I was at someone's house, and they had one of those journalistic segments on TV which are not really news-reporting, but are rather arguments for or against one political issue or another. Basically an editorial on TV. The channel was Fox News. Some people hate Fox News, some adore it. I dislike News Media outlets in general, and avoid them in general.
So it was a piece on the Keystone XL Pipeline. For anyone who doesn't know what it is, I'm too lazy to tell you; you can go look it up. All I could think of during this was that I didn't know enough about the issue, and that this TV thing was not actually giving me real solid information about it.
So, basically the segment's theme was: (1) some people are in favor of this pipeline, some are against it. (2) The people against it are "environmental terrorists". (3) This pipeline will create jobs. (4)The environment is resilient.
There were no solid facts presented, really. There were no details, really. There was a lot of interviewing of people, and showing the parts of the interviews where they said something inane. Everything could have been reduced to one of those four sentences above. For example, note that fourth sentence. It actually implies that the environment might be harmed, but fails to say how. One is left wondering if the "environmental" terrorists are wrong
Any solid knowledge I have on this issue is due to having looked it up myself. (It's unclear whether the pipeline itself would affect the environment. Some people worry it could "fail" and cause oil spills, but no one knows for certain, and accidents are already happening with current methods of transport. However, the mining of the oil produces toxic waste, or the destruction of forest, depending on the method used. However, construction or non-construction of the pipeline might not change whether the oil gets mined; it might just change who it gets sold/shipped to. Jobs would be created by the pipeline, but they would be temporary. Without the pipeline, Canadian oil might get sold to Asian countries instead of to the USA, the USA would continue to get oil, but from overseas, and the resulting increased transport could increase, not decrease, all this carbon footprint thing). I got next to nothing from that TV segment. However, such a TV segment would have been very effective at either energizing or angering anyone who had their mind already made up.
This is why I dislike News Media in general. They all work that way. Some will argue in favor of one position, some in favor of another, (even simple reporting on a story is usually a hidden argument by the way it is presented) but they rarely present actual details of the issue. We need to know details. We need to know details. We need to know details.
Temple Grandin said something about how Neurotypicals see the big picture (and never leave it), and Aspies see the concrete, see the details. She said that Aspies are needed precisely because of that. Precisely because the world doesn't have enough of that. I'm starting to understand what she meant.
So it was a piece on the Keystone XL Pipeline. For anyone who doesn't know what it is, I'm too lazy to tell you; you can go look it up. All I could think of during this was that I didn't know enough about the issue, and that this TV thing was not actually giving me real solid information about it.
So, basically the segment's theme was: (1) some people are in favor of this pipeline, some are against it. (2) The people against it are "environmental terrorists". (3) This pipeline will create jobs. (4)The environment is resilient.
There were no solid facts presented, really. There were no details, really. There was a lot of interviewing of people, and showing the parts of the interviews where they said something inane. Everything could have been reduced to one of those four sentences above. For example, note that fourth sentence. It actually implies that the environment might be harmed, but fails to say how. One is left wondering if the "environmental" terrorists are wrong
Any solid knowledge I have on this issue is due to having looked it up myself. (It's unclear whether the pipeline itself would affect the environment. Some people worry it could "fail" and cause oil spills, but no one knows for certain, and accidents are already happening with current methods of transport. However, the mining of the oil produces toxic waste, or the destruction of forest, depending on the method used. However, construction or non-construction of the pipeline might not change whether the oil gets mined; it might just change who it gets sold/shipped to. Jobs would be created by the pipeline, but they would be temporary. Without the pipeline, Canadian oil might get sold to Asian countries instead of to the USA, the USA would continue to get oil, but from overseas, and the resulting increased transport could increase, not decrease, all this carbon footprint thing). I got next to nothing from that TV segment. However, such a TV segment would have been very effective at either energizing or angering anyone who had their mind already made up.
This is why I dislike News Media in general. They all work that way. Some will argue in favor of one position, some in favor of another, (even simple reporting on a story is usually a hidden argument by the way it is presented) but they rarely present actual details of the issue. We need to know details. We need to know details. We need to know details.
Temple Grandin said something about how Neurotypicals see the big picture (and never leave it), and Aspies see the concrete, see the details. She said that Aspies are needed precisely because of that. Precisely because the world doesn't have enough of that. I'm starting to understand what she meant.
