t see anything about the weather on it.
I rightly pointed out that the Bloomberg graph is two dimensional. It does not show us ALL of the issues that any individual, or group of people may be interested in. It only shows us THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE facing us. Naturally, that would be health care. The graph does not account for people who may be interested in more than one issue.
You deceptively used these two irrelevant graphs to argue that people in the U.S. ‘are pissed off and tired of the constant coverage of this invented Russia collusion story.’
You are Fake News calling mainstream media Fake News. MSM has the integrity to admit when it makes a mistake. I don’t see that level of integrity from you.
Richard Christie: “The media story is largely now concerned with Trump’s (who has never before had bounds placed on his behaviour) bizarre responses to being investigated.”
Wrong. I don’t know what his problem it, but that’s not it. This guy has had his fingers slapped more times, has been sued and lost more times, than any other person sitting in the Oval Office. He gets bitch-slapped all the time. For example, take a look at the recent outcome of the lawsuit against Trump University in which he was judged to have defrauded his students: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/31/522199535/judge-approves-25-million-settlement-of-trump-university-lawsuit
This guy has been in and out of courtrooms more than most judges.
But one thing is sure, if he wasn’t terrified of something hiding in his Tax Returns, he would bring them out for everybody to see, to make that controversy go away.
(btw, Ken, I have no doubt that will also be newsworthy.)
I’ll concede to that David, and that viewpoint about his boundaries had occurred to me.
Yes, the Trump Organisation (and I presume, so does Trump personally) spend a colossal amount of time in the courts, so that can be construed as a constraint to Trump’s behaviour. Many of his opponents give up by being out-spent or bogged down for years.
In another sense the legal machinations against those that challenge him might also be interpreted as a tool that Trump just uses to carry on behaving as he wants to, and most often the tactic works.
Tax irregularities did for Capone and countless others.
I’m staying tuned.
David – “btw, Ken, I have no doubt that will also be newsworthy.”
Sorry I haven’t been able to participate lately.
I don’t question those things are newsworthy. So is the current legal action against the Democratic National Committee by Bernie supporters. And the fraud and computer scandal around Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her aide. But if you were only paying attention to the main stream media you would miss that.
Just underlines my point that we should stop wearing blinkers and stop the self-censorship.
If Bernie Sanders was the President of the United States, I have no doubt that any legal issues between his supporters and the Democratic National Committee would be carried by the Mainstream media, because then it would be newsworthy.
I am aware of the legal issues surrounding Imran Awan because I do watch MSM http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/debbie-wasserman-schultz-aide-arrested-trying-flee-country-n786651
No doubt, if Hillary were the president, Republicans would be screaming for an impeachment . . just as they were screaming for an impeachment prior to the 2016 election. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/03/no-honeymoon-for-hillary-congressional-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/?utm_term=.371faab83430
If you watched more of the MSM you might have been aware of that. 🙂
David, it is interesting (well actually boring because it’s expected), that you are straw-clutching to avoid the obvious.
Of course, if Bernie had not been undermined and had won the nomination then his supporters would not be bringing a case of alleged fraud against the Democratic National Committee.
However, given that the corruption and undemocratic procedure within that committee was surely the real news content at the time (and even now considering the problems Democrats face) one would have thought that more attention would have been given to that issue at the time than to the childish excuses (“Putin did it!” ) of Clinton in her attempt to divert attention. And given that this completely unsupported diversionary charge is still being promoted by the main stream media as if it was a fact rather than the excuse of a loser (and the way anyone who attempts to point out the nakedness of the Emporer is jumped on) one would have thought the media would remind us why the diversionary charge was made. After all, if the alternative media can keep us up to date with both the excuse and the original problem why can’t the mainstream media? It is not doing its job – one reason why more people are turning to alternative media.
Regarding the current embarrassing news about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her aide (and some of her other scandals) – I also read the mainstream media. And, you know, I cannot recall seeing anything on the main stream media I read and watch about this issue. Yet I have picked it up on alternative media.
Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that the mainstream media has completely ignored this issue – just that they have barely covered it. And certainly have not given it the attention it deserves. This sort of blindness is another reason why I am glad that I access alternative media as well as mainstream media.
You think I should watch more mainstream media – Ah, if I only had the time and interest. With the limitations I face I choose which media to follow and my choice includes mainstream media as well as alternative media.
I do not wear blinkers and I choose to consider all sources critically and intelligently. All media is capable of (and guilty of) promoting fake news from time to time. And of limiting their coverage of events they should give more attention to.
Ah yes, I forgot. You “do not wear blinkers and (you) choose to consider all sources critically and intelligently.”
And yet, for some odd reason, you showed “us a deceptive graph which has juxtaposed two irrelevant and unrelated graphs. More than that, you consider this graph legitimate because it coincides with what you have seen on “various news sources.” That is about as hypocritical as it gets.
Richard rightly pointed out that the deceptively inflated MRC graph only covers media minutes of Trump coverage. That’s why we don’t see anything about the weather on it.
I rightly pointed out that the Bloomberg graph is two dimensional. It does not show us ALL of the issues that any individual, or group of people may be interested in. It only shows us THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE facing us. Naturally, that would be health care. The graph does not account for people who may be interested in more than one issue.
You deceptively used these two irrelevant graphs to argue that people in the U.S. ‘are pissed off and tired of the constant coverage of this invented Russia collusion story.’”
Golly, Dr. Perrott, it sure is a good thing I look at what I read critically and intelligently also.
David, I detect progress of a sort. You are no longer shooting the messenger, or attacking me for accessing sources which don’t fit your blinkered allowance. You are taking issue with the details in the graphics. Excellent.
Let’s make quite clear, the nature of the data was not hidden from readers. Nor is it absolutely rigorous (what data is on media sites). So, of course, I welcome input and critique.
But, I think you are demanding unreasonable expectations for a simple graphic which illustrates an apparent difference between media concentration and public concerns.
I can only think your criticisms (which don’t actually negate the message implied by the graphic) derive from your own belief that the media concentration of the current anti-Russian hysteria coincides broadly with the concerns of the person in the street. If that is the case then why don’t you present some data to support your hypothesis? (I don’t think you will support it by making minor criticisms of the data in the graphic I supplied.
I, myself would be more than interested in any data you can advance to support your apparent claim. It is, after all, possibly correct in that the media, despite promoting fake news, does have a record of fooling people.
I have an open mind on this. My current feeling from watching and reading various media is that the US public, and certainly the NZ public, think the anti-Russian hysteria is overblown. I think many people may accept Russian interference is possible but unproven, perhaps even likely, but they do not see it as unusual or unexpected. After all, we are so used to the US government interfering in elections in other countries in much clumsier ways. That there is not a public groundswell to oppose cooperation in fighting terrorism or relaxation of tension with the Russian Federation as many mainstream media opinion makers seem to be arguing for.
So, I eagerly await you evidence that the media and public are not out of step regarding the anti-Russian hysteria.
Ken, I don’t see that you are asking for anything new which has not already been asked and answered.
I get that sometimes I am a bit sarcastic and that may put you off. And I get that you may be a bit distracted. I’ll be happy to copy/paste my previous answers to your comments.
Ken: “David, I detect progress of a sort. You are no longer shooting the messenger, or attacking me for accessing sources which don’t fit your blinkered allowance. You are taking issue with the details in the graphics. Excellent.”
From Comment #1 of this thread:
“Your graph says 13% of U.S. citizens are concerned about jobs (on July 17), but the media only spends 1% of its coverage on that issue (on June 27).
The Bloomberg figure claiming 13% are concerned about jobs is puzzling because in 2010, the United States had an unemployment rate of 9.9%. That number has steadily decreased to 4.3% in May of 2017. Why would 13% of the people be concerned about jobs when that number has been improving under the Obama Administration, and only 4.3% are actually unemployed?”
That was from Comment #1. I started out by “taking issue with the details in the graphics.” So . . whatever “progress” you are referencing exists only in your imagination. I took issue with the actual stats from the start. And then, after seeing the severance from reality, I then looked at the source. As expected, it was from some right-wing website that used right-wing data to push its arguments.
Ken: ” . . your criticisms . . . derive from your . . belief that the media concentration of . . anti-Russian hysteria coincides . . with . . the person in the street. If that is the case then why don’t you present some data to support your hypothesis? . . .
I, myself would be more than interested in any data you can advance to support your apparent claim.” (Parts deleted for brevity. Meaning not altered.)
Asked and answered. My previous response:
“Both you, and Jon Gabriel argue that this means people are “pissed off” about media hysteria over Russia. . . .
Let’s look at some actual data that may shed the light of reality on that stat.
Fact: . . . to date, Trump’s highest approval rating, according to Gallup, has been 45%—just after he was inaugurated in late January. Trump currently has an approval of 37%. This is lower than any president, at this 6 month point, since polls have been taken.
Bear in mind, that a President’s first year is office is considered the Honeymoon period, during which he . . always enjoys his (or her) highest approval ratings. . . According to Gallup, between 55% – 60% disapprove of Trump’s job performance, . . .
“So, 37% approve of Trump’s job performance. Between 55% – 60% disapprove of him. And the rest are somewhere in the middle.
“Why is that important? Because you are using a deceptive juxtaposition to argue the public is pissed off about the media’s “hysterics” over the Russia scandal.
“Are they really pissed off? In fact, why would they be? If someone disapproves of the President’s job performance, why would they be upset about the media looking questioning the validity of an election that put him in office? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
“So, what does the graph that Jon Gabriel presented really mean?
The Bloomberg Graph is asking for THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE facing us. I agree with what is presented. In the U.S., it probably IS Health Care. People would naturally be more concerned about personal health issues than any political scandal.”
SO . . the graph you presented does not account for people who may be interested in more than one issue. And let’s face it . . most of us are. Your graph is meaningless for the argument you put forward.
TO A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE: Your continual use of the phrase “Fake News” in reference to the mainstream media is unworthy of your abilities. You are throwing out a blanket gross generalization. You appear to apply it to all mainstream media.
If there are specific news stories that you take issue with, I would be interested in discussing them. But to claim that an entire profession is part of some sort of conspiracy by calling all of it “fake” is ignorant.
If the MSM has said something untrue about Mr. Trump, or his family, and their relationship with the Russian Federation, Mr. Trump is free to sue any news organization he wishes. He certainly knows his way around a courtroom. His wife had no problem suing the Daily Mail for Libel: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/12/523581249/melania-trump-and-the-daily-mail-settle-libel-lawsuits
He knows how to do it. It’s not your job to accuse the media of defaming and “constraining” the president when you don’t have access to all facts on any given issue. It’s his job.
When you apply a gross generalization like “fake news” to an institution dedicated to informing the public . . (an institution that has no problem admitting its mistakes) . . (btw, let’s take a look at the number of documented lies by President Trump, compared to what you call “fake news,” and let’s also take a look at the number of retractions by each.)
Again . . when you apply a gross generalization like “fake news” dedicated to an institution that is dedicated to Informing The Public, you are no better than those goose-stepping thugs of the 20th Century who marched into media outlets and destroyed them. Your tactics have changed, but you are the same animal.
You are treading in dangerous waters, Ken. You need to think long and hard about what you are doing here.
David, I said:
And, I thought I was clear. You might question aspects of the data in the graphic I presented – but it is real data. I was looking for something similar from you.
On such matters, one’s opinion, by itself, is worth nothing.
Yet that is what you resort to instead of data:
So you present this question as data? Do you not understand the nature of objective information and how opinions count for nothing on such matters?
Your “evidence” against my suggestion people were pissed off with media hysteria over Russia are poll rating figures for Trump! That is not “evidence” against my suggestion. Such figures are irrelevant to my suggestion – they deal with a completely different matter.
I do not rate Trump at all high (much lower than those poll figures you quote) but that is not evidence I am not pissed off with the anti-Russia media hysteria.
And, really, this is childish:
“If the MSM has said something untrue about Mr. Trump, or his family, and their relationship with the Russian Federation, Mr. Trump is free to sue any news organization he wishes.”
It would, of course, be nice to see some people in the media and their co-conspirators meet legal justice but such an assertion is not “evidence.
So, as far as my the graphic is concerned (which relied on actual data even if one may dig deeper) you counter with pure opinion. No data at all.
I would love to know if there is any substance to your claim that the media is simply reflecting, rather than promoting, public anti-Russian racism. I would love to know if my current feelings on this are wrong. But I need data for that and you refuse to present any.
Ken, you said, “You are no longer shooting the messenger, or attacking me for accessing sources which don’t fit your blinkered allowance. You are taking issue with the details in the graphics.”
I was “taking issue with the details in the graphics,” your quote.
In discussing the current jobless rate in the U.S., I was “taking issue with details in the graphics,” nothing more, end of story.
That comment had nothing to do with the separate issue: ““I eagerly await your evidence that the media and public are not out of step regarding the anti-Russian hysteria.”
My discussion of a 4.3% jobless rate and a 13% concern about jobs had nothing to do with anti-Russia hysteria, and your deceptive attempt to link the two separate discussions only belies your disingenuous agenda.
I get it, you may be a little distracted at the moment. Ok.
Your quote: “Your “evidence” against my suggestion people were pissed off with media hysteria over Russia are poll rating figures for Trump! That is not “evidence” against my suggestion. Such figures are irrelevant to my suggestion – they deal with a completely different matter.”
First of all, I’m not the one who needs to defend my position. You posted an irrelevant graph to argue that people are really pissed off about media hysteria over Russiagate. As evidence to corroborate the validity of your irrelevant graph, you cite what you have seen on “various news sources.”
And you are calling me childish?
To argue against all this alleged pissed-off mania that you claim exists I looked at some real data. Unlike you, I didn’t rely on the opinions of political pundits on TV. Fact: More than 60% of U.S. citizens Disprove of President Trump. There is no way that people who disapprove of the president would resent negative reporting about him, much less being pissed off about it. Unlike you, most of those 60% don’t harbor a bias toward Russia. To compare your attitudes to U.S. citizens would be a false argument.
Nevertheless, your gross blanket application of the term “Fake News” toward an institution that is dedicated to providing real information to the public is beneath you. You need to think long and hard about what you are doing here. Although your tactics have changed, you are no better than those jack-booted thugs who ransacked and threatened media outlets in banana republics, and violent regimes in the past Century.
Yes, David, I am distracted at the moment. I have more important things to deal with and, for that reason, am finding this silly hassling by you quite tiresome.
“There is no way that people who disapprove of the president would resent negative reporting about him, much less being pissed off about it. Unlike you, most of those 60% don’t harbor a bias toward Russia. To compare your attitudes to U.S. citizens would be a false argument.”
Well, I disapprove of President Trump – more so than most US citizens and voters. I do not resent negative reporting about him – if it is valid. I do resent fake reporting – whoever it is made about.
But, more importantly, I am not talking about the “negative reporting of Trump” (although you might confuse the issues) but about the anti-Russian hysteria. I object to the fake news which is completely evidence-free but actively promoted by the media – to the extent that anyone asks about the new clothes the Emporer is wearing they get jumped on. I think such racism and attitudes towards an international partner are very dangerous.
Such fake news relies on and promotes anti-Russian racism. Nothing to do with Trump.
I will not apologise for labelling news as fake when I see it. It would be moronic and cowardly to do so.
You seem to be offended because I am calling a spade a spade. Calling out the media when it tells lies.
If you honestly think I would seriously consider your demand that I close my mind, give others the ability to control what I think, and blindly follow a demagogic and racist hysteria then you are wrong.
Everyone is responsible for their understanding of the world around them. I do not hand that away even if you do.
What a laugh – the media an “institution that is dedicated to providing real information to the public!” You really are gullible. The term “following the party line” seems to have been invented for you.
The mainstream media is an institution that is dedicated to providing real information to the public. When it is found to be in error, it has the integrity to issue a retraction.
President Trump has been documented telling more lies than any other president in U.S. history. He has never issued one retraction . . ever.
You are dedicated to providing your opinion to anyone who may be gullible enough to buy it. This post for example is nothing more than an opinion.
“I find the US mainstream media particularly boring and uninformative these days.” It’s your opinion. And to support your opinion you posted a graph which juxtaposed one irrelevant graph and one misleading graph . . all to support the argument that the mainstream media is out of touch with U.S. citizens.
Earlier, you said you found this graph credible because . . what were your exact words? Ah yes:
“The data in this graphic does support my understanding of the current situation in the US – an understanding which you may consider unjustified or a bias but I argue is based on my readings of various news media and watching TV programmes of various origins,” unquote.
You found a right-wing website that posted a fake graph which supported opinions you already held, because you saw political pundits on TV who also regurgitated your own bias back at you . . . and that’s why you found this graph credible.
So . . now you go on about the Fake News. (A term made famous by the most lying U.S. president in history.) You don’t like the anti-Russian hysteria. You call it “racism,” although ethnicism would be a more correct term. It’s fake news because you aren’t privy to the intel, the evidence, of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
You discount the evidence of an email from Rob Goldstone to Donald Trump Jr. which actually said he had material which was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy. (You don’t accept it because, in your words, Rob Goldstone was a clown — talk about shooting the messenger.) And of course you discount Trump Jr.’s response to that email.
So therefore it’s all fake.
(By the way, this was all leaked information. There was nothing illegal about it because nothing here was classified. But in your previous comments, you found the leaking more criminal than the actual crime. You called these leaks illegal. . . . . However, when the shoe was on the other foot . . . when leaking occurred that had to do with Hillary Clinton’s emails, you found the substance of the leaks more suspicious. On this, you are the classic biased hypocrite.)
And of course you discount the damning timeline of events during the spring and summer prior to the 2016 election: http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/
These are all facts, they are not fake. And of course you discount the unprecedented lying from the Trump Administration about the Campaign’s meetings, connections, and communications with, oddly enough, Russians. If there is nothing to hide, Dr. Perrott, why all the lying?
And of course, fitting damningly into the afore mentioned timeline were these words from the President: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ
But you label it all Fake News because it doesn’t fit nicely into your bias. You have no proof there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You just know it’s Fake. Where’s the evidence, you ask.
Dr. Perrott, there are currently three formal investigations underway looking into this issue. Let the facts fall where they will. Until you have access to those facts, your gross generalization, “Fake News,” is, to say the least, premature.
One more thing . . If you are distracted . . . If you can’t handle certain facts which do not support your bias, maybe you should stop picking fights in which you are not prepared engage.
This Project Veritas video seems to back up the claims that the Russia story is BS