“Fake news†is a problem on the right—but not only on the right. “Real†journalists, most of whom lean left, ought to look in the mirror. Or perhaps they are looking into their own distorted mirror and don’t recognize what they see.
An obvious example is “climate change.†News organizations have internalized alarmist orthodoxy, leading them to be dismissive of facts that call it into question, such as the predictive failures of climate models and the abuses of scientific process revealed seven years ago by the “Climategate†emails.
“You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t independently evaluate any of the climate science claims,†observesScott Adams. “You could try to assess the credibility of the scientists using your common sense and experience, but let’s face it—you aren’t good at that. So what do you do? You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you.â€
That’s what most journalists do, but readers may notice the disjunction between facts and “science†and conclude that the latter is bunk. Journalists react by digging in and becoming more dogmatic, and the result is tendentious headlines like this one: “Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.†That’s from a “news†story in the*New York Times, the same paper that’s complaining about “the proliferation of raw opinion that passes for news.â€
An obvious example is “climate change.†News organizations have internalized alarmist orthodoxy, leading them to be dismissive of facts that call it into question, such as the predictive failures of climate models and the abuses of scientific process revealed seven years ago by the “Climategate†emails.
“You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t independently evaluate any of the climate science claims,†observesScott Adams. “You could try to assess the credibility of the scientists using your common sense and experience, but let’s face it—you aren’t good at that. So what do you do? You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you.â€
That’s what most journalists do, but readers may notice the disjunction between facts and “science†and conclude that the latter is bunk. Journalists react by digging in and becoming more dogmatic, and the result is tendentious headlines like this one: “Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.†That’s from a “news†story in the*New York Times, the same paper that’s complaining about “the proliferation of raw opinion that passes for news.â€