How Andrew Breitbart Hacks the Media – Wired, April 2010.

By now, you have probably heard of how Shirley Sherrod, a former(?) Federal official, was forced to resign after a heavily-edited video of a recent speech she gave at an NAACP event was used as evidence of reverse-racism in Obama’s administration.  After the tape was released by Mr. Breitbart to FOX News, both the NAACP and White House called for Ms. Sherrod’s resignation.

Then, the unedited video was released (you can view it here).  Basically, the videotape shows that Ms. Sherrod’s statements were the exact opposite of what FOX News reported.  The NAACP apologized last night for being “snookered“  and called for her case to be reconsidered.  The farm family that Sherrod referred to even defended her while, just a few hours ago, the White House apologized.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if the White House and the USDA remembered one basic fact – FOX News is not an actual news station.  Also, once they realized that Mr. Breitbart was behind the videotape, they should have remembered how an earlier, heavily-edited videotape falsely accused ACORN (and let to that organization’s demise).  At the very least, someone should have asked to see the complete unedited tape.  Even Mr. Breitbart admits that viewing the entire tape demonstrates that Ms. Sherrod is not a racist.

Mr. Breitbart and others like him are taking advantage of the decline of journalism.  Newsrooms are cutting back on staff and especially investigate reporters.  At the same time, they have to fill the 24-hour news hole and compete with other cable stations and local news.  Ratings are more essential now than ever.  Media manipulators know these weaknesses and use them to their partisan advantage.  As the Sherrod case shows, reputations can be damaged in just a few hours.  What is unusual about the Sherrod case is that the true picture came just as quickly.  In cases such as ACORN or Climategate, it was several months before the truth came out but was of little help in averting the damage.

It is imperative that the audience become more skeptical and reserve judgment before all of the facts are in.  More and more media manipulators are taking advantage of the decline of traditional journalism to spread their falsehoods.  Unfortunately, I don’t hold much hope as when obviously fictional news events (such as this from the Onion) are viewed as investigative journalism.

You have a strange idea of “fun,” Mr. Breitbart.

I do disagree with leaving out a mission to the Moon.  The Moon is a great base for launching missions to the asteroids and to Mars.  We know we can reach it within a few days, it has mineral resources, water, and an energy source for fusion.  The Moon’s gravity well is much smaller than the Earth’s gravity well and thus it easier to build bigger craft and launch them with less fuel.  Building a base on the Moon allows us to test out technologies and methods that can help us explore Mars.

This is not an argument for reestablishing the Constellation program.  Canceling Constellation was the right call as is the push to leave Low-Earth Orbit.  But skipping past such an obvious asset in our mission to Mars just doesn’t make sense.

But . . . it is grossly unfair that my one-man small business paid more in taxes than GE or Exxon Mobil.  My piddly profits would be considered a rounding error at GE or Exxon but at least I paid taxes on my earnings.  It’s part of being a good corporate citizen so why don’t some of these other megacorporations demonstrate their gratitude to the American public that buys the products?  Pay your fair share for the civilization that provides the free markets that you benefit (greatly!) from.

So it was with a bit of sadness when I read the following in Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s Unscientific America:  How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future:

“Arguably, the most important news-oriented science communication today occurs via Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, popular public-affairs-slash-comedy programs that manage to integrate a surprising amount of scientific content and treat it very sympathetically overall – as long as the scientists who go on air can laugh at themselves, and their profession, a little.”

I like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert but a seven-minute science segment is no substitute for the effect Cosmos had on a generation.

The rise of evidence-based practice seems unnecessary because it seems that is plenty of research out there.  But, as the founders of evidence-based medicine found, the research seems to sit on the shelf while practitioners rely on rules of thumb and “professional folklore” to practice their arts.  There has always been a gap between the academic world and the practical world but it seems that the Internet has made that gap more apparent. 

For example, as patients began to use WebMD and similar sites to research their illnesses and treatments, many doctors were questioned on their ability to diagnose and successfully treat their patients.  The same started to happen in the legal community, investing, and so on.  The informed consumer is skeptical of the tactics that used to work for the professionals because this professional body of knowledge didn’t seem to have a basis in the latest research.

That is why the successful practitioners will be both scholarly and practical.  They should have the ability to understand the latest research and to critically appraise that research.  They should also have the ability to find the practical applications of the latest research findings and be able to communicate to their clients the implications of the research.  Selling the sizzle instead of the steak is not the way to consulting success in the 21st Century.

“This is classic TED. Take an idea that has gained currency. Self-appoint some (non-genuine) champion of that idea. Change the idea subtly to align with the political preferences of the ‘elite’ audience. Then market the new version of the idea (and its new champions) as the original idea that has been and is widely accepted.”

It’s not just TED.  You see this all over the web.  A few consultants, speakers, writers, whatever get together and self-proclaim each other the elite of their field (an especially audacious example – The Digerati).  They build a website, hold online conferences, and video their talks so that the “masses” can bask in the assembled geniuses.

Sometimes, the stuff is good.  I especially enjoy the TED talks and some of the Digerati have interesting insights.  Other times, it is pure pretentious crap.  And woe be to any outsider who dares question the wisdom of this assembly of genius.

But, so what?  Before the Internet and Web 2.0, these mutual admiration societies could run a magazine or discussion salon that few others had the money or expertise to run.  Now, anyone with an online connection can become their own elite group.  Don’t like TED?  Then, build your own group of gurus.  Start a Facebook group, create a group blog, film some videos.  Gather around your friends, give each other titles, and publish your great works on Scribd.

Soon, you will be one of the elite and will have lots of fans.  And other people who can’t stand you and create their own group in response to your elitism.  Democratizing elitism through social networking.

When receiving advice (unsolicited or solicited), always consider two things.  First, does the person actually follow their own advice?  Second, how well did they do following their advice?  Given the choice between receiving advice from your average stockbroker or from Warren Buffet, who would you listen to?

Seems simplistic and rather obvious but I have been amazed at the number of people who turn down Warren Buffet when they don’t like the advice.  They would rather look for feel-good advice then the simple and effective advice such as eating healthy and exercising more.

But it’s this quest for the overnight, silver bullet piece of advice that drives much of the advice industry.