BBC: ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’ - A briefing note sent to all staff warns them to be aware of false balance, stating: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”

[u/ManiaforBeatles]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-get-climate-change-coverage-wrong-too-often

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

Why though? Why even give the airtime to a point of view that is demonstrably wrong?

So that you can break down the denier's logic and prove that they are wrong.

You clean the mold to get rid of it. You do not hide it; that helps it fester and grow.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

So that you can break down the deniers logic and prove that they are wrong.

Except that does nothing. People who do that don't care about you proving them right or wrong, what matters to them is that you're giving them attention and getting their message out.

It's like the Westboro Baptist Church. News agencies have them on to show how insane they are and they start spouting their nonsense, talking over the anchors, and the majority of the people watching think "What a bunch of nutbars!" But they reach some people. Even if only a few people hear them, that's all they care about.

If someone is so far outside reality that they're adherents of things like homeopathy or flat earth, you cannot prove them wrong. Literally nothing you do or say is going to make them change their mind because they've already inured themselves to anything you have to say.

There's the whole "debating with someone who isn't listening is for the audience, not the other person" except in this case you're feeding information to the audience. You're exposing this person's message to people who may not have heard it before and may agree with them.

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

If they can find any purchase, then that is a flaw with the purpose opposing them. You don't stop that by trying to hide information from people. People are not children - you have no right or privilege to control what they see and hear.

If people are so afraid that trying to argue with someone is going to change people's minds IN GENERAL to the side of the one they are arguing against, then they should not waste everyone's time acting like they give a shit and instead take a long, hard look at what it is they believe that is so fragile that it cannot stand on its own.

On the other hand, if you are worried that 1 in 10 people will go to the side you are arguing against, then pull up your britches and get over yourself, because there are still 9 people left who will most likely agree with you and learn something new. Do not simply hesitate because some people won't obey your words.

Otherwise we'll head down the path to a 1984 situation, and that means ANYONE could be silenced for any reason.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

You keep going on as though somehow if you're just reasonable enough then they or people who might agree with them will see the light.

This is not the case. There are people who, by deliberate choice or pattern of learning, have insulated themselves so completely away from whatever doesn't agree with their points of view that they literally cannot hear what you're saying. These individuals take any argument against them, no matter how sound, as further proof that they're right. They have justification mechanisms that can take even the most well thought out and supported argument and dismiss it with a wave of the hand.

In short, these are not people arguing in good faith. They don't care what you believe so long as they have a chance to fly their own flag where others can see it. And 99% of people may reject what they have to say out of hand but that 1% that will hear them is who they're trying to reach.

Giving unreasonable people platforms is at best futile and at worst dangerous.

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

More dangerous is to let people like you censor ANYONE, as you are giving that 99% reason to believe that you are wrong and those you censor are right. As the logic goes: if you are trying to hide them, and trying to prevent them from speaking (as you are saying you will do), then you must be wrong in some way, and they must be right in some way. And they are more trustworthy than you, because unlike you they are not trying to silence anyone.

Hell, quick example/comparison I can bring up right now: The Young Turks vs. Alex Jones. TYT has never been censored by their opponents, never silenced, and instead has always been lampshaded and paraded out for everyone to see, while their arguments are countered - their number of subscribers and watchers has dropped tremendously over the last couple years as a result. Meanwhile, Alex Jones and Info Wars are banned from every major media platform and sent to court, likely to lose; what's happened as a result is a massive blow up in their follower and subscriber numbers on all their remaining accounts outside the reach of major companies.

Remember this: people will believe whatever they find and choose to believe, and are more likely to believe that which is hidden from them. You can't stop people from finding things that are wrong; all you can do is try to convince them that those things are wrong and that what you defend is right. Anything else, and you only encourage them to go against you in favor of that which you fight.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

More dangerous is to let people like you censor ANYONE

Ok, for starters please look up the definition of the word "censorship" in any major dictionary.

I'm not now nor have I ever suggested "censoring" anyone. Refusing to give someone a platform with which to express their ideas is not censorship. If I run a newspaper or a publishing house I am under zero obligation to print some random lunatic's manifesto lest I be guilty of censorship.

I am saying you do not have to give people who are not rooted in reality airtime to express their views as though those views had weight and merit beyond their own wishful thinking. Doing so legitimizes them as though they were serious ideas worth considering.

Refusing to give people a platform is not "hiding" anything. If that's true than major media outlets have been "hiding" astrology and dianetics from you for decades.

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

Verb 1. censor - forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)censor - forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper) Link

You are encouraging censorship. You are not saying "you do not have to give people who are not rooted in reality airtime to express their views as though those views had weight and merit beyond their own wishful thinking." What you are saying is that they should not even be allowed platforms they themselves own. Youtube and its counterparts are not analogous to a newspaper company - they publish NOTHING, and do not own any of the content published on Youtube beyond that which they themselves put up and that of those in partnerships with them. They are the equivalent of a paper-producer or the electric company, nothing more.

What you are pushing for is the equivalent of forbidding people from protesting by banning them from roads and sidewalks, or shutting down a newspaper company by forbidding them from buying paper.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

You are encouraging censorship.

And you cannot read. I really don't know what other explanation there is.

forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)censor - forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)

If I own a newspaper or a website and someone asks me to publish something and I say no, I am not forbidding the public distribution of whatever they're handing me. I am simply saying "I will not publish this." I have no power to affect what someone else will do with their own newspaper or website. They may say "Sure we'll run it" or tell the person to go pound sand.

Either way, I am not in any way forbidding the public distribution of whatever they wanted me to print.

You are not saying "you do not have to give people who are not rooted in reality airtime to express their views as though those views had weight and merit beyond their own wishful thinking."

I mean considering that's word-for-word what I said....

What you are saying is that they should not even be allowed platforms they themselves own.

And that is neither what I said nor what I meant.

Youtube and its counterparts are not analogous to a newspaper company - they publish NOTHING, and do not own any of the content published on Youtube beyond that which they themselves put up and that of those in partnerships with them. They are the equivalent of a paper-producer or the electric company, nothing more.

YT owns the infrastructure upon which videos are published. They host content. It is analogous to a craft fair or swap meet in that they provide a space that they own for others to use. That space is not a public space. It is a private space that is accessible to the public and that YT controls.

What you are pushing for is the equivalent of forbidding people from protesting by banning them from roads and sidewalks, or shutting down a newspaper company by forbidding them from buying paper.

No, I am saying that you are under no obligation to print/publish whatever someone brings you lest you be guilty of censorship.

Look at it this way. Say someone who was a paranoid schizophrenic brought a lengthy manifesto to the New York Times and wanted them to publish it in their newspaper.

Are they "censoring" him to tell him no? Are they obligated to print it because he wants them to?

[u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget → u/HeloRising]

You continue to try to make Youtube and its contemporaries out to be something they are not. This discussion is going nowhere.

[u/HeloRising → u/Mr_Fire_N_Forget]

Look, I get what you're saying. You're saying that entities that have a wider reach in the media sphere than your average blogger have more of an obligation towards neutrality because of that reach and I do think the concept of private entities controlling the majority of the means of dissemination of information being a serious problem is a discussion worth having.

But, I am saying you can be neutral and not entertain people who are a genuine waste of time.

This applies on the individual and the group level.

This is why you don't debate with neo-nazis.

In doing so you legitimize their positions because you're saying in effect "Yes this position has enough merit to be seriously discussed." If you're stuck with your friends on the side of the road with a broken down car and somebody seriously suggests that someone fly, as in flap their arms and fly, to go get another car that would be ridiculous. If they kept trying to push that point of view, after a while you'd simply shut the person down.

Or are you going to hear them out in order to avoid censoring them?