I'm loving the Non Sequiturs about Danae setting up her think tank.
I think Wiley must be reading the blog. Stop lurking and show yourself!
- Log in to post comments
I'm loving the Non Sequiturs about Danae setting up her think tank.
I think Wiley must be reading the blog. Stop lurking and show yourself!
Not just for think tanks, but I find the following extremely useful in evaluating the culture/principles/ethics of any organization:
Compare:
-- What an organization says it values compared to what it actually values
-- What an organization says it does compared to what it actually does
-- What an organization actually does compared to what it actually values
From: Patterson, J. & Kelehear, Z. (2003). Lessons about culture from NASA�s experience. The School Administrator, 60 (11), 35.
A fourth comparison might well be: What an organization doesn't do that should be a logical follow on to its stated values.
Have you seen this piece by Philip Meyer of UNC Chapel Hill?
And how does this transparency occur, what with the anonymous sourcing so common across the board in political media? (Disclaimer: I appreciate the anonymity of the blurgs, but what insane person is going to base anything important on anonymous blurg comments?)
Who here couldn't call bullshit on Judith Miller? Who was responsible for sacking Donahue for "poor ratings"? I mean sh*t, Donahue was on the telly, with guests and all, that we could eyeball -- and that was pretty dang transparent relative to the daily NYT and WaPo drumbeat. I WISH we could blame the Washington Times or World Nut Daily, but it weren't them.
There's a basic fallacy here -- that journalism is interested in doing its work transparently. One would assume that getting the objective information out would be effective, but why would it be effective for AGW? Do we assume that conflict and yelling isn't interesting? For example, if we look at the political
tag-teaming that went full-bore prior to the war; they weren't interested in having the cards fall where they may and neither will AGW counteradvocates. I mean, there's a cohesive groundwork that's laid out, and then the follow up "news" stories just land into the ready made bed with a soft, cushioned pffft.
Pfew. If it wasn't for those guys we would have fell ass backwards right into a Vietnam type quagmire. Good thing they were successful.
I saw this one today in the Targum and I immediately thought about this blog. Are you sure the authors aren't lifting material from you?
DEI --- Danae Enterprise Institute
"Thats stenography, not reporting."
I've heard reporters defend this, as they're afraid they'd be labeled Editorials by saying something different.
Ridiculous is what it is.
Two new cartoons:
4 Oct
5 Oct