$1.4 billion in FEMA aid went to bogus victims
1.4 billion fraud in Katrina pay outs
Audit Shows FEMA Funds Spent On Divorce, Sex Change
Billions feared stolen from hurricane relief
Bogus aid payouts latest FEMA snafu
Bogus hurricane aid hit $1.4 billion, GAO says
Bogus hurricane victims defraud US of $1.4B
Disaster aid spent on porn
FEMA cards bought diamonds, erotica
FEMA funds spent on divorce, sex change
FEMA Gets Hoodwinked
FEMA Hurricane Assistance Spent On Bogus Items
FEMA hurricane cards bought jewelry, erotica
FEMA relief rife with abuse, fraud, report says
Fraudulent Katrina and Rita Claims Top $1 Billion
GAO finds mismanagement of hurricane aid
Government reports fraudulent FEMA hurricane handouts
Government wrongly paid for tickets, a divorce lawyer, vacations
House to see records of FEMA defrauding
Hurricane assistance paid for tickets, divorce lawyer, vacations
Hurricane assistance spent on vacations, football tickets, sex
Hurricane fraud tab could hit $1.4 billion
Hurricane ripoffs cost $1.4B
Hurricanes unleashed flood of FEMA scams
Investigators uncover fraud in Katrina cleanup
Katrina aid improperly spent
Katrina fraud cost up to $1.4 billion
More Than $1 Billion In FEMA Hurricane Aid Spent On Diamonds
Much hurricane aid paid out improperly
Post-hurricane fleecers had $1.4 billion field day
Probe finds FEMA paid bogus claims
Probe: FEMA Defrauded
Report Details How Government Was Hoodwinked After Katrina, Rita
Some Funds By FEMA Spent On Bogus Items
Some storm aid went for sports tickets, divorce lawyer, vacations
Sports Tickets, Trips on Katrina's Tab
Study Finds Huge Fraud in the Wake of Hurricanes
The Fate of FEMA
1.4 billion fraud in Katrina pay outs
Audit Shows FEMA Funds Spent On Divorce, Sex Change
Billions feared stolen from hurricane relief
Bogus aid payouts latest FEMA snafu
Bogus hurricane aid hit $1.4 billion, GAO says
Bogus hurricane victims defraud US of $1.4B
Disaster aid spent on porn
FEMA cards bought diamonds, erotica
FEMA funds spent on divorce, sex change
FEMA Gets Hoodwinked
FEMA Hurricane Assistance Spent On Bogus Items
FEMA hurricane cards bought jewelry, erotica
FEMA relief rife with abuse, fraud, report says
Fraudulent Katrina and Rita Claims Top $1 Billion
GAO finds mismanagement of hurricane aid
Government reports fraudulent FEMA hurricane handouts
Government wrongly paid for tickets, a divorce lawyer, vacations
House to see records of FEMA defrauding
Hurricane assistance paid for tickets, divorce lawyer, vacations
Hurricane assistance spent on vacations, football tickets, sex
Hurricane fraud tab could hit $1.4 billion
Hurricane ripoffs cost $1.4B
Hurricanes unleashed flood of FEMA scams
Investigators uncover fraud in Katrina cleanup
Katrina aid improperly spent
Katrina fraud cost up to $1.4 billion
More Than $1 Billion In FEMA Hurricane Aid Spent On Diamonds
Much hurricane aid paid out improperly
Post-hurricane fleecers had $1.4 billion field day
Probe finds FEMA paid bogus claims
Probe: FEMA Defrauded
Report Details How Government Was Hoodwinked After Katrina, Rita
Some Funds By FEMA Spent On Bogus Items
Some storm aid went for sports tickets, divorce lawyer, vacations
Sports Tickets, Trips on Katrina's Tab
Study Finds Huge Fraud in the Wake of Hurricanes
The Fate of FEMA
well?
Did you pick "The Fate of FEMA" too?
actually that's the title Fox News gave it.
(and "Katrina aid improperly spent" was from China Daily)
Ready for The Union's headline?
![[photo of FEMA fraud article as printed in The Union]](http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/katrinafraudstorysmall-745153.jpg "headline: 'Katrina money may have gone to wrong places'")
Yes, "Katrina money may have gone to wrong places"* - overshadowed by the truly important news, "Bush makes visit to Iraq".
what I would give, to know who directs the slant at that paper...
Now there is an alternative hypothesis, namely that it's an artifact of selective perception - perhaps The Union runs all their AP headlines through the blander, and I'm only noticing the colorless heds on those articles which report malfeasance by the fellows now in power in Washington.
This seems unlikely, but it's not impossible. So here's a challenge, to Russ Steele or other local conservative-tending reader(s) with a bit of free time and a passion for inquiry - if you can turn up corresponding example(s) of a wire service story whose headline The Union rewrote to give it a less anti-left tone than the original, from today back to, say, Jan. 1, I'll buy you coffee and a bagel, and bestow upon you all the fame and glory that my weblog has to offer.
7 comments:
Russ, how can you, with a straight face, say that fox even "trys" to give both sides? You must mean both "Right" sides: spin and lies.
OK, so a "sorry, no help here" from Russ. (along with much detail/bait, which Bruce rose to...)
The nice thing about a straight headline-comparison study would be that it's not subjective and can't be spun, either deliberately or by one's inherent human nature/bias ("science is what we do to keep from fooling ourselves" said Feynman; same practices should be used in journalism, said Philip Meyer: "Scientific method was developed to protect human investigators from the unconscious tricks of self-deception that afflict us all. Its procedures of peer review, replicability, and falsifiable hypotheses protect journalists as well").
So I'm still hoping that someone from the right is interested/motivated enough to take an active role in this method of inquiry.
Also, a question for Russ - re your respect for Fox News, and your frequent citing of Tech Central Station articles (TCS is published by a lobbying firm) and research/articles from other industry-funded sources, and saying you don't waste time reading stories from the Associated Press -
A year ago in blog comments (here) you said (I've added bolding)
"please do not fall into the trap of attacking the scientist, when their science challenges cherished points of view. If you can prove their science wrong with data, OK. Just attacking the person and the funding shows how weak your argument is. Data is true regardless of sides, regardless of where the funding comes from, government, environmentalist, or industry."
This sounded to me like you were saying that we (nonexperts) should not assign differential value to information based on the credibility of its source; that instead, we should treat the info equally no matter what source it came from.
Russ, did I understand your writing correctly, and do you consider this approach ("evaluate the data, not its source") to be the way we citizens should go about forming our views on issues?
Russ, that's an awful lot of work. If citizens did what you recommend, do you think their views would end up being more aligned with the scientists', or less?
(I ask since I believe that, empirically, the approach citizens should take in evaluating evidence is the one that _does_ most closely align their views to those of the experts.)
(yes, this is a trick question, given that the scientific consensus is that global warming exists and the human contribution to it needs to be throttled down ASAP, whereas your view and the industry-funded PR outlets' consensus are the opposite.)
(btw, in this month's Scientific American, former 'human-caused global warming skeptic' Michael Schermer reports that he's now a believer.)
> under the new authoritarian science based on consensus, science doesn't matter much any more
Ouch.
:-}
What I don't see mentioned in the above piece is that the _scientists_ aren't forming their _own_ views based on voting or authoritarianism; they analyze and weigh the evidence, and base their judgement on that. No it's not perfect, it's just the best system we have.
Russ, 3 questions:
1. (rephrased from above; I didn't see an answer in your comment)
If citizens did what you recommend, do you think their views would end up being more aligned with those of the scientists in the field, or less?
2. Do you _really_ believe that you and the PR outlets are better equipped to analyze the data than the scientists who are trained to do it as a career?
(to use an analogy - the consensus among biologists is that evolution did and does occur; do you find that statistical fact unimportant as well?
Aside: Nice roundup of links to evidence for evolution here.)
And for the heck of it, one more question -
3. How is the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation (website, blog), whose Board of Directors consists of you, George Rebane, and Michael McDaniel - funded?
(I realize you probably don't think this is important; but I'd much appreciate it if you could share the info anyway)
Russ, thanks for taking the time to write in response to my questions.
I still don't see an answer to my question #1.
I didn't phrase #2 very well, but your response did bring this to mind:
You're frequently criticizing those who "cherry pick" the data, but you don't seem to have any problem with getting a hefty chunk of your worldview from a "site sponsored by a PR firm"; I think you're overlooking the fact that a PR firm's job is to cherry-pick the data AND the writers - it's their mandate. So you can cut out a huge source of avoidable error, if you avoid PR-funded or PR-published research.
Question #3 is being elevated to a separate post.
And bonus links, via Pam at Xark, the National Academy of Sciences and their March 2006 report on Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (PDF)
> Re question #1. I am not looking for alingment...
My question was a "yes or no" question about process, not a "what are you looking for" question.
Russ, it's starting to feel like engaging with you on these issues isn't moving understanding forward - I ask you a question, repeatedly, and in response you repeatedly address a related issue but not the question I asked.
And I'm still hoping you or George Rebane or Michael McDaniel will answer my questions about who is funding the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation.
and in closing, for the record - the just-released National Academy of Sciences report on global warming is all over the news today; from Drum- "In news that will surprise no one except the president of the United States, it turns out that global warming is real".
And human-caused.
Post a Comment