<< CREEDAL WAVE SWAMPS WIMPS ~ MAIN ~ JOHN SHERIDAN >>
LANE SAFE
Skeptic magazine’s Michael Shermer corrects the record:
In last week’s eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group. That press release, dated December 28, 2006, was headlined:
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on GeologyThe first sentence of the release reads:
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.
Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it.
Many of the magazine’s readers did call the NPS and the GCNP, however, leading to a retraction. Where does this leave the Age’s Terry Lane? Well, seeing as Media Watch is still on holidays, he’ll probably remain employed.
(Via Blithering Bunny)
and to that end I believe we were duped by an activist group who at the very least exaggerated a claim and published it in order to gain notoriety for itself, or worse, simply made it up.
Mr. Schermer has the good grace to be ashamed for not doing his own fact-checking, but perhaps he ought also to examine the readiness with which he was willing to be duped.
in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more),
Based on what I’ve learned since the internet became aware, this ilk always need more, fabricates evidence on a regular basis, and apparently always has. They lie like a professor.
Ummmmm… I missed it. What other “examples of inappropriate intrusion of religion in American Public Life” is he talking about?
All those Christians.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 01 18 at 12:57 PM • permalinkI had emailed them…the word “insane” was mentioned.
...besides the fact that nearly 20% of the 5 million visitors are foreign tourists, one would think that someone might have noticed that the park rangers were god-mad before this.
Lefty angst always sounds good up until the point where you’ve got witnesses.
You’re not really much of a skeptic if you’d unquestioningly accept a claim made in a “watchdog’s” press release, are you? I cannot imagine what kind of journalistic, not to mention intellectual, laziness is involved in not even making one phone call to confirm a claim that would strike any reasonable person as dubious.
It will never cease to amaze me that for so many people “critical thinking” simply means “willing to believe the worse about something you don’t like.”
#8
Will we see a correction in Doonesbury shortly?
Ha! Trudeau will insist that the National Park Service is lying on orders from the “Christianists” in the White House.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 18 at 01:47 PM • permalinkUnfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more)...
Anyone care to wager that their perception of the “intrusion of religion in American public life” is based on apocryphal stories no more factual than this one?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 18 at 01:52 PM • permalink#13 Exactly. They go in with the mindset already fixed, and weave the facts around their point and ignore the facts to the contrary.
My greatest wish is to have a UFO land on his lawn, Bigfoot get out with the aliens, and beat the living snot out of him.
That would probably shut him up for a while.
Elizabeth
Imperial KeeperPosted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2007 01 18 at 02:15 PM • permalinkUnfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it.
That is not being a skeptic. A skeptic does not look for “inappropriate intrusions”. It questions claims made by others, looking into their accuracy and validity.What Skeptic Magazine did was act in accordance with biased preconceived notions. When it accepted a claim without looking into whether it was sound, it did the opposite of skepticism. It engaged in “truthiness”. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes lost their jobs over something similar.
Skeptic Magazine should change its name to “Biased Political Agenda”. That would be closer to the mark.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 18 at 02:25 PM • permalink#16 That would work.
Elizabeth
Imperial KeeperPosted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2007 01 18 at 02:29 PM • permalinkLooks like we have a new addition to the litany of “fake but accurate, we imagine” accusations that the Left has made about religious people; not knowing any such people themselves, it’s easy to convince themselves that Christians are some kind of alien species.
Remember James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, who supposedly said that ““after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back”?
Reporters are still making hay of it to this day, despite the fact that it’s bunkum as much as any plastic turkey.
And now we have the Grand Canyon myth. I swear, it’s a treadmill—you spend years trying to disabuse people of one idiotic made-up notion, and just when you think you’re making some progress, they come up with another one. Makes me wanna spit.
Posted by Brian Tiemann on 2007 01 18 at 02:36 PM • permalinkSkeptic Magazine should change its name to “Biased Political Agenda”.
Alas, this is sad but true. Skeptic has succumbed to leftie madness. A pity, it used to be a decent magazine.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 18 at 02:54 PM • permalinkSkeptic not very skeptical, film at eleven.
I haven’t bothered to look at an issue in over 15 years. But that’s because I’m the sort of atheist who doesn’t need periodic panty-re-wadding over the Evils Of Religion Or Superstition.
(The best part, in a way, is that this Grand Canyon urban legend is several years old; a web search will reveal references to at least 2004.)
As I pointed out in an earlier thread on this incident, when Shermer said “Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more)”, he ceased to be a Skeptic, and became a believer.
The Truth is out there, Agent Shermer!
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2007 01 18 at 03:16 PM • permalinkadditional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more)
Not to worry - comments like that will cease the second that a Democrat is President again, even if objective reality hasn’t changed one bit.
I’m generally partial to the Skeptic point of view being agnostic myself, but blatant anti-Christian beatups like this are nothing but juvenile pseudo-rebellion. You’d think that people who insist they don’t need the “crutch” of religion would be a little more self-confident.
I googled some articles and interviews by Terry Lane over the last few years, and they really are quite amazing. There is an interview he conducted some time ago with Peter Singer - the controversial professor and “ethicist” who thinks that the notion of the inherent dignity of human life is a lot of sentimental bosh - and it sounded like Bertie Wooster interviewing Dr. Mengele. Really, a very fifth-rate mind.
26: You forgot our Dark Lord™! You better hope he doesn’t find out.
No more rides in the Tardis for you!
Elizabeth
Imperial KeeperPosted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2007 01 18 at 04:01 PM • permalink#8 Will we see a correction in Doonesbury shortly?
Trudeau jumped on this? Why am I not surprised?
Today’s scary thought: Doonesbury hasn’t been funny since before I was born. Why is this idiot still in the newspapers?
Posted by Tungsten Monk on 2007 01 18 at 05:15 PM • permalink#28
Wow—that is appalling as can be, Pacmeister. Still, I think it’s unfair to old Bertie. He would never say
....the concept of the immortal soul quite clearly is just a mythical attempt to explain why we feel we are different from other animals….
Although he might say
....so, that is, and let me see if I’ve got this thingummy down, what? The concept of this whatsis, you know, that thing inside us that just goes on and on, as it were—the soul, that’s it! That is, my man Jeeves has been known to say, “I have a kind soul that would give you thanks, and knows not how to do it, but with tears,” but I think that’s a wheeze he got from Bill Shakespeare, you know. But to get back to the topic, souls and beasts and other bally things—I say, that rather reminds me of my friend “Gussie” Fink-Nottle, who’s quite taken with newts, you know; can’t get enough of them; do you know him? Ah, well, anyway…Oh, out of time are we? Jolly good!
This is an example of the same fake, but accurate, truthiness that led the media (and others) to believe that the White House was responsible for the night shift antics of a bunch of enlisted personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq—because it fit into a preconceived notion regarding WH motives and intentions. The simple fact that only one night shift crew for one small portion of the prison behaved in this manner, i.e. “got the memo”, wasn’t “proof” enough to dissuade the media from discrediting the Army and the entire efort in Iraq demonstrates the lack of skepicism prevalent in the media today.
With reporting, such as by Skeptic magazine, the only thing left to be skeptical about is there integrity.
They can correct the record all they want, but why would anyone—except the Kool-Aid drinkers—bother to read them again?
Will Al Gore melt? (Via Small Dead Animals):
http://www.katewerk.com/temp/sda_wsalgore.html(Sorry, but there’s nothing about whether Al threatened to kill any cartoonists from the newspaper mocking him.)
Posted by andycanuck on 2007 01 18 at 06:43 PM • permalinkWill we see a correction in Doonesbury shortly?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 01 18 at 06:56 PM • permalinkGore-ey The Snowman
Gore-ey the Snowman
Was a sullen tortured soul
With a carbon debt and a private jet
And a lifestyle mined from coalGore-ey the Snowman
Is a fairytale they say
He was Clinton’s Vice
Rumoured made of ice
But he came to life one dayThere must have been some magic
In a Greenpeace ad he found
For when he placed it in his head
He began to fly aroundGore-ey the Snowman
Was alive as he could be
And the children saw
People sleep and snore
When they heard that snowman’s screedGore-ey the Snowman
Knew the Globe was warm that day
So he said let’s run
And we can’t have fun
Or we’ll all melt awayAround the Global Village
With a microphone in his hand
Flying here and there, sounding like a square
Saying “Carbon Credits, Man!”He led them down the streets of town
With giant puppet heads
And they only paused a moment when
The polar bears fell deadGore-ey the Snowman
Had to hurry on his way
But he waved goodbye
Saying I must fly
I’ll be back again some dayJettety jet jet
Jettety jet jet
Look at Gore-ey go
Jettety jet jet
Jettety jet jet
Creating hills of snowPosted by AlburyShifton on 2007 01 18 at 08:00 PM • permalink“Ummmmm… I missed it. What other “examples of inappropriate intrusion of religion in American Public Life” is he talking about?”
I won’t blame you if you haven’t heard yet that a major typo (even though Ben Franklin hadn’t invented the typewriter yet…or ever) was discovered recently in the text of the First Amendment after 215 years. Where the amendment is commonly transcribed to say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...” the actual wording discovered on recently uncovered original documents was, “Congress shall allow no expression of religious belief in public life and shall bar anyone holding religious beliefs from government employment, from wearing religious symbols, from speaking in public or otherwise acknowledging their religious proclivities. Congress, at it’s discretion, may allow them to worship in the dark under a rock if they just can’t help themselves.” So you can see where Michael Shermer is entirely correct. There are far too many people willfully flouting the First Amendment by advocating, or merely demonstrating, religious belief right out in the open where children can hear. It’s simply inappropriate and, as we now know, unconstitutional and illegal.
”...a claim that would strike any reasonable person as dubious.”
Which is another way of saying it didn’t pass the “smell test”. It smelled so much, in fact, that I didn’t even waste the three minutes to look it up on the Grand Canyon website. I knew it was wrong. But if I was going to tell the world that, I think I would take the three minutes to actually look it up on the website. That’s the difference between forming an opinion and being a journalist committed to the truth.
The Herald Sun site has just put up a story on Lane’s latest debacle, with a comments field.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21084414-661,00.html
”’...in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life ...’
That is not being a skeptic. A skeptic does not look for “inappropriate intrusions”. It questions claims made by others, looking into their accuracy and validity.”
So true. Also, I don’t understand the “eagerness” to find additional examples when they say they already have more than enough. If that’s the case, why are they wasting their time looking to add to their stockpile when they could be doing something more productive with the overabundance of examples they already have. Perhaps their “more than enough” isn’t more than enough to convince anybody of anything. If their other examples meet the quality standards of this example that would not be surprising.
“You’d think that people who insist they don’t need the “crutch” of religion would be a little more self-confident.”
You’d think that, wouldn’t you? I’ll bet those people who really are self-confident about not needing the crutch of religion probably get on with their lives and do their thing and mind their own business. They don’t have time to waste picking on other people. The kind of people who would spend their lives on a magazine devoted to the topic are a self-selected group who probably are obsessed with that sort of thing in an unhealthy way.
Having said that, I do give Mr. Shermer credit for writing an unambiguous retraction, a skill that seems to be largely lost these days. It doesn’t excuse his initial error, but I really liked it when he stuck it to Mr. Ruch (“When I pointed out that this is irrelevant to the claim in the press release, he then reminded me of the biblical passages that have been posted at places along the rim of the canyon. Again, I admonished, this is not evidence for his central claim.”) That’s keeping your eyes on the prize and not letting someone obfuscate his way out of his lies.
So how did Andrew Bolt get dragged into this? Lane is the one employed by The Age - aren’t they worried about their journalists actually using facts, when they say they are talking about facts?
And WTF is Lane blathering about when he says the Park Service backed down??
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2007 01 19 at 01:16 AM • permalinkShermer, in a watery mea culpa admits Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life
Lane in admitting that his crap research resulted in his monumental ‘Jesse MacBeth ’ stuff-up pleaded almost the same defence - Lane admitted along the lines that he believed the MacBeth hoax because it sounded feasibele and he ‘wanted to believe it’. No mea culpa, just an admission that his biases and prejudices led him into shoddy journalism.But…but…but, I thought that newspapers had all these editors and fact-checkers to make sure that these things didn’t happen! Certainly not twice!
Lane said that he was right at the time, and, simultaneously, that the park service backed down. He’s ready for any eventuality—except actually getting the story right the first time if it doesn’t gel with his preconceptions. DAMN that interweb thingy that keeps interrupting the flow of his genius.
Ah, Aunt Agatha (“the nephew-crusher”). I got my wife the DVD of the Hugh Laurie “Wooster and Jeeves” (or is it “Bertie and Jeeves”?) from BBC. All four years. We’re rationing them out. No more than two in a row, and no more than once a week. God, they’re good. The preserve much of the actual wording of Wodehouse and all of the feeling. I highly recommend them.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 01 19 at 02:42 AM • permalinkDoes this mean Lane actually does get a PEER review?
Posted by curious george on 2007 01 19 at 02:53 AM • permalinkthe inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more),
He’s right. We don’t need that there or anywhere else. *thinks* He IS talking about islamists, right?
Posted by carpefraise on 2007 01 19 at 03:18 AM • permalink#15. absolutely, Wronwright. Well said.
Too much of this going on.
Posted by carpefraise on 2007 01 19 at 03:36 AM • permalink#15, Wronwright,
I was googling a term I came across a few days ago (“motivated cognition”) to see if it is equivalent to “biased preconceived notion” and the first result was this one in which you’ll find a link to a short article on Noam Chomsky in Clio Psych’s Journal from 2003.
The blog post (author is a forensic psychologist) and the article are both worth reading.
For example,
In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of “new left” radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions.
#62 Janice
Great link on Chomsky. A quite scholarly and surgical dissection of the man’s personality, ego and intellect.I love this bit, it could describe many, many leftists operating at a public level in Australia, Phillip Adams and Terry Lane spring immediately to mind.
Leftist activists are prone to believe that their own thinking is rational and objective, while that of their opponents is distorted and biased. This is clearly true of Chomsky. He writes long historical and analytical tomes, full of facts and figures. He speaks softly and maintains a veneer of scholarly objectivity. Yet no one can miss the bitter anger just beneath the surface.
Remind you of anyone?Chomsky’s the one that went to Pakistan and “northern India” and appeared on TV, in lectures and on radio claiming that the US had a secret agenda to cause the death of at least 3 million Afghans by starvation.
He did this in the weeks immediately prior to our invasion of Afghanistan.
His efforts were to motivate armed resistance to the US and Coalition.
Re Sunday Age editor Fray’s comments:
Every day The Age or Sunday Age publishes this policy statement:
“CORRECTION POLICY
It is the policy of The Age to correct all significant errors as soon as possible. The Age is committed to presenting information fairly and accurately.”Study this, note each clause, note the high standards The Age sets itself.
In the latest Lane case, The Age has already failed its own ‘correct as soon as possible’ test.
We presumably must wait till Sunday to check out how the rest of the policy is implemented.Note that the policy does not discriminate between “information” presented unfairly and inaccurately in its news reports, and in its commenters’ pieces.
As a matter of precedent, it editorially corrected errors made by Anne Summers in an opinion piece last year.
Maybe the policy should read: “The Age will occasionally correct inconsequential errors and sometimes those which might lead to successful lawsuits against The Age. The Age will make every effort to avoid correcting errors such as those by Terry Lane, unless the pressure from other media and blogs becomes overwhelming.”
Per link by Janice in #62:
They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions.
Truly, it’s my experience that this describes 99% of the leftists I’ve encountered.
For conservatives the one trait I’ve noticed they all having is a desire to adopt a plan that works, that has the most optimal results. If that required everybody to walk around wearing cow masks all day while saying MOOOOOOOOOOOOO, they’d do it.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 19 at 06:38 AM • permalinkThe claims – relying on correspondence between PEER and the NPS - were not wrong “at the time that I wrote it”.
“It’s a problem of chronology,” [Lane] said.
Lane said the park service had “backed down” in the past few days.
What utter crap. The story had been debunked months ago. Why would anyone trust Lane after this load of horseshit?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 01 19 at 06:55 AM • permalinkWhy would anyone trust Lane after this load of horseshit?
What makes this load of horseshit any different from his previous loads of horseshit?
Hell, I’m way the hell over on the other side of a big assed ocean and I know Lane is a liar and a dumbass.
Those that continue to gobble up what that mouthbreeder dribbles out do so because they like the flavor and texture of his particular blend of snot.
#62
Thanks for the links.It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures. Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one’s own ideas on the line.
Hence 9/11 conspiracy theories crop up.
those who cling to a vision of a world without strife, or even competition, deny at least some part of the predatory aggression that threatens to disturb their relations with their fellows.
Occasionally observe the ugliness beneath ABC presenters’ thin PC veneer and hostile behaviour towards studio guests who aren’t “towing the line.”
Richard Aedy from ABC Radio National ‘Life Matters’ springs to mind as Chomskyite in behaviour, whilst essentially hosting a “secret wimmins’ business” program, the Oprah program of our Pravda; but maybe he’s just not happy in the role?
He can’t tell no fact from fiction
He can’t tell no fact from fiction
‘so he lies and he lies and he lies and he lies
He can’t google, oh no no noWhen i read him in the age
When that man comes on the radio
He’s tellin’ me more garbage
Pushin’ some factfree information
Composed of pure left imagination
He can’t google, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that’s what i sayHe can’t tell no fact from fiction
He can’t tell no fact from fiction
‘cause he lies and he lies and he lies and he lies
He can’t google, oh no no noWhen i’m watchin’ A-B-C
Medi-ah-ah watch won’t tell me
What shite his words can be
But they can’t do that man ‘cause you know they vote
For the same old Labor party
He can’t google, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that’s what i sayHe can’t tell no fact from fiction
He can’t tell no fact from fiction
‘cause he lies and he lies and he lies and he lies
He can’t google, oh no no noWhen he’s lyin’ ‘bout HoWARd
Or he’s dissin’Bush or he’s manglin that
You know he’ll never fall on his sword
No he’ll be back as clueless come sunday next week
Even though he’s on a losing streak
He won’t google, oh no no no, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that’s what i sayHe won’t google, he won’t google
He can’t tell no fact from fiction
no fact from fiction,
no fact from fictionPosted by eeniemeenie on 2007 01 19 at 09:27 AM • permalink#71 Texas Bob -
Not to worry. They’re all going to hell anyway where they’ll spend eternity watching Rosie O’Donnel model g-string bikinis.
Or worse, be subjected to lap dances by Rosie.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 19 at 02:50 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Where does this leave the Age’s Terry Lane?
To put it in baseball parlance, shuffling back to the dug-out after another pop fly.