What I do believe, is that any privilege we have as scientists is a privilege based on public trust in scientific activities.
I tend to use the word responsibility rather than privilege.
People talk, mistakenly I think, about evidence-based policy, when really we should discuss evidence-informed policy.
Typically, research doesn’t produce a black and white answer, it produces something like a consensus that if we do X, then there is a Y% probability of Z happening.
You are right. But there are also times when a fact is simply a fact, no equivocation, no stats needed.
Out of habit most scientists are reluctant to state absolutes because we have enough experience with artifacts to know that we can be made to look like complete dicks.
Gluckman a ‘scientist’ is not something that meets the definition of ‘Scientist’, when anything he says is filtered by the National machine.
While like any person Professor Sir Peter Gluckman may have faults this is an extremely unfair characterisation of him.
He is a very good scientist in his own field and as science adviser he has tried to advise without burning the delicate bridge between the adviser position and the office of the PM. I fervently hope that his position will be retain through future governments.
I suspect that what you see as a lens of National ideology over Gluckman's advice is instead Gluckman trying to retain connection and have some influence.
How universal is the application of the RSNZ Code at the moment?
Those rules are simply a statement of what a good scientist will do anyway. They are nothing more or less than common sense for scientists. So while I'm not a member there is nothing in the rules that I wouldn't naturally follow.
I can’t make head nor tail of this comment. Is it an in house joke?
No just an attempt to reframe her appalling column prior to the election as merely highlighting that both parties were carrying out illegal activities.
Of course it was an utterly false equivalence but rewriting history is par for the course.
In a column about the media and their effect on the election it is almost perfect irony.
It may be that people who don’t vote, don’t enrol, and aren’t able to enrol would be overwhelmingly opposed to national and vote for left-wing parties.
Gah I can't find it now but someone has done the analysis and that is exactly the case. National has maintained about a million voters for ever. What has changed when Labour has won elections is the number of voters, most of whom appear to either not vote or vote Labour depending on how they feel.
But this assumes we should want the media “to persuade” their audience about news stories. I don’t know how comfortable I am with that idea.
But neither do you want the media to simply pass on the media releases from whichever party. Media releases are effectively party political advertising. If the party concerned wants their statement verbatim then they should pay for the advertising and it should have the appropriate riders.
What happened all too often in this campaign was the media quoting Key or worse asking Key to submit his very own opinion pieces - with no analysis whatsoever.
For me, especially at election time, I want the media to use their resources to analyse. To use access to experts when needed to examine the things that come out of politicians mouths critically.
What we had was far from that critical, informative media.
depends on what purpose you’re using it for.
So what purpose is the MSM using the 50% figure for?
If you say "of the population" you should use ~20%
If you say "of eligible voters" you should use ~30%
If you say "of those who voted" you should use 48%
Unless you are trying to deceive, then use whichever mashup of numbers suits your purpose.
I thought ess than 1/3 of eligible voter voted National?
Yeah should've been 30% not 40% - damn editors where are they when you need them.
But if the point is to somehow undermine National’s claim to be able to govern alone, then I cry foul.
No it isn't. The point is this is simple math that is reported incorrectly all the time. I'm not saying National does not have a mandate, those are your words not mine. What I am saying is that repeating endlessly that National have the support of half of New Zealand is overstating the mandate they do have.
The question is why does the media feel the need to overstate the mandate in that way? What benefit is there for the media?