tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post2115037433478919640..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The Invisible Audience ProblemMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-91207935418811796002007-04-13T15:00:00.000-07:002007-04-13T15:00:00.000-07:00This is interestinghttp://gristmill.grist.org/stor...This is interesting<BR/><A>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/12/143227/486</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22771139854441315552007-04-13T07:39:00.000-07:002007-04-13T07:39:00.000-07:00Will follow up later; for now let me note that the...Will follow up later; for now let me note that the dynamics on this side of the pond are different.<BR/><BR/>Excessive and ill-informed panic (this is a very big problem but is a very slow one as well) is around here almost as much as there, but is much less visible in the press here. <BR/><BR/>The 'window' (Overton window) is narrower and skewed off to one side here.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69252152821849446352007-04-13T06:45:00.000-07:002007-04-13T06:45:00.000-07:00Thanks for your reply. I read it as a response to ...Thanks for your reply. I read it as a response to your 'hidden audience' as well as a direct response to my concern. I've heard Broderism referred to frequently, but being British, it hadn't fully registered on the brain..<BR/><BR/>I don't think you are a Broderist; I also try to maintain good manners in my posts, but this is an indicator of reasonableness (is that a word?) which allows for others to judge one as 'fair-minded'. <BR/><BR/>The media reaction is a bit more complex than you are suggesting here, though. there appear to be three broad lines of provocation used to stimulate reader/viewer reaction; some media (The Independent in the UK, for example)take the high line and tend to push a strongly 'catastrophic' line; others play the US admin line of procrastination and appeals to self-interest (Washington Post?); the third approach is your 'split the difference' line, which appears to aim at establishing the 'battle lines' to create a notion of where the debate lies. I'd say most of the media responses fall into one of these three categories.<BR/><BR/>I am also a bit concerned about the apparent assumptions about the 'public view' on CC, in the sense that the Overton Window idea implies that the range of public attitudes is a subset of the full range; I am not sure that this is true, so I am testing it on the weather forum I subscribe to, and have posted about it here: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/<BR/>As my comment rate is so tiny, perhaps you'd like to give a response there, too?<BR/>Respectfully,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-39715353617615751082007-04-12T21:50:00.000-07:002007-04-12T21:50:00.000-07:00The error you refer to is sometimes called Broderi...The error you refer to is sometimes called Broderism, after a prominent Washington columnist who can be relied upon to split the difference between the democrats and the republicans, no matter how bizarre the republican side may get. <BR/><BR/>I am not advocating Broderism.<BR/><BR/>I am not a Broderist on climate. I am on the invisible wing of informed opinion, outside the "window" of socially acceptable opinion. I think the IPCC systematically understates the risks of climate change for a whole slew of reasons.<BR/><BR/>I am mistaken for a Broderist because I try to be polite and respectful and open-minded. <BR/><BR/>The fact that I try not to be rude doesn't mean that I am inclined to split the difference. The fact that people do that is the whole problem we are discussing. The dishonest side merely has to assert a position more extreme than they want the public to take, and the lazy press will split the difference.<BR/><BR/>I am polite and respectful because I am trying to leave a way for people who might be inclined against my position to find a way to reconsider.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-44805320535537973912007-04-12T02:35:00.000-07:002007-04-12T02:35:00.000-07:00Michael: Thank you for your substantial response t...Michael: Thank you for your substantial response to my question. I don't know yet whether I exactly agree with you, but one thing occurs to me: if scientists are to use the 'two audience' approach, they may be compelled to end up talking like politicians, who are familiar with this idea. This would both dilute their message and increase uncertainty about the value/validity of what they are trying to say.<BR/><BR/>One of the principle reasons that many people do not trust politicians is that they do not appear to say what they mean and they often divert attention away from difficult questions to discuss what they have prepared. This is understandable in the context of the politician's job, though often misunderstood as being simply mealy-mouthed or even deliberately deceiving.<BR/><BR/>If a scientist starts to consider his 'two audiences' in the way you suggest, I worry that she/he may end up being seen as a procrastinator rather than trying to take all views into account. I am not sure that this would be a desirable mode of communication for the scientist.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it is better, after all, that scientists put their point across as clearly as they can, then prepare themselves for the counter-response; in this way, the essential message is not compromised and the credibility of science is maintained.<BR/>Regards,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com