<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; Sharon Begley</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/sharon-begley/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:42:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Al Gore, Still a Smartypants</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/03/al-gore-still-a-smartypants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/03/al-gore-still-a-smartypants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:33:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Somerby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsweek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharon Begley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this week's cover story, Newsweek's Sharon Begley seems to think Al Gore's new book is good--but he's still too wonky:
To anyone with bad memories of how Gore's fact-filled debate performances against George W. Bush in 2000 failed to connect with voters, it may come as no surprise that Our Choice has a graphic on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In this week's <a href=" http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552">cover story</a>, <strong>Newsweek</strong>'s <a title="Extra!: Evolution Confusion" href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3122" target="_self">Sharon Begley</a> seems to think Al Gore's new book is good--but he's still too wonky:</p>
<blockquote><p>To anyone with bad memories of how Gore's fact-filled debate performances against George W. Bush in 2000 failed to connect with voters, it may come as no surprise that <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594867348/?tag=nwswk-20" target="_blank">Our Choice</a> </em>has a graphic on "how a wind turbine works," and a long section that begins: "Conventional hydrothermal plants are built according to one of three different designs. The steam can be taken directly through the turbine and then recondensed...."</p></blockquote>
<p>A wind turbine GRAPHIC! In a book about green energy!? What on Earth was he thinking.</p>
<p>As to our memories of those 2000 debates, maybe Begley meant to type "reporters" instead of "voters." As Bob Somerby at the <strong>Daily Howler</strong> has been doggedly <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092804.shtml">remembering </a>for years now,  actual voters seemed to think Gore did pretty well in those debates--"instant polls of viewers credited Gore with a rather decisive win." The media created a different narrative--one of a petulant and sighing Gore who couldn't behave himself. And that's the way that they want everyone else to remember it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/11/03/al-gore-still-a-smartypants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Most Famous Pundits = Most Wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/17/most-famous-pundits-most-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/17/most-famous-pundits-most-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsweek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharon Begley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=5786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Pointing out how often pundits' predictions are not only wrong but egregiously wrong" is, in Newsweek science columnist Sharon Begley's view (2/14/09), "like shooting fish in a barrel, except in this case the fish refuse to die. No matter how often they miss the mark, pundits just won't shut up." Citing "the fact that being [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Pointing out how often pundits' predictions are not only wrong but egregiously wrong" is, in <strong>Newsweek</strong> science columnist Sharon Begley's view (<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/184815/" target="_blank">2/14/09</a>), "like shooting fish in a barrel, except in this case the fish refuse to die. No matter how often they miss the mark, pundits just won't shut up." Citing "the fact that being chronically, 180-degrees <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3122">wrong</a> does not disqualify pundits is in large part the media's fault: Cable news, talk radio and the blogosphere need all the punditry they can rustle up, track records be damned," Begley looks at Stanford psychologist <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books1" target="_blank">Philip Tetlock</a>'s methodical attempt to "identify those more likely to have an accurate crystal ball" using "something psychologists call cognitive style":<br />
<!--preview-break--></p>
<blockquote><p>At first, Tetlock's ongoing study of 82,361 predictions by 284 pundits (most but not all of them American) came up empty. He initially looked at whether accuracy was related to having a Ph.D., being an economist or political scientist rather than a blowhard journalist, having policy experience or access to classified information, or being a realist or neocon, liberal or conservative. The answers were no on all counts. The best predictor, in a backward sort of way, was fame: the more feted by the media, the worse a pundit's accuracy. And therein lay Tetlock's first clue. The media's preferred pundits are forceful, confident and decisive, not tentative and balanced.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&amp;media_view_id=9170">Begley</a> explains how the dominant news media format reinforces this harmful predilection: "Bold, decisive assertions make better sound bites; bombast, swagger and certainty make for better TV. As a result, the marketplace of ideas does not punish poor punditry."</p>
<p>Survey some recent disastrous results in the FAIR magazine cover story <strong>Extra!:</strong> "Busted Bubble: The Press Fell Down on the Job on Housing Prices" (<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3646">11-12/08</a>) by Veronica Cassidy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/17/most-famous-pundits-most-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

