https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Insti...
That this would make new housing more expensive, isn't generally viewed as necessary for fire safety, and is funded by the concrete industry, don't seem to be disputed?
http://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2021/6/13/dont-expand...
You can also just read the proposal yourself and draw your own conclusions:
https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-...
Refusing to read and consider arguments from people you disagree with isn't a particularly useful strategy for gaining knowledge about a topic.
This one, for me. I know nothing about it. Without further information, I wouldn’t want to conclude anything from a biased source (other than noting that the issue exists).
On the other hand, there are a lot of people out their paid to create and push propaganda. As a general rule, one shouldn't engage with it. If even the writer may not believe something, one isn't obliged to take it seriously. Indeed, I think it's a frequently exploited mistake to bring more credulity and good faith to something than the source itself does.
Much better to spend one's time finding reasonably sincere sources and reading those.
Sometimes I'll find that they were indeed making up an alternate reality or misrepresenting things. Sometimes I'll find something where the arguments being presented are unrelated to the data being presented. Sometimes I'll find disagreements in values leading to different interpretations of the same data. Sometimes I'll find that I learn something.
It does take discipline to do this, though: with many sources I have to be on high alert for anything that seems like it's trying to invoke my emotions to get me to agree with the article.
In the case of this article, I went and read their source material (the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety report on this: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_rpt_dbs_%2... ), and found that the article fairly reasonably summarized the report. The last two paragraphs of the article are where most of their opinions are interjected, and I view their claims of the motivation of the backers with some skepticism. The claims about safety seem in line with what I could glean from the report, but I'm not very sure I understand the nuances of analyzing fire statistics across diverse neighborhoods.
The notion that you're personally always going to be able to see past propaganda is not giving enough credit to people who are good at propaganda. Everybody who falls for propaganda thinks they're smarter than that. Sure, they can spot the stuff that was meant to take other sorts of people in, but everybody has weaknesses.
But even assuming you could, you really can't do the research on everything. The world's too big. No matter what the topic, we all need filtering heuristics. And you give a really good one:
> Can I understand why they reached a different conclusion than me?
Often the answer is, "Because they were paid to." Or, "Because somebody was paid to amplify wacky outliers." For advertising, PR, and propaganda, all of the actual material can be taken with a grain of salt and the conclusions can be ignored, because the conclusions were foreordained.
As an example, take something you aren't personally well-disposed toward. Say, Q. How much time do you spend reading their ever-metastasizing set of theories and beliefs? How much have you personally refined your beliefs based what you read of theirs?
I'd hope the answer here is approximately zero, because a) it isn't worth your time, and b) there is a non-zero chance that it turns any given reader, yourself included, into a believer. That's the point of most propaganda, after all.
Why should I expend that much effort from an organization who's got an agenda and isn't known for their honesty? How much knowledge can be gained from looking through misinformation? Why should I poison myself with potential propaganda? What does it gain me then but an attempt to bait me?