TimG Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 The actual point is that he didn't declare the conflict when giving the opinion.So where is the declaration of conflict of interest any time the Nature of Things covers climate change or any other topic which the Suzuki Foundation lobbies for? If you are only going to pick on Rex then your claims that this is about ethics are clearly nonsense. If you really believe this is about ethics then stop being a hypocrite and apply the same standards to Suzuki that you want to apply to Rex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Question. Answer. No idea. But if Suzuki has a car, or Neil Young flies in a plane then we have hypocrisy. If this guy only took (how much?) from the Oil Industry then he can go on the news and tell everyone they're great, is that it ? If you want us to stop pumping oil out of the ground it seems to me its incumbent upon you to stop using oil. Period. If rich guys like this can't find some alternative then where do they get off telling us to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 So where is the declaration of conflict of interest any time the Nature of Things covers climate change or any other topic which the Suzuki Foundation lobbies for? It isn't necessary for a pro-environment show to have a tag indicating that the show is pro-environment. On the other hand, we have you saying that because newsmen don't accept that much money from Oil Companies, they're in the clear. If you are only going to pick on Rex then your claims that this is about ethics are clearly nonsense. I'm not singling out Rex. There aren't any other examples, unless you have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 If you want us to stop pumping oil out of the ground it seems to me its incumbent upon you to stop using oil. Period. That's an impossible yardstick. You can't stop using oil products and live in this world. If rich guys like this can't find some alternative then where do they get off telling us to? Neil Young has got some great alternatives, I do know that. We don't have a biodiesel plane yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Again - here's the idea of the ethical gulf at play: For Suzuki - he advocates for the environment, so he has to stop using oil. For Murphy - he advocates for business, so he can go on the news and express his opinion without disclosing financial support as long as it's not too much money. (Also, we're not allowed to know how much money so we have to trust him there.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 ...Neil Young has got some great alternatives, I do know that. We don't have a biodiesel plane yet. Neil Young is a bigger enviro-rube than Suzuki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 That's an impossible yardstick. You can't stop using oil products and live in this world. Neil Young has got some great alternatives, I do know that. We don't have a biodiesel plane yet. Actually we have had a go at a biodiesel plane, thanks to Branson. He flew one of his planes, I think it was a 747, on a short flight in Europe fueled by biodiesel. It was experimental and therefore crew only but all went well. And apparently the sale of french fries went though the roof in the area for some reason. (OK I just made the last part up) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Neil Young is a bigger enviro-rube than Suzuki. Request for the 'enviro-rube' metric ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Here we go. http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/allaboutus/environment/biofuel.jsp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Of course anyone who takes an interest in the environment is an "enviro rube". We can all remember Joe Oliver's laughable comment about environmentalists are all "foreign funded radicals". I think Niel put's his money where his mouth is and I quite supported his drive in his electric car right into the maelstrom of Fort Mac. to do his concert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) It isn't necessary for a pro-environment show to have a tag indicating that the show is pro-environment.It is not a "pro-environment" show. It is a science show. If it is "pro-environment" then that is simply evidence of the bias introduced by the unethical host. And since the presentation of the science can be manipulated to support the political objectives of environmental lobby groups then, by your standards, viewers should be informed of the conflict of interest. They have not been informed of the conflict interest nor do you think that they should be which makes me wonder why you are so obsessed with oil companies. I'm not singling out Rex. There aren't any other examples, unless you have one.Yes you are singling out Rex. I have pointed out reasons why Suzuki has continued in a similar capacity for years with much worse conflict of interests and not only do you not care, you create silly excuses for why the rules that you want to apply to Rex should not apply to Suzuki. Edited November 30, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 It is not a "pro-environment" show. It is a science show.Ok.... If it is "pro-environment" then that is simply evidence of the bias introduced by the unethical host. Because he's hosting a pro-environment show ? I agree. Just like the Dragons Den people are biased towards business because they're... business people... And since the presentation of the science can be manipulated to support the political objectives of environmental lobby groups then, by your standards, viewers should be informed of the conflict of interest. Logic is quite twisted. Because the presentation of science can be manipulated by lots of people... It's an environment show. If he were to show bad science, then criticism of that would be justified in any case. They have not been informed of the conflict interest ... The conflict of interest that science CAN be manipulated you mean ? All things CAN be manipulated... you're driving your tractor waaay into the backfield on this one. nor do you think that they should be which makes me wonder why you are so obsessed with oil companies. I'm not. It's the only example I have. Yes you are singling out Rex. Give me other examples of people in news who aren't communicating their conflicts and I will agree with it. I only have the one example. I have pointed out reasons why Suzuki has continued in a similar capacity for years with much worse conflict of interests and not only do you not care, you create silly excuses for why the rules that you want to apply to Rex should not apply to Suzuki. They're silly to you, just as your logic that environmental science CAN potentially be misused being declared a "conflict" is very very silly to me. So where are we then ? You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you. My example of somebody of TV news giving opinions that he's paid to hold is countered by you by saying I'm singling him out (he's the only example I have though) and that he didn't make that much.... Then you come back with the angle that an environmental proponent on an environmental show is in conflict because science can be misrepresented sometimes. I think we're too far apart to get to common points here... do you have anything new ? If not, let's move on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) It's an environment show. If he were to show bad science, then criticism of that would be justified in any case.It is NOT an environment show. It is a science show. But the host is conflicted which means he has an incentive to choose topics and/or present the science in a ways that benefit his financial interests. Therefore, it follows that Suzuki's financial interests in presenting certain POVs should be declared. It is not. Why don't you have a problem with this? It is the standard that you expect Rex to follow. I guess your rules of ethics only apply to people who say things you don't like. Give me other examples of people in news who aren't communicating their conflicts and I will agree with it.I am giving you another example and you just make silly excuses to avoid acknowledging it. My example of somebody of TV news giving opinions that he's paid to hold is countered by you by saying I'm singling him out (he's the only example I have though) and that he didn't make that much....Suzuki presents opinions on CBC which, unlike Rex, he directly is paid to hold. The only difference is Suzuki's opinions are dressed up a science instead of being presented as an opinion. This makes Suzuki's conflict much much worse. But you just want to make excuses for him. Edited December 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 But the host is conflicted... Why ? I have already addressed why your supposition is too much of a stretch in my response above. The rest of that paragraph doesn't acknowledge the difference between a news show and a science show, as you put it, and doesn't address my points. Yes, there are ethics in both science and journalism, but as I have pointed out in the latter case these have indeed been breached versus your stretchy "science can be manipulated" angle. Suzuki presents opinions on CBC which he is paid to hold. The only difference is Suzuki's opinions are dressed up a science instead of being presented as an opinion. No, you're taking another angle. Do you have anything new here or are you just going to come back and repeat this awkward angle over and over again ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Why ? I have already addressed why your supposition is too much of a stretch in my response above.And I reject your entire premise which is based on the naive view that "science shows" present "truth" which can be challenged if the "truth" is wrong. They don't. They present opinion by selectively choosing topics and selectively presenting evidence. The science does not have to be wrong to be manipulated. And Suzuki has used his "science" show to spread propaganda that benefits him personally. IMO there is no difference between a science show and a news show which makes the distinction you want to make completely artificial and largely self serving. I am pretty sure that if Rex was hosting the science show you would be still criticizing him because you are not standing up for any real principle here - you are just looking for excuses to smear people with opinions you don't like. Edited December 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Suzuki has used his "science" show to spread propaganda that benefits him personally. Right, but I'm assuming you're basing this on the 'environmental science is corrupt' meme anyway... I am pretty sure that if Rex was hosting the science show you would be still criticizing him Yes, because of no qualifications but go on.... because you are not standing up for any real principle here - you are just looking for excuses to smear people with opinions you don't like. Not at all. There's no conflict of interest though between environmental science and science, as much as some would like there to be. If you can find some breach there, I'll be on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) There's no conflict of interest though between environmental science and science, as much as some would like there to be. If you can find some breach there, I'll be on it.First we are not talking about "science". We are talking about "science journalism". There is absolutely no evidence to support your belief that "science journalism" different from "current events journalism" when it comes to the potential for reporter bias to influence the coverage. Every special pleading you make for "science journalism" applies equally to "current affairs journalism". It is completely ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise. My opinion of the underlying science does not change the fact that that bias in the reporting of science exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not. So given that "science journalism" is not materially different from "current events journalism" it is hypocritical for you to defend Suzuki while criticizing Rex. Condemn them both or neither. Edited December 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 First we are not talking about "science". We are talking about "science journalism". There is absolutely no evidence to support your belief that "science journalism" different from "current events journalism" Since you have asserted for the first time on the thread that we're talking about science JOURNALISM, why would I have posted any evidence ? You're browsing around for something to build a case on, clearly.... I'm not sure that this IS science journalism, but it doesn't matter: incorrect information would still delineate between ethical and unethnical behavior in this channel, I think. Do you have something ? Use Google, if not. I'm sure you can at least get me to write a post condemning SOMETHING Suzuki has done wrong.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Since you have asserted for the first time on the thread that we're talking about science JOURNALISM, why would I have posted any evidence ? You're browsing around for something to build a case on, clearly.... I'm not sure that this IS science journalism, but it doesn't matter: incorrect information would still delineate between ethical and unethnical behavior in this channel, I think. Do you have something ? Use Google, if not. I'm sure you can at least get me to write a post condemning SOMETHING Suzuki has done wrong.... One only has to watch Suzuki's outrageous Australian interview to see how little he actually knows about Climate Change science - many of his answers are "because some very smart scientitsts say so". He even had no clue that UAH and RSS related to temperature datasets - the most simple basics of Climate Change knowledge. He is paid to repeat the talking points of his enviro-sponsers and has tragically - almost comically - devolved into an eco-slut - flying anywhere for his outlandish fees. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hKdmQMVJ70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Since you have asserted for the first time on the thread that we're talking about science JOURNALISM, why would I have posted any evidence?I was always talking about science journalism and assumed you understood that. But I forgot about your dishonest tactic of creating a false equivalence between people expressing opinions about science which you agree with and science itself. but it doesn't matter: incorrect information would still delineate between ethical and unethnical behavior in this channel, I think.The same is true of opinion columns or new coverage: incorrect facts can be called out. But what cannot be easily called out is a misleading presentation of facts. This is true is science coverage and with current events coverage. You are trying to make a distinction that does not exist. I'm sure you can at least get me to write a post condemning SOMETHING Suzuki has done wrong....Rex has done nothing wrong. You have no evidence that the speaking fees he accepted had an influence on his opinions. Yet you say he was unethical to not specifically disclose them. Suzuki is a paid director of a foundation that benefits if people accept its view of the world. If it is unethical for Rex to not specifically disclose oil company money then it is unethical for Suzuki not specifically disclose that he is a paid advocate for an organization that stands to benefit if science on his show is presented in a way that supports its objectives. It don't need evidence that it was manipulated since you provide no evidence that Rex's opinions were affected by oil company client. No more evidence is required since you have set the criteria. Edited December 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 That's an impossible yardstick. You can't stop using oil products and live in this world. Tough. If you advocate that we should stop using oil then YOU should stop using oil. You're a rich guy. Find a way. Neil Young has got some great alternatives, I do know that. We don't have a biodiesel plane yet. Yeah, it's nice to be rich, and drive a massively expensive car that's been specially altered by high priced talent you can afford to pay. But he still owns multiple big houses and has huge big tour buses. He also flies in private jets. He has a way bigger 'footprint' than most people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Tough. If you advocate that we should stop using oil then YOU should stop using oil. You're a rich guy. Find a way. So you're saying nobody should criticize anything that we're all dependent on ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 see how little he actually knows about Climate Change science - He's not a climate scientist, he's an advocate and TV personality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 But I forgot about your dishonest tactic of creating a false equivalence between people expressing opinions about science which you agree with and science itself. I have no idea what you're talking about. But what cannot be easily called out is a misleading presentation of facts. This is true is science coverage and with current events coverage. You are trying to make a distinction that does not exist. No... I didn't say that. If somebody makes a false impression, that's equally up for criticism in my books. Rex has done nothing wrong. You have no evidence that the speaking fees he accepted had an influence on his opinions. That's not the point, as I have already pointed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) That's not the point, as I have already pointed out.You have not presented any rational argument that supports the artificial distinction you want to make between "science journalism" and "current events journalism". Every argument you apply to "science journalism" in order to excuse Suzuki applies equally to "current events journalism" and should also excuse Rex. You try move the goal posts by claiming I need "evidence" that Suzuki has done something wrong when you provide no evidence that Rex has done anything wrong and say it is "not the point". So why exactly do I need evidence that Suzuki has done something wrong?. You are just making excuses. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit that a paid advocate who hosts a show should declare his financial interests whenever his show covers topics that potentially benefit the organization that pays him? Your concept of journalistic ethics is really twisted if you don't have a problem with this. Edited December 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.