Being better informed – unexpected advice from The Guardian

How often does The Guardian attack truth instead of presenting it? Credit: “The Guardian” Blaming Trump for Racism in America

This opinion piece by Piers Robinson in The Guardian surprised me – and then it pleased me – Russian news may be biased – but so is much western media.

Surprised me because, of late, The Guardian has been shockingly one-sided. Particularly in its treatment of Russian politics, nationally and internationally. Unfortunately doesn’t include any self criticisms – that would have been nice but let’s be thankful for small steps. The fact the article appeared may mean some people at The Guardian recognised the their paper’s toeing of the “party line” on these issues may have been counterproductive.  Alexander Mercouris goes so far as to pose the question:

“Could it possibly be that the new editor – Katherine Viner – does not share the obsessive anti-Russian mania that took hold at the Guardian under the preceding Rusbridger regime?”

Wouldn’t it be  nice if this opinion piece was providing notice of a new policy, and is not just a one-off – an aberration?

Pleased me because the article makes recommendations I fully agree with and have often advocated:

“The first step towards becoming more informed is to avoid seeing our governments and media as free from manipulation while demonising “foreign” governments and media as full of propagandistic lies.

The second step is to recognise that one can gain useful insights and information from a variety of news sources – including those that are derided as “propaganda” outlets: Russia Today, al-Jazeera and Press TV should certainly not be off-limits.”

Some commenters have attacked me here for daring to use “unapproved” sources or questioning the prevailing “official” attitudes. I have also often warned about the demonising of governments and politicians  which, unfortunately appears to drive the political thinking of many people.

The article is directed mainly at common media reaction in the UK to the Russian news outlet RT. This has always seemed to me a rather childish reaction to the success of a competitor. However, it has led to serious calls for clipping RTs wings, even somehow banning it. There have been similar, perhaps more serious, calls from US politicians.

The author says of these complaints:

“Whatever the accuracy, or lack thereof, of RT and whatever its actual impact on western audiences, one of the problems with these kinds of arguments is that they fall straight into the trap of presenting media that are aligned with official adversaries as inherently propagandistic and deceitful, while the output of “our” media is presumed to be objective and truthful. Moreover, the impression given is that our governments engage in truthful “public relations”, “strategic communication” and “public diplomacy” while the Russians lie through “propaganda”.”

And yet:

“Neither of these claims has significant academic support. A substantial body of research conducted over many decades highlights the proximity between western news media and their respective governments, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. For reasons that include overreliance on government officials as news sources, economic constraints, the imperatives of big business and good old-fashioned patriotism, mainstream western media frequently fail to meet democratic expectations regarding independence.”

It refers to a Manchester University study showing that “UK media coverage of the 2003 Iraq invasion . . . . found that most UK mainstream media performed to reinforce official views rather than to challenge them.” And the recent Chilcot report  describing how “Tony Blair had discussed how phases 1 and 2 of the “war on terror” would require a “dedicated tightly knit propaganda unit”.”

The article is certainly true in its assertion:

“These are confusing times for consumers of the news, and the issue of which media outlets should be trusted is as demanding and critical as ever. Given the level of conflict and potential conflict in the world today, plus pressing global issues regarding environmental crisis, poverty and resources, it is essential that people learn to navigate the media and defend themselves against manipulation.”

All the more reason to avoid bias – to avoid:

“seeing our governments and media as free from manipulation while demonising “foreign” governments and media as full of propagandistic lies.”

And especially to be open minded. To obtain:

“information from a variety of news sources – including those that are derided as “propaganda” outlets.”

Now, wouldn’t be nice if The Guardian followed this advice in future.

Similar articles

Why the Higgsteria?

The whole world seemed to be celebrating the CERN announcement about the Higg’s particle last night. But, of course, very few of us really understand what it is and what it does.

The UK Guardian has a short video, What is the Higgs boson?, explaining the Higgs particle in relatively simple language. The presentation is by Guardian journalist Ian Sample who has also written a book about it – Massive: The Hunt for the God Particle.

Have a look – it’s only 4 and half minutes.

Video link: What is the Higgs boson? – video | Science | guardian.co.uk.

The “You Can’t Trust Science!” agenda

Here’s a nice little video I picked up from The Guardian (see You Can’t Trust Science!). It’s a rebuttal of those claims that “Science has an agenda! Science is unreliable!”

(Please ignore the salacious eye-catching aspects).

Vodpod videos no longer available.

You Can’t Trust Science! | Science | guardian.c…, posted with vodpod

As the accompanying text points out:

“Science is all about evidence. It is based in reality, in facts and in testable evidence — individual reputations do not change scientific facts, nor does belief, brainwashing and coercion. Scientists test and re-test scientific hypotheses about how the universe is put together and how it functions using the latest cutting-edge technologies. Despite this, there are adults who are taken seriously when they loudly declare: “Science has an agenda! Science is unreliable!” Using this distraction to begin a conversation that they want to dominate, these people then pontificate about their personal fantasy life as if it is real, demanding that everyone else in the world share their particular delusions, and they are taken seriously — without having to produce a shred of real evidence to support their statements.”

Similar articles

Related articles

• Royal Society mulls some of science’s biggest questions (techwatch.co.uk)

Ridiculing ridiculous science commentary

Sometimes it’s pointless to debate rationally with critics. When their approach and arguments are ridiculous it may be better to ridicule them rather than treat them seriosuly.

Simon Jenkins, Guardian columnist

It seems some British scientists have decided to do this with one of The Guardian’s columnists, Simon Jenkins. The last straw was a silly article of his Martin Rees makes a religion out of science so his bishops can gather their tithe. In this he made childish attacks on The Royal Society and its President Lord Martin Rees, the Large Hadron Collider, the BBC for running science programmes, the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, investment in science education, science advise on the H1N1 flu virus, nuclear power and “mad cow” disease, and so on.

Hot science blogs

Well, I don’t know how one judges the temperature of a science blog. But I certainly find them interesting and hope you do to.

There are ones I go to every day. I follow the feeds of others. And I am certainly interested in the New Zealand science blogs. These got a real boost last year when the New Zealand Sciblog platform was created.

So it’s great that the UK Guardian is putting together a list of the “hottest’ science blogs on the internet (see Wanted: The hottest science blogs on the world wide web).

They have already put together an initial list of their own favourite blogs – 18 in total. But there’s a lot more out there. And they don’t seem to be aware of the many New Zealnd blogs.

Never mind. They are asking for additions:

“Most importantly of all we’d love to know your favourite science blogs and websites? The ones you wish you had thought of? The ones you can’t spend a day without checking, or even the ones where you go to for a quick respite from real life? Either leave your thoughts below (go to Post a comment) or tweet me (@alokjha) or the science team (@guardianscience) direct. We’ll collate the suggestions over the next few days and post a list of readers’ recommendations.”

I think all New Zealand science bloggers should comment or tweet the Guardian and/or Alok Jha. Let them know we exist.