SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NPR is reporting on this tale of direct action:
A self-styled militia in eastern Oregon grabbed national headlines Saturday when they broke into the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There the armed group remains Sunday, occupying the federal building in protest of what it sees as government overreach on rangelands throughout the western United States.
"We stand in defense," Ammon Bundy, the group's apparent leader and spokesperson, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "And when the time is right we will begin to defend the people of Harney County, [Ore.,] in using the land and the resources."
Ammon's brother, Ryan, has reportedly used harsher rhetoric, saying members of the militia are willing to kill or be killed.
Their last name may ring a bell. Ammon and Ryan Bundy are sons of rancher Cliven Bundy, who notably took part in an armed standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in Nevada in 2014.
Ammon Bundy now is part of a group of 15 to 150 people — depending on which source you believe — who are protesting the arson convictions of two Oregon ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven.
Also at Oregon Live, NYT, and the Associated Press.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Vanderhoth on Monday January 04 2016, @06:24PM
This is actually not entirely true. I think you arrive at the right conclusion that journalists are the issue here, but the concept of "2 perspectives" is overly simplified. It's not always black and white, right and wrong. It's a distraction from the fact that there are multiple views or uncertainty of how bad/good things actually are. Yes, global warming is happening and it's man made, but journalists in the *left* media aren't anymore qualified to interrupter the data than journalists in the *right* media.
FYI, I work with climate data. The left paints it as a doomsday scenario, but are ultimately just slightly less wrong than the *right* media, which still insists on having it's head in the sand. I support doing something about climate because ultimately the worst that can happen is we end up with more efficient energy solutions, less pollution and a healthier planet, but I don't think we need to lie about what's going on to achieve that. Journalists from either side paint things based on their personal bias for people that happen to agree with their bias and click on their articles. Objective journalism is dead, it's all about click bait these days, the more sensationalized and/or controversial and/or ridiculous, the more clicks they get.
Just because the media is telling you one thing doesn't automatically mean there's only two positions and you're either right or wrong. There's a plethora of information you're likely not even seeing because it doesn't fit the story the journalist wants to tell, or even directly contradicts it. Aside from a lot of articles are actually just parrots of parrots. It's like a perverted game of telephone with each journalists inserting their own personal spin on what some other journalist has spun, which when you follow the links back to the source will be an opinion piece in itself with little to no supporting citations. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, rather they're likely pushing an extremist view for extremists that will read their articles for the confirmation bias. You'd be surprised how easy it is for a journalists to tie in unrelated events and issues to push a narrative and paint any and all opposition as bad guys so no one will question them. Most "news" these days isn't really fact based, it's opinions retweeted, blogged about, shared and parroted.
Wikipedia is just as bad. All it takes to make a "factual" wikipedia article is to write a joke/fake article, get a journalist to print something based on the fake information, then rewrite the article citing that article to make it fact. It's a lot more common than you think. Just go read some of the talk pages for "controversial" topics. Wikipedians clearly push personal agendas and will argue over what sources to include/exclude (sometimes from the same publications) in order to make an article say what they want. As well and use and abuse cliques and admin privileges to make sure their topics are covered the way they want them covered. Once Wiki states something if a journalist wants to be quoted in the wiki article they better agree with what the article says. If they don't they'll just be ignored anyway, so might as well cash in on those citation bucks, which might not be a lot, but it's likely more than zero.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:54PM
> FYI, I work with climate data.
Are you now claiming to be a climatologist?
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday January 04 2016, @07:03PM
No, I am not.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:29PM
You'd better not. Only climatologists are allowed to interpret climate data. If anyone else does it, we burn them at the stake.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday January 04 2016, @07:59PM
I'd settle for someone with a reasonable understanding of math, basic statistics and how models actually work.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:56PM
So just an utterly irrelevant detail you threw in to give your claims false legitimacy.
I am not surprised.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:55AM
The point is, I've seen the data first hand which is why I know the claims journalist are making are mostly sensationalized bullshit.
That's the real kicker though. I have a background that's heavily math based and I know I can't make inferences on data journalist pass off as an inevitable doomsday, and yet no one questions them because, "a new study shows..."
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:39AM
. I have a background that's heavily math based and I know I can't make inferences
Wow, just Wow! This level of self-awareness is so rare here on SoylentNews! Now, if you could just stop making inferences about journalism, a discipline about which it is obvious you know nothing?
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:32AM
Journalist are suppose to report the facts, not insert their personal bias and misinformation to sway public opinion. I can't even count the number of times I've read, "A new study shows...", then gone and read the study only to find out it says the opposite of what was being reported, or the study is bumpkiss based on a sample size of ten people, or was a firggn twitter poll. What's worse is when you catch a journalist making false claims or getting the information wrong other journalists and their hippy dippy followers will step in to protect them rather than just tell the truth and admit they were wrong.
It seems all that's required to be a "journalist" these days is to have a blog with a following, if you're mad take it out on the "professional bloggers" and "journalists" who are ruining the profession, not some rando on the internet telling it like it is.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:10PM
Wow, just wow. It's 2016, I can't even.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday January 04 2016, @08:45PM
You talk about it using the example of climate data, and you're right: all sides have an ax to grind. Essentially no one even tries to present you with the objective truth.
If you read the history of this case, which includes something like 20 years of backstory, the federal government's hands are anything but clean. The people at the center of the story own a ranch that is nearly surrounded by a wildlife refuge. The refuge has grown by taking over neighboring ranches, and the federal bureaucrats are irritated by these people who don't want to sell. So the feds have done all sorts of unpleasant things, to try to drive them into capitulation. Just one example: barricading the roads they use to access their own land, even though the roads exist, and have been used for decades. Another example: prosecuting them for setting wildfires, using terrorism laws. Whatever the law around wildfires (and this is a huge gray zone), prosecuting them as terrorist is idiocy. And "re-sentencing" after someone has served their sentence and been released? In what kind of justice system does that make sense?
I'm not saying that occupying the wildlife refuge headquarters makes any sense - it doesn't. But I totally understand why certain groups of people are totally fed up with the feds. The federal government is a power-hungry monstrousity, and its bureaucrats demand your obeisance. If you're in a position where that doesn't matter, then you don't understand how utterly unjust this can become.
Just another random example: I have an acquaintance who blew off filing his taxes - out of sheer laziness - for ten years. Finally got caught, fair enough. Worked out a payment plan with the IRS, including plenty of penalties, fair enough. But the IRS has him where it wants him. Regularly, two or three times a year, he finds that the IRS has emptied his bank account, even though he hasn't missed a payment. Of course, this causes his mortgage payment to be late, check to bounce, etc.. He complains, they put the money back - but no apology, and certainly no compensation for the very real costs that this incurs. Why do they do it? Because they can, and because no one holds the federal bureaucrats responsible for abusing their power.
If you get on the wrong side of power-loving, panty-waisted federal bureaucrats, they can and will make your life hell. If you haven't witnessed this, you have no idea just how bad it can get. I totally understand how people can say "enough", even if the actions they take may seem a bit strange to people who haven't been in their situation.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.