http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20170213_Detection...
Well, mostly unless said author has a persistent social media profile, you manually do it
Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty.
More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the hurricane...")
I'd also like to point out that the "mainstream media" is doing an excellent job regarding these reports: not reporting on them. By now, they have certainly seen these reports. The excitement that grips HN and your comment speak to the fact that it would make for excellent clickbait. But there's nothing anywhere.
On the other end of the spectrum, there's alarmist clickbait with "nuclear incident" in quotes that make it appear as a euphemism for a meltdown (otherwise it'd just be a nuclear incident), posted in a series called "The War Zone".
Here are some other issues I find with the article. It's splitting hairs in a way, but I wish people had a bit of an appreciation for the work of professional journalists and editors:
- The article is tagged "nukes" and "atmospheric testing" when it's almost certainly not a nuclear test. Because that would be stupid. And it would have been picked up by seismographs.
- "Because of the low levels of concentration, there is no health risk to the public or the environment, at least on a wide scale." This leaves open the possibility of smaller-scale health hazards, falsely sensationalising the available data. OTOH, "Levels of concentration" is a phrase capable of inflicting some serious health effects among english language teachers.
- "The highly unique aircraft are specifically designed to respond to nuclear incidents—especially those that include the detonation of nuclear warheads." There is so much wrong with this sentence:
- There's only one WC-135, so the plural is wrong.
- Everything that's "designed to..." is "specifically designed to..."
- Which "nuclear incident that involves the detonation of nuclear warheads" is not described more succinctly as "the detonation of (a) nuclear warhead(s)"?
- The latter half of the sentence seems designed to fuel speculation
- "There has been some talk about even the US restarting its nuclear testing under President Trump..." If this is speculation mixed with hyperbole, do not bring it up! Any mention, no matter how dismissive, just serves to legitimise such speculation. In this case the best argument against it isn't even mentioned: you don't set up a nuclear test in 3 weeks.
- " The Russian submarine K-27 [...] is said to be literally a ticking time bomb." If the evil media conspiracy saves me from such uses of the word "literally", I think I'm ok with their control of my thoughts.
Edit: I made this comment before the parent added a bunch of, mostly grammatical, complaints about the article. I agree with other posters that those are mostly superficial.
Democracy is in trouble. Many people have lost faith in the media. Independent journalism is suppressed. (Though not completely in all the above counts.)
Are you sure you're not falling into the trap of "I didn't see it, so it doesn't exist"?
Sadly, a lot of people in the US watch Fox News and think it is the only truth. (Check out mediamatters.org for some agenda monitoring).
However that is not the only issue causing these bubbles. People are segregating themselves, both socially and geographically along ideological lines. Print media is increasingly losing subscribers to generally less informative mediums such as tv. Technological advances, many brought about by my own field of software engineering, make it easier and easier for people to wall themselves off from ideas that make them uncomfortable. These are much more difficult problems to solve, and I certainly have no definitive answers for them.
So I start where I can, trying to encourage strangers on the internet (and in real life) to step out of their bubble and read the truly important journalism that still exists in our world. In the meantime, I hope someone much smarter than me can fix the divide in the US that causes these ideological bubbles. Because right now we are sitting on a powder keg, and the media isn't the cause... it's an effect.
David Koch opposes the Iraq War.
These criticisms toward the media and 'it's not like it used to be' allegations have been going on for generations.
'Yellow journalism' dates back to before the spanish-american war.
To what extent is reporting skewed/slanted in the direction of the owners interests? Each media outlet still has an owner, hasn't it?
Every reputable news organization follows the journalistic code of ethics that puts institutional barriers in the way to counteract bias. Reputable outlets require multiple sources to corroborate stories before they go to print. They require printed or verbal disclaimers on any story that could pose a conflict of interest for the outlet or author. They require prompt retractions to be printed if an initial story is found to be factually inaccurate in any way.
It's not a perfect system. No system is. Bad articles can still slip through. Some organizations can adhere to it more than others. But it is way better than anything else humans have come up with to keep the news honest. Most journalists take their roles as arbiters of information very seriously and try to keep their biases out of it, even if they are not always completely successful. That is all anyone could reasonably ask.
Instead of labelling all news media as generically biased and therefore not to be trusted, try to understand that all information will have a bias and learn to identify specific incidents of it. Then learn to work around it by reading other sources with different biases, thereby getting the whole picture of a story. It is the news media's job to TRY to be as unbiased as possible. It is the news reader's job to TRY and be as informed as possible by reading varied news from different sources. Neither side will be perfect, as both are full of imperfect human elements, but overall it leads to a reasonably informed and educated populace, which of course is the goal of journalism.
And if you do not agree with what I have said here, I have a follow up question for you... if the current news organizations are so terrible and inherently biased, what alternative would you propose? What is your idea of a perfect, unbiased media landscape? And would your alternative truly lead to a less biased media or just a media with biases you happen to agree with?
What about editorial policy: who decides what item is taking the front page and what is published on page 11? Apparently that also has some importance. Has every journalist the opportunity to embark onto several months of research without editorial oversight? I am not sure about that.
> Instead of labelling all news media as generically biased and therefore not to be trusted,
Red herring, labeling: I haven't labeled anything, why is my question received in such a hostile way?
> It is the news media's job to TRY to be as unbiased as possible. It is the news reader's job to TRY and be as informed as possible by reading varied news from different sources.
I can agree with that. Can we agree that journalistic output cannot be trusted blindly?
> And if you do not agree with what I have said here, I have a follow up question for you... if the current news organizations are so terrible and inherently biased, what alternative would you propose
I think that journalism is currently searching for ways to adjust to the realities of the net: on the one hand established journalists don't quite like the loss of authority and fact checking that does occur, on the other hand established journalists have some codes of conduct that are lacking in the online world. I hope the net result will be more transparency and a higher quality of writing, and a more informed public: the current state of the art is far from an ideal state. However i think that nobody should be exempt from critical questions.
The media is VERY important, I agree. But I feel we've recently decided to forget how awful the media actually generally is. The article I noticed this last week that was particularly hilarious: "Trump made me order meatloaf, Christie says". That was CBS. That's what we've sunk to, and in many cases, that feels like the high point of where a lot of our media outlets have been.
There are definitely journalists out there doing a great job. The Intercept, The Guardian, The Information (though I can't afford to read the last one). But a lot of our news has been all hype and no substance, and I don't feel we should be giving them a pass right now, just because Trump's against them.
Go and read the Pulitzer prize winning journalism that has come out in the last two years. I would be shocked if you could walk away saying it is hype. Or even look at another story from the last few weeks, Michael Flynn's pre-election sanction discussions with the Russian Ambassador and subsequent firing. People might have different opinions on the issue or different feelings on the way the information was leaked, but it can't be argued that it was a serious story of national importance. Meat loaf isn't the only thing out there.
Your criticisms of some media practices are valid and have been made many times before. They will and should be made again. But finding a bad article and saying "see the media is terrible don't trust them" is not the answer. If you see an article that seems silly, look at other sources to find one that's not. If you see an article that seems biased, read about the story from several other sources to get the full picture. Or even better, do that even if you don't think the initial source seems biased. Become a savvy news consumer who stays outside of ideological bubbles by purposely popping them.
And I will also say this... when something important is under attack, it is possible to try and save it even if you have concerns about certain aspects of how it functions. It's hard to prune weeds from a garden that has been burned to the ground.
http://www.cjr.org/criticism/best_journalism_of_2016.php
Here is a good list of some great journalism from the last year. Some of the media outlets are "mainstream" (note I really dislike that term as it is usually used by people being adversarial towards the media for their own gain). Some are small local papers. Some have what is perceived to be a left leaning ideological bent, and some have a right.
I find that many people laud the journalism and outlets that support their viewpoint. However, they avoid or actively denigrate good journalism and outlets that oppose their viewpoint. From your reading choices, I'm guessing that you probably don't read the Wall Street Journal or other sources with a perceived conservative bent. If not, you should try. And try some sources such as the Associated Press and Reuters which focus on producing content for many media outlets with different viewpoints and biases. Good journalism is being done across the spectrum. It should be supported, regardless of your political leanings, as the basis of a shared reality in which we as humans can make good decisions.
I agree with you on this point, but I'd like to add that this argument can be spun further: the media framework is as rigged for views as it is due to poor prioritization of the media consumers.
Of course, next step in the chain is that it's the media companies that failed to find business models that adapted to digital and retained sufficient journalistic integrity. But I think that's a bit unfair. None of us have figured that out. I highly doubt that journalists are celebrating the new age of clickbait. I'd rather suspect they cry themselves to sleep over it, so it's not for lack of trying.
Sigh. I think I'm going to buy a Guardian subscription now.
Wikipedia claims this: "10 original WC-135B, plus 1 converted former EC-135C. Two aircraft currently in active service."
So... is there one WC-135, or two or 10 or 11?
>> the "mainstream media" is doing an excellent job regarding these reports: not reporting on them.
I just checked up on CNN and I can read about "Kung fu granny", "Comic con in Saudi Arabia" and nothing about the above radiation incident. Media doing an excellent job? Maybe.
> Wikipedia claims this: "10 original WC-135B, plus 1 converted former EC-135C. Two aircraft currently in active service."
You are right – I misunderstood the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article when I checked.
In this case, however, I'd like to add to my nitpicking by complaining about the phrase "highly unique".
I also don't get why anybody would use cnn.com, or any other TV station's website, for news. Journalism happens at Newspapers, at magazines, and in books. That's the result of economics: These formats are very constrained. They don't allow for many distinguishing features except the content itself. Whereas CNN has dozens of variables it can jiggle before even thinking about investing into investigative journalism, and ultimately it's bound to be the better business decision to spend money on a charming anchorman than a dozen people working an idea that may just go nowhere.
The mission is split into aircraft operators and mission/equipment people. The aircraft operator of this model is a very small part of the overall mission, which has about a thousand people and all kinds of very fascinating gear aside from those two specific planes, I'm sure.
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Artic...
http://www.25af.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/6260...
What about that news article that WaPo published about the guy who found some malware on his laptop and was blown out into this https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...
I don't know how you could go from a virus on a laptop to "Russia is hacking into our power grid" unless you are being intentionally dishonest or have such an agenda that you jump at any scrap to make a story.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewar...
I don't know how you could go from a virus on a laptop to "Russia is hacking into our power grid" unless you are being intentionally dishonest or have such an agenda that you jump at any scrap to make a story.
That was terrible.
Good thing WaPo withdrew it and posted this:
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.[1]
I dunno. I've occasionally got things wrong before.
The real problem is when they double-down on an incorrect position in the face of evidence to the contrary.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...
Instead of "stories" think of "memes"
Instead of "reporters" think of "salespeople"
Instead of "readers" think of "customers"
Instead of "publishers" think of "businesses"
With that map in mind, it's not hard to understand why many, not all, but clearly many do the shoddy reporting that they do. Like so many things in today's world, it's no longer about pride in your craft, but instead it's about making money. The result is it's increasingly difficult for the average person to tell the real news from the fake because the traditional sources of real news have abandoned this in favor of sensationalism. But on the upside, the Internet may yet save us by providing smaller outlets a chance to provide better reporting. I was very much intrigued by the WH using Skype to pull in reporters from smaller cities and areas that don't normally get a chance to participate.
<rant> During the recent Trump news conference, another aspect of what's going on jumped out at me. At one point in the news conference, the camera pulled back to show the room of reporters. What I found jarring was the age of the reporters; to my eye they looked like they were high schoolers. I was hoping to hear well thought out questions but instead most of them asked the same robotic questions on Russia. I don't think the media organizations are doing the American people (and the world) a great service when they send the least experienced staff members to events like this. </rant>
"Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say"
Even if we now know it's a lie.
I'm trying to figure out what would be the proper way to modify the title to show it's wrong and to still provide the readers the insight that the paper claimed something that was debunked?
I'm not sure what else it could be without it being much worse reason.
Until then, things like this will happen. Assuming all media is bad because of these incidents is silly.
Don't run with a story until you can verify it? I know that would have stopped them from running 90% of their anti trump stories because there isn't a lot of evidence for them but if they actually did that as a whole, I don't think trump would be president.
People still underestimate how well trump is able to play the game of calling out the media for crying wolf.
> Until then, things like this will happen. Assuming all media is bad because of these incidents is silly.
I'm really not dismissing all media, I'm just applying different standards to different outlets based on their biases. If i see a story on WaPo about something bad trump did, it better be well sourced and founded otherwise it goes in the trash.
Same with breitbart or any other right wing outlet, If they are making a claim that fits their narrative then you should look purely at the underlying facts and cut out the speculation.
There's also a big fat note at the top of that article now, and there were probably more articles about the retraction than there were about the original article.
Sounds like a certain US president we know.
They wrote an entire article about the all the danger that this event shows us except the most basic questions about the hack would have quickly lead you to a realisation that there was absolutely nothing here.
They even pin it on Lazy Bear the "Elite Russian hacking group". How the hell did they did they get that conclusion from malware? Unless they were shooting entire clips from the hip.
We don't know what they did in the course of writing the article or how the article ended up as it is. Maybe they did ask that, and the person they asked views the situation differently than you do; maybe they got conflicting answers and chose what was most convincing. Maybe they wrote about it and the editor cut it.
(For argument sake, I'm accepting your conclusion about the article's shortcomings; I don't know about that myself.)
I added them because I believe that, in aggregate, they demonstrate another dimension of the 'quality' being discussed: journalism has an appreciation of language. Without writers that care, and paid copy editors, that quality may be lost without people ever realising what we had.
Think about any craft you know something about: You might find yourself explaining the details of a really well-crafted specimen to a lay person. Most or all of it may be new to to that person, but they could have maybe recognised and appreciated the overall quality. By teaching people about the many small details that went into the product, you're making it easier for them to seek out quality, and harder on producers to cut corners.
But my examples were probably too superficial and/or even wrong. Only this once I'll use my status as a non-native speaker of English as an excuse :). I'd add a note to the post itself, but the time to edit has unfortunately passed.
I think there is a distinction between primary design criteria and secondary e.g. the difference between must and should.
Primary : must be capable of transporting fluid.
Secondary: should be red
Two in active service and a total of eleven converted from the base C-135, per Wikipedia.
Quibbles over details aside, I do take your point about the absence of reportage in the mainstream media on something that's not well enough understood to speak to the cause, and likely to generate a lot of unnecessary concern absent such understanding.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how I feel about there being someone - anyone - in a position to decide what the public does and does not need to know. In this case, we might agree that that power, to the extent it still exists in the age of the Internet, is being used for good. Is it always?
Not sure about the others but NY Times has lost much credibility over the years, getting worse during the election.
Before the Iraq war, it deliberately spread misinformation from the government during the WMD episode to drum up support for the war. It basically acted as the propaganda arm of the U.S. government. For this election, they backed the wrong horse and missed out.
You think that the media is doing an "excellent job" because they're suppressing news about a possible nuclear incident?
And the rest of the post is nitpicks about the grammar of the article? And falsely claiming that there was only one WC-135 built (there were 10 according to wikipedia.)
I hope your post was a joke. If so, it was in pretty poor taste.
Trump's strategy of making everyone hyper-skeptical of the media is working then. When you think all news is fake you'll tend to stick you the sources that "you" think are truthful (and that match your preconceptions).
That is a huge difference from demagoguery about "enemies of the people".
The best way we can fight lies in the media is by educating Americans about how to detect bias in their media sources, encouraging them to read and watch multiple news sources (not just Fox News) and letting them form their own opinions.
Why? for blatantly lying and misrepresenting facts such as Trump was president when these "tests" took place?
> It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise.
It does the exact opposite: it portends to lay out facts, but instead it lies about which president under which these "tests" occurred, so everything else they state is suspect.
> There has been some talk about even the US restarting its nuclear testing under President Trump, but this is largely speculation mixed with hyperbole.
I guess; Trump is thrown out in the context of speculating about where this isotope is coming from, as if the US might be conducting surreptitious tests on behalf of a nuclear war mongering Trump. Timing is way off though; the first reports appeared before he had any authority. It's a gratuitous mention and overlooks the fact that Trump probably ordered the 135 to Europe to investigate, something for which the US deserves credit. But hey, indulging Trump Derangement Syndrome makes for better copy.
Anyhow, the most likely source of lofted iodine-131 is a damaged power reactor. The proximity of the detections to Russia -- a nation with a long history of failing to report their nuclear incidents -- means it's not far fetched to suspect they've melted something down. Russia has an incredible legacy of nuclear facilities, most badly engineered and badly neglected and all very old. Sites like Kola (first gen VVER) and Bilibino (unique EGP-6 reactors) go for years without scrutiny by the outside world. Then there is the Russian nuclear navy and other nuclear assets, such as nuclear ice breakers, some of which have had the barnacles knocked off and been redeployed on behalf of Putin's desire to rattle rusty old Soviet sabers.
Who knows. Unless it gets worse and somebody fesses up we may never know. The world didn't know about Kyshtym for three decades.