In a very long piece (7823 words) in the New York Times Magazine this week, Steven Pinker makes the case that Bill Gates might be more moral than Mother Teresa–because he’s using his fortune to deal with problems like malaria in developing countries.

Well, I’m not sure I’m ready to agree. But it certainly is nice to see moral issues getting lead-story placement in the Times Magazine.

It’s also fascinating to see how the author, a Harvard professor, manages to explore moral questions in some depth, and yet manages at the same time to keep his own viewpoints remarkably hidden. We don’t know if he’s liberal or conservative, and we don’t even know if he thinks Gates or Teresa would win the morality contest.

Another of his examples is how the difference between Islamic Sudan and the secular West had near-disastrous consequences for a well-meaning schoolteacher.

And because we don’t know his position, it’s easier to accept his premise that morality can create a common ground between Left and Right, or between people of widely disparate cultures.

An example of the former:

But in any conflict in which a meeting of the minds is not completely hopeless, a recognition that the other guy is acting from moral rather than venal reasons can be a first patch of common ground. One side can acknowledge the other’s concern for community or stability or fairness or dignity, even while arguing that some other value should trump it in that instance. With affirmative action, for example, the opponents can be seen as arguing from a sense of fairness, not racism, and the defenders can be seen as acting from a concern with community, not bureaucratic power. Liberals can ratify conservatives’ concern with families while noting that gay marriage is perfectly consistent with that concern.

This insight, about 90% through the article, is simply brilliant. I’ve seen it in action many times, but never so clearly expressed, except perhaps by legendary community organizer Saul Alinsky. It’s a principle that every agent of social change should internalize.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Is it outright deliberate deception, bad science, or merely urban legend run amok?

The widely cited study that claims the manufacturing and transport of Prius batteries has worse environmental impact than building and driving a Hummer has serious flaws:

  • It bases assumptions on the Hummer being driven for 379,000 miles, while the Prius gets retired after just 109,000 miles (and having owned many Toyotas, I can tell you that most of them are just hitting their stride at 100K); this alone is enough to completely invalidate the study
  • The issues about nickel mining are taken out of context and based on 30-years-obsolete data
  • In general, life-cycle issues related to cars skew 85% toward use over the vehicle’s lifetime, and only 15% to manufacturing and distribution–so even if the Prius energy consumption has a higher front-load than typical, it’s not likely to be enough to overwhelm the energy savings during the car’s useful life
  • Oh yes, and no independent researchers reviewed the data
  • Two good articles with real data: This very readable one from the Sierra Club, and this more technical one from Pacific Institute (it’s a PDF).

    I would be very curious about what economic interests were behind the original claim–which got picked up by George Will, among many others.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    This is cool: a new social networking venture that has journalists–both mainstream and New Media (e.g., bloggers) judging the relevance of stories and filtering them to the world at large. Sort of like Digg but covering a much broader sphere, since absolutely every field has its own journalists.

    The venture, called Publish 2, is fronted by Scott Karp of the very nicely done Publishing 2.0 blog.

    I was not familiar with Scott, with Publishing 2.0, or with Publish2 (which was announced back in
    August)–but in true “social proof” fashion–this is why search engines are less important than they used to be–I followed a link from Joan Stewart’s excellent Publicity Hound, which I’ve been reading since she interviewed me many years ago, to a long article by Howard Owens on bringing non-wired journalists up to speed, and he had a link to Publish2.

    Wow, no wonder I’m falling behind on my work! The Web is just too darned seductive for an info-junkie like me. 🙂 I’ve got a client project to get done today–but first, off to request an account at Publish2.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Talk about a clueless company! First its PR department issues wrong information. Then when journalists pick up the story and cast the company in a negative light, they demand retractions saying the story was based on erroneous information–but not bothering to mention that the wrong stuff was supplied by them in the first place.Read more »

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    TV pundit and talk show host Lou Dobbs is a master manipulator. He did an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now–an arena that he clearly considered hostile territory–and he used every sleazoid right-wing media manipulation technique I’ve ever seen: interrupting, name calling, avoiding the topic with a twisted answer changing the subject, denying he said something until it was proven on tape, claiming to hold a high standard only to be caught out on fact-checking issues, demanding to be allowed to finish the question but not granting his interlocuters the same courtesy…and plenty more. This interview demonstrates a lot of what’s wrong with “punditocracy.” Oh yes, and he cleverly started the interview by focusing on areas that his audience would actually agree with. But most of his hour focused on immigration, and especially on exposing his rather bizarre sources for his politics on that issue.

    Fortunately, Goodman and Gonzales were up to the challenge and kept him honest–territory that seems, from listening to the interview, to be terra incognita: unknown.

    I particularly liked Juan Gonzales’ response here:

    LOU DOBBS: What in the world is your point?

    JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I’m getting to my point, but give me the time to do it. We have time on this show, unlike—we don’t do soundbites here, alright?

    Go to the link and don’t just read the transcript. Listen or watch, and examine this interview through the lens of media manipulation by a right-wing punditocracy that doesn’t want to give air to opposing views, makes up facts when the real ones are inconvenient and resorts to personal attacks when nothing else seems to be working.

    Lou Dobbs embodies much that is wrong with contemporary journalism–but Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, and the entire Democracy Now staff (which does an amazing job digging up news that doesn’t make the mainstream media, five whole hours a week), embody much of what is right.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    The New York Times reports something exciting: two different citizen-journalist initiatves aimed at broadening coverage of the ‘008 election while maintaining journalistic standards–and training the student reporters in them.

    One of them, OffTheBus.net, is backed by Ariana Huffington and her Huffington Post. The other, Scoop08.com, has a number of well-known advisors from NY Times columnist Frank Rich to Senator Joe Lieberman.

    I wish them both well. The more perspectives shared and the more people with journalism skills, the better I like it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail