Three excellent posts today, each deconstructing a dominant ecomyth but with different media and approaches.
- The first comes from the Editor-at-Large of the Tribune papers, David Morgan. Adopting a conventional approach to journalism, Morgan examines the arguments, does his research and writes his assessment on global warming under the heading since when, and says who?
- The second, fights fire with fire and is a film to counter a film: an inconvenient truth...or convenient fiction? It presents a counter argument to the Gore film and does so in a similar, personalized narrative.
- The third uses a new media, blogging, to deconstruct the myth surrounding Rachel Carson's Silent Spring -- a book many environmentalists revere, but few actually have read. A book long on assertion and influence, but woefully short on scientific, empirical data.
Not much to add, other than to say there will be those who view all three and will instantly agree with what they say; there will be those who will instantly reject all that the sites suggest as falsehood, conspiratorial and/or seditious, and; there will be a third group for whom the attack on conventional ideas and icons will be new and challenging, causing them to think for themselves.
In the immortal words of Meatloaf: two out of three ain't bad.
update: submitted the above post before I finished all my reading for the day. Two additional reports fit the theme of myth debunking:
- this post on the supposed absence of any moderate Islamic response terrorism (its there but just ignored by the mainstream media who prefer to frame the issue in their ideological straightjacket rather than learn anything new), and
- this post on the decline of peer review to fear review: the fact that peer review is no longer a guarantee of good scholarship, objectivity and/or scientific evidence.
Tags:
