Media Extravaganza Could Slash Private Moon Mission Costs


  Good news for all you frugal travelers out there: A private startup’s manned moon missions could end up costing around $500 million per seat instead of the originally advertised $750 million.
  
  The Golden Spike company, which aims to start flying paying customers to the lunar surface and back by 2020, has pegged the cost of these two-person trips at about $1.5 billion. But the company plans to bring the per-seat ticket price down considerably by staging an Olympics-like media spectacle around each mission.
  
  “We think that we can lower the effective ticket price, by selling the air time, the naming rights and the merchandising rights to these missions, by between 20 and 30 percent — by creating that other revenue stream and sharing it with our customers,” Golden Spike president and CEO Alan Stern told reporters Thursday (April 11) at the 29th National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo.


Still a very hefty price tag, but definitely progress considering we’ve rarely sent people up there and we’re already considering moon taxis. I’m hopelessly dreaming of a day when the prices reach like.. plane ticket prices at least.

Full Article

Media Extravaganza Could Slash Private Moon Mission Costs

Good news for all you frugal travelers out there: A private startup’s manned moon missions could end up costing around $500 million per seat instead of the originally advertised $750 million.

The Golden Spike company, which aims to start flying paying customers to the lunar surface and back by 2020, has pegged the cost of these two-person trips at about $1.5 billion. But the company plans to bring the per-seat ticket price down considerably by staging an Olympics-like media spectacle around each mission.

“We think that we can lower the effective ticket price, by selling the air time, the naming rights and the merchandising rights to these missions, by between 20 and 30 percent — by creating that other revenue stream and sharing it with our customers,” Golden Spike president and CEO Alan Stern told reporters Thursday (April 11) at the 29th National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Still a very hefty price tag, but definitely progress considering we’ve rarely sent people up there and we’re already considering moon taxis. I’m hopelessly dreaming of a day when the prices reach like.. plane ticket prices at least.

Full Article

I can imagine the amount of people who fall for the geek/nerd male thinking they couldn’t possibly be as bad as the macho dudebros that still conjure up ‘make me a sandwich’ jokes or think they have a say in a woman’s or anyone’s business and or freedom of expression. And how wrong they are in thinking misogynists are constrained to one culture. That shit spans across the whole damn spectrum. This culture needs to fucking die, we need something new, all inclusive, respectful, and understanding. Is this really such a hard feat to achieve for a species who’s had many generations of trial and errors? I really do hope it all goes to shit and people get so fed up that we destroy that culture to create something new, something unlike everything else we’ve experienced so that we may never have to psychologically or physically maim others another group deems different. For that to ever be realized we’d obviously have to start boycotting things like tv, hollywood, music, comics, video games and all giant media powerhouses currently feeding our youth and adults all this crap. If we’re so determined to be consumers then at least let us be smart consumers that have a say with their own money, what we think is right and wrong. And who knows, maybe eventually we’ll come around to realizing we never needed the money in the first place to get these things done.

6 Shocking Ways TV Rewires Your Brain

Side note: I referenced this article in the past post ‘Brain Programming: Science of Real Self-Mind Control’. But I wanted to flesh the article out into its details for everyone to read up on here in case they were too lazy to go to the actual article and look at the points they brought. So here’s the list in full details on its own post. Because I think anyone who’s passionately involved with any show, movies, media, radio (as they all operate similarly) needs to see this.


  The average American watches more than four hours of television per day (five times the amount dedicated to socialization!). It makes sense that it would change us, the same as doing anything for four hours a day changes you. Yet, it’s surprisingly hard to get people to accept this. But the science is pretty much overwhelming. Enough television rewires your brain in a bunch of unexpected ways. For instance …
  
  #6. It Changes You, Even if You’re Too Young to Know What You’re Watching
  
  It’s easy to assume that impressionable children can be affected by TV shows, but what about toddlers? They aren’t even aware of what’s going on around them. Besides, they don’t do a whole lot besides chew on furniture and inflate their diapers, so it’s not like they could be doing something better with their time.
  
  Scientists tracked more than 1,000 29-month-old babies and their television habits and the effects of excess TV were downright startling — even after researchers accounted for all the other factors that would explain differences in behavior. The more television a child watched as a toddler, the more likely it was that he’d be fat, bullied, bad at math, inactive and prone to misbehavior in the classroom.
  
  Again, that’s not a result of watching violent TV shows or anything else that would encourage them to do bad things. Not that a 3-year-old would be able to absorb those lessons anyway.
  
  Nope, it’s just the act of watching television. And again, it’s not just that the type of parent who plants a kid in front of a TV all day probably also runs a bad household — the results hold up even if you account for all other factors in the kids’ upbringing.
  
  And the research holds up around the world. A New Zealand study found that more hours of television viewed as a toddler led to a higher probability of dropping out of school later in life. In a stunning display of initiative, France has even banned shows from having children younger than 3 as their target audience, because French adults are the only ones allowed to have their intelligences insulted.
  
  And while we’re on the subject, let’s get this one out of the way…
  
  #5. Yes, TV Lowers Your Attention Span
  
  Since television — especially children’s TV — is lightning-fast and loaded with stimuli, it isn’t outlandish to think that a person’s brain might become adjusted to that pace over time. When a teacher cannot supplement his or her lectures with dinosaurs and explosions, a child’s television-altered attention span may be so deprived that the child cannot stay focused.
  
  But most of us who don’t buy into “the modern world is destroying the children!” alarmism have trouble believing that too much TV can actually rewire your attention span in any significant way.
  
  But an Iowa State University study sure enough found that students who stare at a screen for more than two hours per day are twice as likely to be diagnosed with attention problems, which is awesome when you consider that the average amount of time a child spends watching television and playing video games is 4.26 hours a day.
  
  The study followed 1,323 children in grades three through five and 210 college students. The results make it fairly hard to argue that television doesn’t literally change the way the human brain functions, with enough exposure. But even stranger, other studies have shown (just like with the example above) that the amount of television watched as an infant can affect attention habits later in life.
  
  So again, if you want your kids to be able to pay attention to anything for longer than 38 seconds, you need to move into a hotel and wheel the television out onto the balcony like Craig T. Nelson in Poltergeist.
  
  #4. It Alters Your Dreams
  
  Television can change your dreams, and not just by making you wish you could master time travel to become an advertising executive in the 60s.
  
  According to science, television can alter your actual dreams, the kind that happen while you’re asleep. Research has found that some people have monochrome dreams (that is, they dream in black and white), and it’s apparently all their televisions’ fault.
  
  In a study of 50 people, half under 25 and the rest over 55, the subjects filled out a questionnaire related to the color of their dreams, their contentedness with their marriages and the colors of their televisions in their formative childhood years. Then the subjects were asked to keep a dream diary. Researchers found that while hardly any of the younger people dreamed in black and white (around four percent), a quarter of the older-than-55 group did. That is, the people who grew up with black and white televisions.
  
  Scientists attribute this to hours of exposure to black and white images during the subjects’ formative years, but there is no way to know if the actual dreams were in black and white, or if the subjects just remember them as such due to years of visual training by their TV sets.
  
  #3. It Deceptively Cures Loneliness
  
  You might know people who get so wrapped up in a show that they forgo social interaction until they’ve caught up to the latest episode. The rest of us are probably waiting for the day when they realize they need actual friends for fun and emotional support, but that day may never come. Scientists have found that television, specifically the pseudo-relationships formed with TV characters, can drive away feelings of loneliness and rejection.
  
  Using a combination of four studies, scientists have shown that television shows can instill a sense of belonging in people with low self-esteem who have been rejected by friends or family. This is called the social surrogacy hypothesis, which figures that in order to fill the emotional void of social deprivation, a person will establish relationships with fictional characters (as teenagers, many of us had a similar type of relationship with late-night Cinemax).
  
  One study showed that subjects who were experiencing feelings of loneliness felt better after turning on their favorite television programs. Another had subjects writing essays about either their favorite shows or some other random subject as a control. The subjects who wrote about their favorite shows used fewer words expressing loneliness than the control group.
  
  Scientists are not sure whether establishing relationships with television characters suppresses a need for human interaction or actually fulfills that need, but they generally advise against dumping all human contact in favor of the cast of Carnivale.
  
  #2. It Makes it Likelier to Fall into Obesity
  
  Obesity is sort of like a merit badge for watching too much television as far as most of us are concerned, so it shouldn’t be surprising to find a scientific correlation between watching less TV and burning more calories. But scientists have found that people who watch less television burn more calories each day than their television-bound counterparts without necessarily engaging in any extra physical activity — the mere act of using your brain instead of numbing it with hours of Burn Notice is enough.
  
  University of Vermont researchers set up a six-week study involving 36 subjects who ranged from overweight to obese. The subjects watched, on average, five hours of television per day. Scientists cut the television consumption of 20 of the subjects by attaching time-tracking devices to their TVs that would turn them off once the maximum time of use for the week had been reached (these monitoring devices, and the armbands attached to the subjects to track their weekly activity, were presumably set to explode if tampered with). Scientists found that the subjects with limited television time burned an average of 120 more calories per day than those in the control group without doing so much as a single jumping jack.
  
  Instead, the factors behind the extra calorie-burning were the mundane tasks done instead of watching television, such as reading, playing board games or doing simple household chores. Snacking didn’t actually decrease with fewer television hours, either. The participants just switched to more mentally rigorous activities that required more energy to perform.
  
  #1. It Makes You Violent
  
  The average 18-year-old has seen 200,000 violent actions committed on television over the course of his life, including 40,000 murders.
  
  The cold-blooded killer segment of our audience will probably notice that’s an excellent violent action-to-death ratio, about five to one. We assume that many of those murders weren’t particularly desensitizing and gruesome affairs, probably mostly involving a hero thoughtlessly mowing down an army of clumsy masked goons.
  
  But regardless of the severity, the violence we view on television actually does have an influence on our behavior. A study that followed the television viewing habits of 700 children over the course of 17 years found that (again, after ruling out factors like poverty and neglect) more hours of television translated to more violent acts. Scientists found that 22.5 percent of children who watched one to three hours of television per day committed aggressive actions such as threats, assaults, and fights in subsequent years. If the children watched more than four hours per day, the percentage rose to 28.8 percent.
  
  In contrast, only 5.7 percent of kids who watched less than one hour per day would go on to commit aggressive actions against others.
  
  Now, to be clear, violence in television isn’t nearly as large an influence on future violent behavior as is living in an abusive home (or, say, having an obligation to avenge your family after your corrupt uncle usurped the throne), but it is seemingly enough to make otherwise complacent children into burgeoning thugs.
  
  This example, as with many of the previous ones in this article, will no doubt yield many of you (and some in our comment section) to say, “But I watched the shit out of television when I was a kid, and I turned out fine!” That is no doubt true, and by the way, it conflicts in no way with any of these studies. They’re not saying TV ruins 100 percent of the kids it touches. Just that you’re more likely to have problems if you watch a ton of TV.

6 Shocking Ways TV Rewires Your Brain

Side note: I referenced this article in the past post ‘Brain Programming: Science of Real Self-Mind Control’. But I wanted to flesh the article out into its details for everyone to read up on here in case they were too lazy to go to the actual article and look at the points they brought. So here’s the list in full details on its own post. Because I think anyone who’s passionately involved with any show, movies, media, radio (as they all operate similarly) needs to see this.

The average American watches more than four hours of television per day (five times the amount dedicated to socialization!). It makes sense that it would change us, the same as doing anything for four hours a day changes you. Yet, it’s surprisingly hard to get people to accept this. But the science is pretty much overwhelming. Enough television rewires your brain in a bunch of unexpected ways. For instance …

#6. It Changes You, Even if You’re Too Young to Know What You’re Watching

It’s easy to assume that impressionable children can be affected by TV shows, but what about toddlers? They aren’t even aware of what’s going on around them. Besides, they don’t do a whole lot besides chew on furniture and inflate their diapers, so it’s not like they could be doing something better with their time.

Scientists tracked more than 1,000 29-month-old babies and their television habits and the effects of excess TV were downright startling — even after researchers accounted for all the other factors that would explain differences in behavior. The more television a child watched as a toddler, the more likely it was that he’d be fat, bullied, bad at math, inactive and prone to misbehavior in the classroom.

Again, that’s not a result of watching violent TV shows or anything else that would encourage them to do bad things. Not that a 3-year-old would be able to absorb those lessons anyway.

Nope, it’s just the act of watching television. And again, it’s not just that the type of parent who plants a kid in front of a TV all day probably also runs a bad household — the results hold up even if you account for all other factors in the kids’ upbringing.

And the research holds up around the world. A New Zealand study found that more hours of television viewed as a toddler led to a higher probability of dropping out of school later in life. In a stunning display of initiative, France has even banned shows from having children younger than 3 as their target audience, because French adults are the only ones allowed to have their intelligences insulted.

And while we’re on the subject, let’s get this one out of the way…

#5. Yes, TV Lowers Your Attention Span

Since television — especially children’s TV — is lightning-fast and loaded with stimuli, it isn’t outlandish to think that a person’s brain might become adjusted to that pace over time. When a teacher cannot supplement his or her lectures with dinosaurs and explosions, a child’s television-altered attention span may be so deprived that the child cannot stay focused.

But most of us who don’t buy into “the modern world is destroying the children!” alarmism have trouble believing that too much TV can actually rewire your attention span in any significant way.

But an Iowa State University study sure enough found that students who stare at a screen for more than two hours per day are twice as likely to be diagnosed with attention problems, which is awesome when you consider that the average amount of time a child spends watching television and playing video games is 4.26 hours a day.

The study followed 1,323 children in grades three through five and 210 college students. The results make it fairly hard to argue that television doesn’t literally change the way the human brain functions, with enough exposure. But even stranger, other studies have shown (just like with the example above) that the amount of television watched as an infant can affect attention habits later in life.

So again, if you want your kids to be able to pay attention to anything for longer than 38 seconds, you need to move into a hotel and wheel the television out onto the balcony like Craig T. Nelson in Poltergeist.

#4. It Alters Your Dreams

Television can change your dreams, and not just by making you wish you could master time travel to become an advertising executive in the 60s.

According to science, television can alter your actual dreams, the kind that happen while you’re asleep. Research has found that some people have monochrome dreams (that is, they dream in black and white), and it’s apparently all their televisions’ fault.

In a study of 50 people, half under 25 and the rest over 55, the subjects filled out a questionnaire related to the color of their dreams, their contentedness with their marriages and the colors of their televisions in their formative childhood years. Then the subjects were asked to keep a dream diary. Researchers found that while hardly any of the younger people dreamed in black and white (around four percent), a quarter of the older-than-55 group did. That is, the people who grew up with black and white televisions.

Scientists attribute this to hours of exposure to black and white images during the subjects’ formative years, but there is no way to know if the actual dreams were in black and white, or if the subjects just remember them as such due to years of visual training by their TV sets.

#3. It Deceptively Cures Loneliness

You might know people who get so wrapped up in a show that they forgo social interaction until they’ve caught up to the latest episode. The rest of us are probably waiting for the day when they realize they need actual friends for fun and emotional support, but that day may never come. Scientists have found that television, specifically the pseudo-relationships formed with TV characters, can drive away feelings of loneliness and rejection.

Using a combination of four studies, scientists have shown that television shows can instill a sense of belonging in people with low self-esteem who have been rejected by friends or family. This is called the social surrogacy hypothesis, which figures that in order to fill the emotional void of social deprivation, a person will establish relationships with fictional characters (as teenagers, many of us had a similar type of relationship with late-night Cinemax).

One study showed that subjects who were experiencing feelings of loneliness felt better after turning on their favorite television programs. Another had subjects writing essays about either their favorite shows or some other random subject as a control. The subjects who wrote about their favorite shows used fewer words expressing loneliness than the control group.

Scientists are not sure whether establishing relationships with television characters suppresses a need for human interaction or actually fulfills that need, but they generally advise against dumping all human contact in favor of the cast of Carnivale.

#2. It Makes it Likelier to Fall into Obesity

Obesity is sort of like a merit badge for watching too much television as far as most of us are concerned, so it shouldn’t be surprising to find a scientific correlation between watching less TV and burning more calories. But scientists have found that people who watch less television burn more calories each day than their television-bound counterparts without necessarily engaging in any extra physical activity — the mere act of using your brain instead of numbing it with hours of Burn Notice is enough.

University of Vermont researchers set up a six-week study involving 36 subjects who ranged from overweight to obese. The subjects watched, on average, five hours of television per day. Scientists cut the television consumption of 20 of the subjects by attaching time-tracking devices to their TVs that would turn them off once the maximum time of use for the week had been reached (these monitoring devices, and the armbands attached to the subjects to track their weekly activity, were presumably set to explode if tampered with). Scientists found that the subjects with limited television time burned an average of 120 more calories per day than those in the control group without doing so much as a single jumping jack.

Instead, the factors behind the extra calorie-burning were the mundane tasks done instead of watching television, such as reading, playing board games or doing simple household chores. Snacking didn’t actually decrease with fewer television hours, either. The participants just switched to more mentally rigorous activities that required more energy to perform.

#1. It Makes You Violent

The average 18-year-old has seen 200,000 violent actions committed on television over the course of his life, including 40,000 murders.

The cold-blooded killer segment of our audience will probably notice that’s an excellent violent action-to-death ratio, about five to one. We assume that many of those murders weren’t particularly desensitizing and gruesome affairs, probably mostly involving a hero thoughtlessly mowing down an army of clumsy masked goons.

But regardless of the severity, the violence we view on television actually does have an influence on our behavior. A study that followed the television viewing habits of 700 children over the course of 17 years found that (again, after ruling out factors like poverty and neglect) more hours of television translated to more violent acts. Scientists found that 22.5 percent of children who watched one to three hours of television per day committed aggressive actions such as threats, assaults, and fights in subsequent years. If the children watched more than four hours per day, the percentage rose to 28.8 percent.

In contrast, only 5.7 percent of kids who watched less than one hour per day would go on to commit aggressive actions against others.

Now, to be clear, violence in television isn’t nearly as large an influence on future violent behavior as is living in an abusive home (or, say, having an obligation to avenge your family after your corrupt uncle usurped the throne), but it is seemingly enough to make otherwise complacent children into burgeoning thugs.

This example, as with many of the previous ones in this article, will no doubt yield many of you (and some in our comment section) to say, “But I watched the shit out of television when I was a kid, and I turned out fine!” That is no doubt true, and by the way, it conflicts in no way with any of these studies. They’re not saying TV ruins 100 percent of the kids it touches. Just that you’re more likely to have problems if you watch a ton of TV.

mohandasgandhi:

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), formed in 1961 during the Cold War, is a group of 120 states and 17 observer states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. The NAM held its opening 2012 session yesterday under the new chairmanship of Iran, which succeeded Egypt as the Chair.

Significantly, an Associated Press story in the Washington Post headlined, “Iran opens nonaligned summit with calls for nuclear arms ban”, reported that “Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi opened the gathering by noting commitment to a previous goal from the nonaligned group, known as NAM, to remove the world’s nuclear arsenals within 13 years. ‘We believe that the timetable for ultimate removal of nuclear weapons by 2025, which was proposed by NAM, will only be realized if we follow it up decisively,’ he told delegates.”

Yet the New York Times, which has been beating the drums for war with Iran, just as it played a disgraceful role in the deceptive reporting during the lead-up to the Iraq War, never mentioned Iran’s proposal for nuclear abolition. The Times carried the bland headline on its front page, “At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a Message for the World”, and then went on to state, “the message is clear.As Iran plays host to the biggest international conference …it wants to tell its side of the long standoff with the Western powers which are increasingly convinced that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons”, without ever reporting Iran’s offer to support the NAM proposal for the abolition of nuclear weapons by 2025.

Surely the most sensible way to deal with Iran’s nascent nuclear weapons capacity is to call all the nations to the table to negotiate a treaty to ban the bomb. That would mean abolishing the 20,000 nuclear bombs on the planet—in the US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel—with 19,000 of them in the US and Russia. In order to get Russia and China to the table, the US will also have to give up its dreams of dominating the earth with missile “defenses” which, driven by corrupt military contractors and a corporate- owned Congress, are currently being planted and based in provocative rings around Russia and China.

The ball is in the U.S. court to make good faith efforts for nuclear abolition. That would be the only principled way to deal with fears of nuclear proliferation. The US must start with a genuine offer for negotiations to finally ban the bomb in all countries, including a freeze on further missile development. It should stop beating up on Iran and North Korea while it hypocritically continues to improve and expand the US arsenal, with tens of billions of dollars for new weapons laboratories and bomb delivery systems, and fails failing to speak out against the nuclear activities of other nations such as the enrichment of uranium in Japan and Brazil and the nuclear arsenal of Israel.

Once again, the New York Times proves to disappoint its readers with deception. It’s dishonest not to include Iran’s call for a nuclear free world, particularly while underplaying the fact that Iran currently does not have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons as the United States and Israel threaten military action that could potentially lead to another disastrous war in the Middle East.

thekhooll:

Liu Yang, China’s first female astronaut
It might not be a giant step for mankind, but Saturday’s launch of a piloted space capsule known as Shenzhou-9 marks China’s breakthrough into the exclusive club once made up only of the United States and Russia. And as far as womankind is concerned, there is another first. One of the three astronauts in the capsule is a woman, 33-year-old Liu Yang, the first Chinese woman in space.

thekhooll:

Liu Yang, China’s first female astronaut

It might not be a giant step for mankind, but Saturday’s launch of a piloted space capsule known as Shenzhou-9 marks China’s breakthrough into the exclusive club once made up only of the United States and Russia. And as far as womankind is concerned, there is another first. One of the three astronauts in the capsule is a woman, 33-year-old Liu Yang, the first Chinese woman in space.

Science Reporting: Spotting & Correcting The Over-Hype

I just got done with reading an interesting article over at NewScientist that somewhat explains for the behavior that some people in the media business take as they try and sensationalize certain stories. A few moments ago some of you might have seen me in my debating stance over the moon landing conspiracy theory, so for anyone interested in knowing just how overly hyped and many times falsified stories and conspiracies are born here’s some nice snippets I enjoyed from the article:


  I am not in favour of treating science as a special case, but I think it can be argued that some science stories are of such great public interest that the highest standards of journalism must apply.
  
  When the press gets it wrong on science, the results can be devastating. The furore over MMR, which started in 1998 after a rogue doctor claimed a link between the vaccine and autism, is the best known example of how poor reporting can cause harm. Vaccination rates dropped to 80 per cent and cases of measles in England and Wales rose from 56 in 1998 to 1370 in 2008.


I would just like to add that while it is extremely easy for the public, myself included, to get sucked into sensationalist news titles the most important and responsible thing you can possibly do as a citizen or citizen journalist is apprehend what part of what you read was sensationalized by further reading into it using more legitimate sources until you understand the story at hand. Then, you correct yourself or your work to better fit these standards of reporting so that we don’t do it again or at least becomes harder for us to fall for anything..


  The media was not solely responsible for the MMR scare, but some of the news values that caused the problem are alive and well: the appetite for a great scare story; the desire to overstate a claim made by one expert in a single small study; the reluctance to put one alarming piece of research into its wider, more revealing context; journalistic “balance” – which creates the impression of a significant divide in scientific opinion where there is none; the love of the maverick; and so on.
  
  It’s my view that if you put the best scientists, science communicators and science journalists in a room it wouldn’t take long for them to agree on the basics of good medical science reporting.
  
  A tick list would look something like the following. Every story on new research should include the sample size and highlight where it may be too small to draw general conclusions. Any increase in risk should be reported in absolute terms as well as percentages: for example, a “50 per cent increase” in risk or a “doubling” of risk could merely mean an increase from 1 in 1000 to 1.5 or 2 in 1000. A story about medical research should provide a realistic time frame for the work’s translation into a treatment or cure. It should emphasise what stage findings are at: if it is a small study in mice it is just the beginning; if it’s a huge clinical trial involving thousands of people it is more significant. Stories about shocking findings should include the wider context: the first study to find something unusual is inevitably very preliminary; the 50th study to show the same thing may be justifiably alarming. Articles should mention where the story has come from: a conference lecture, an interview with a scientist or a study in a peer-reviewed journal, for example.


I felt inclined to highlight this bit because this sort of process has been happening to a lot of studies, take global warming for instance. We still have a great many people thinking it’s a hoax, a lie, or miscalculation despite the evidence that says otherwise. This is a direct case in which bad reporting harms public knowledge of a subject and also highlights why it would be important to work on it and legitimize the reporting since people would like be kept in the clear about such dire matters.

And in the end, when all is said and written, it’s hardly ever the news source that reported the misconception or sensationalized article that gets the bitter end of the stick, it’s the scientists doing the study. Which I am not completely ruling out as part of the problem if they genuinely falsify data or maybe not divulge key information, but I am implying that much work is needed on the media reporting side to this as well (myself included).

However, as you can see, a lot of emphasis is being made in the article that highlights a journalists job to legitimize the story to their best knowledge and to expand that knowledge based on reliable sources in order to gain credibility of your own. But remember, we all make mistakes, and the valuable thing to get from it is to learn from the mistake and work on it using new or different methods than what you had originally applied. Head on over to NS for the full article, it’s very worth the read if you’re into the legitimacy of reporting or just have an interest in the workings of sensationalism and how to control and prevent it to yield better stories.

Full Article: A few simple checks would transform science reporting

Science Reporting: Spotting & Correcting The Over-Hype

I just got done with reading an interesting article over at NewScientist that somewhat explains for the behavior that some people in the media business take as they try and sensationalize certain stories. A few moments ago some of you might have seen me in my debating stance over the moon landing conspiracy theory, so for anyone interested in knowing just how overly hyped and many times falsified stories and conspiracies are born here’s some nice snippets I enjoyed from the article:

I am not in favour of treating science as a special case, but I think it can be argued that some science stories are of such great public interest that the highest standards of journalism must apply.

When the press gets it wrong on science, the results can be devastating. The furore over MMR, which started in 1998 after a rogue doctor claimed a link between the vaccine and autism, is the best known example of how poor reporting can cause harm. Vaccination rates dropped to 80 per cent and cases of measles in England and Wales rose from 56 in 1998 to 1370 in 2008.

I would just like to add that while it is extremely easy for the public, myself included, to get sucked into sensationalist news titles the most important and responsible thing you can possibly do as a citizen or citizen journalist is apprehend what part of what you read was sensationalized by further reading into it using more legitimate sources until you understand the story at hand. Then, you correct yourself or your work to better fit these standards of reporting so that we don’t do it again or at least becomes harder for us to fall for anything..

The media was not solely responsible for the MMR scare, but some of the news values that caused the problem are alive and well: the appetite for a great scare story; the desire to overstate a claim made by one expert in a single small study; the reluctance to put one alarming piece of research into its wider, more revealing context; journalistic “balance” – which creates the impression of a significant divide in scientific opinion where there is none; the love of the maverick; and so on.

It’s my view that if you put the best scientists, science communicators and science journalists in a room it wouldn’t take long for them to agree on the basics of good medical science reporting.

A tick list would look something like the following. Every story on new research should include the sample size and highlight where it may be too small to draw general conclusions. Any increase in risk should be reported in absolute terms as well as percentages: for example, a “50 per cent increase” in risk or a “doubling” of risk could merely mean an increase from 1 in 1000 to 1.5 or 2 in 1000. A story about medical research should provide a realistic time frame for the work’s translation into a treatment or cure. It should emphasise what stage findings are at: if it is a small study in mice it is just the beginning; if it’s a huge clinical trial involving thousands of people it is more significant. Stories about shocking findings should include the wider context: the first study to find something unusual is inevitably very preliminary; the 50th study to show the same thing may be justifiably alarming. Articles should mention where the story has come from: a conference lecture, an interview with a scientist or a study in a peer-reviewed journal, for example.

I felt inclined to highlight this bit because this sort of process has been happening to a lot of studies, take global warming for instance. We still have a great many people thinking it’s a hoax, a lie, or miscalculation despite the evidence that says otherwise. This is a direct case in which bad reporting harms public knowledge of a subject and also highlights why it would be important to work on it and legitimize the reporting since people would like be kept in the clear about such dire matters.

And in the end, when all is said and written, it’s hardly ever the news source that reported the misconception or sensationalized article that gets the bitter end of the stick, it’s the scientists doing the study. Which I am not completely ruling out as part of the problem if they genuinely falsify data or maybe not divulge key information, but I am implying that much work is needed on the media reporting side to this as well (myself included).

However, as you can see, a lot of emphasis is being made in the article that highlights a journalists job to legitimize the story to their best knowledge and to expand that knowledge based on reliable sources in order to gain credibility of your own. But remember, we all make mistakes, and the valuable thing to get from it is to learn from the mistake and work on it using new or different methods than what you had originally applied. Head on over to NS for the full article, it’s very worth the read if you’re into the legitimacy of reporting or just have an interest in the workings of sensationalism and how to control and prevent it to yield better stories.

Full Article: A few simple checks would transform science reporting

It’s Official: To Protect Baby’s Brain, Turn Off TV

A decade ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that parents limit TV consumption by children under two years of age. The recommendations were based as much on common sense as science, because studies of media consumption and infant development were themselves in their infancy.

The research has finally grown up. And though it’s still ongoing, it’s mature enough for the AAP to release a new, science-heavy policy statement on babies watching television, videos or any other passive media form.

Their verdict: It’s not good, and probably bad.

Media, whether playing in the background or designed explicitly as an infant educational tool, “have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years,” concluded the AAP’s report, released Oct. 18 at the Academy’s annual meeting in Boston and scheduled for November publication in the journal Pediatrics. “Although infant/toddler programming might be entertaining, it should not be marketed as or presumed by parents to be educational.”

Full Article

It’s Official: To Protect Baby’s Brain, Turn Off TV

A decade ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that parents limit TV consumption by children under two years of age. The recommendations were based as much on common sense as science, because studies of media consumption and infant development were themselves in their infancy.

The research has finally grown up. And though it’s still ongoing, it’s mature enough for the AAP to release a new, science-heavy policy statement on babies watching television, videos or any other passive media form.

Their verdict: It’s not good, and probably bad.

Media, whether playing in the background or designed explicitly as an infant educational tool, “have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years,” concluded the AAP’s report, released Oct. 18 at the Academy’s annual meeting in Boston and scheduled for November publication in the journal Pediatrics. “Although infant/toddler programming might be entertaining, it should not be marketed as or presumed by parents to be educational.”

Full Article

dieeinsamkeitalsmensch:

evanfleischer:

thelifetimenetwork:

Mainstream US media outlets are ignoring the Occupy Wall Street protest today.

Al Jazeera isn’t. Keep up to date here.

If by “mainstream,” you mean The New York Times, CBS, CNN, and ABC, then, yeah, they’re totally ignoring it.

Though credit to Al Jazeera for being so good.

Update: 5:21PM: TPM just joined the coverage fray.

The major media outlets offer us nothing. Spread the info on this event through every possible alternative means.

"Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture."

Allen Ginsberg

verbalresistance:

Fox News Headlines Vs. The Actual News Headlines - II

Fox News cited each of these “actual news headlines” as their “source.” 
Fair and balanced. Yup.

Buzzfeed

1. The key to truly effective brainwashing is to work at people’s most fundamental awareness. Shape them at the neurological level so they develop the faculties to take your input and call it “thinking for myself.” Enable them to stop thinking.

2. Limit any and all faculties for self-awareness and self-sensing. Destroy instinct and intuition. Actively and endlessly encourage external awareness. Make people dependent on your external input for as many decisions as possible.

3. Speed up messages so that the pace and rhythm of information is disorienting and visually biased.

4. Condition people to being bombarded with hundreds of thousands of signals a day. Teach them to attend to this stream of information and to call it Reality. Never let them ask what “reality” is.

5. Framing is everything. Decide what you want people to believe and make sure that any choices you give them are within a framework which assures you of your result. This is called the Illusion of Choice. “Do you want to sweep the floor before or after dinner?” Repeat this formula for economic systems, politicians, news stories, competing product brands and entertainment.

6. Appeal to the lowest common denominator. Make sure that all shows model conflict resolution of people with an emotional and intellectual maturity no greater than that of a six year old. Make it funny so no one notices.

7. Keep people passive. Encourage the Couch Potato Alpha Wave Escape Plan as the healing elixir for all that ails.

8. Don’t make people think. Their days are hard enough as is. Bypass the need for opinion making by giving people ready-made opinions. Do it as though you don’t have a conscience – they are probably too stupid to make their own decisions anyway.

9. Ensure that there are no ongoing storylines with meaning or purpose beyond immediate sensory stimulation. Avoid universal themes as much as possible. Make absolutely certain there is no cultural, societal or global story or mythology present that conflicts with the myths of comfort and consumption.

10. Never encourage responsibility, or so much as suggest that humans could be involved in co-creating their future and the realities in which they reside.

11. Encourage group-sanctioned individuality only. By making ‘individuality” the new conformity you are generating a powerful illusion of free choice.

12. Sensationalize the superficial.

13. Keep information bytes infinitesimally small. Promote Attention Deficit Disorder. Several decades of television have already set this in motion.

14. Repetition is key. Repeat important messages as often as possible.

15. Repetition is key.

16. Repetition is key.

17. Bypass rationality by any means possible. People don’t need logic to accept information. Belief is emotional. Always remember: WAR=PEACE.

18. Remember –- two half-truths make up a whole truth.

19. Demonize self-knowledge technology of all kinds. Throw around words like “cult” and “brainwashing.” Marginalize anyone involved in such pursuits.

20. Keep old models of consciousness alive and well. If you can get away with referring to people’s states as being phlegmatic or sanguine instead of programmable and intentional, do it.

21. Keep people’s attention on what really matters. Emphasize what’s wrong as much as possible.

22. Always give the impression that Everything Is Under Control – but just barely so – hammer into the populace the idea that their greatest fear could strike at any moment.

23. Teach people that they are their thoughts and emotions. Reinforce this by teaching them to feel bad about their ideas, and to feel bad about feeling bad. Remember: Identify, identify, identify –- this will widen the empty void inside of them that only shopping can cure.

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

The official jobless rate is in for the month of April. Unemployment went up — to 9 percent.

What? You didn’t know that? Then you’re like most people, who try to find out what’s happening by watching television or reading commercial newspapers.

So how can unemployment be going up if the number of new jobs is increasing? The capitalist media came up with various explanations. The New York Times said it was because the number of new jobs came from payroll data while the unemployment figure came from household interviews. Others said it was just a fluke.

Tell that to the 205,000 additional people out of work in April. Losing your job, especially in tough times like these for the working class, is like a dagger to the heart.

And what about young people trying to get their first jobs? Whatever jobs were created last month, they didn’t affect unemployment in the 16 to 19 age group. It is still at the highest ever since the government started keeping these records — a whopping 25 percent.

And in Black communities, the jobless rate for all ages is twice that for whites — proof that institutional racism is entrenched in the United States, no matter who is president, and “equal opportunity” is just a mirage.

Felt the need to highlight that.

“Fully 46 percent of people now say they get news online at least three times a week, surpassing newspapers (40 percent) for the first time,” the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism reports today in its eighth annual State of the News Media report.