We are obviously better off without these “fact checkers” based on abundant evidence over the past many years.
And your post scraped the surface of even just this one episode, for example not even addressing one of the root causes, all the unmanaged fuel. Or the under-managed power lines. That’s not a criticism of the article, just commentary.
"Soon after the L.A. wildfires began wreaking havoc, a common narrative emerged claiming that poor vegetation management was a key reason why these fires have been so bad.
"Donald Trump Jr., for example, stated in an Instagram post mocking California Gov. Gavin Newsom that “proper brush mitigation was ignored for years.”
"Other posts have highlighted President-elect Donald Trump’s previous comments blaming Newsom and a lack of forest “raking” or “clean[ing]” of forest floors for wildfires. “Still true,” an Instagram post said of a 2019 Trump tweet.
"But as we explained then — and as experts told us once again — while proper forest management is an important part of reducing severe fire risk in forests, it’s a different situation in the grass- and shrubbery-dominated landscape where the current fires are burning in Southern California. (In a Jan. 13 interview with Newsmax, Trump repeated this and other false claims.)
"Not only is vegetation management of that ecosystem not particularly helpful in reducing wildfire risk, but active management of the chaparral could backfire. “If the government had requested to remove more chaparral, in a way it could have created an even worse situation,” Syphard said.
"That’s because when chaparral is removed, invasive grasses — which are more flammable — move in, heightening the fire risk.
"Even putting in more fuel breaks, Syphard said, is not always a good idea, because if a person is not there to fight the fire, the break area can also increase fire risk."
I don't have enough knowledge to assess this fact-check -- to know whether it's biased because of who it selects for experts. And again, it's something where continuing news reports and interviews with a wide range of experts on the issue of California wildfires will be helpful. I have to guard against my bias against seeing fact-checkers as playing for a team and wanting to prove them wrong.
Neither do I, but it loses all credibility in my eyes when it quickly demonstrates the real point of the so-called fact check: fuelling the TDS flames, pun intended.
There have been plenty of credible analyses done of the various ways that fire risk could be better managed in that area, and I’d rather go right to those sources than waste any time on “fact checkers”.
However, it’s fair to write about the “fact checkers” because they do exist, and because so many people apparently pay attention to them. I can remember years ago when my father, who was a fairly well-read person, used to constantly look at what Snopes had to say.
Your compliment means a lot to me because this was a post that took too long to write, that I revised over and over and over -- am I strawmanning? am I being fair? is it coherent? what's the main point? -- and that, even upon publishing for public consumption, I thought was quite mid. I still do.
So to get a compliment feels like I didn't do too bad. Seriously, Barry -- thank you.
This topic’s been on my mind for months. We’ve never had more information available at our fingertips than we do today - yet deciphering ‘truth’ has never been more complex.
I know your essay wasn’t expanding on permission structures - but would be a good topic at some point.
These frameworks are constantly constructed behind the scenes but also in clear daylight - leads you to wonder “what is truth anymore”!
This is a long, thought-provoking essay on how David Axelrod using the concept of "permission structures" to help get Obama elected, and how it informed Obama's theory of governance.
We are obviously better off without these “fact checkers” based on abundant evidence over the past many years.
And your post scraped the surface of even just this one episode, for example not even addressing one of the root causes, all the unmanaged fuel. Or the under-managed power lines. That’s not a criticism of the article, just commentary.
It's a good observation -- the need to go deeper into the root causes -- and one I expect reporters will continue to pursue.
About that fuel, here's what FactCheck.org said:
"Soon after the L.A. wildfires began wreaking havoc, a common narrative emerged claiming that poor vegetation management was a key reason why these fires have been so bad.
"Donald Trump Jr., for example, stated in an Instagram post mocking California Gov. Gavin Newsom that “proper brush mitigation was ignored for years.”
"Other posts have highlighted President-elect Donald Trump’s previous comments blaming Newsom and a lack of forest “raking” or “clean[ing]” of forest floors for wildfires. “Still true,” an Instagram post said of a 2019 Trump tweet.
"But as we explained then — and as experts told us once again — while proper forest management is an important part of reducing severe fire risk in forests, it’s a different situation in the grass- and shrubbery-dominated landscape where the current fires are burning in Southern California. (In a Jan. 13 interview with Newsmax, Trump repeated this and other false claims.)
"Not only is vegetation management of that ecosystem not particularly helpful in reducing wildfire risk, but active management of the chaparral could backfire. “If the government had requested to remove more chaparral, in a way it could have created an even worse situation,” Syphard said.
"That’s because when chaparral is removed, invasive grasses — which are more flammable — move in, heightening the fire risk.
"Even putting in more fuel breaks, Syphard said, is not always a good idea, because if a person is not there to fight the fire, the break area can also increase fire risk."
I don't have enough knowledge to assess this fact-check -- to know whether it's biased because of who it selects for experts. And again, it's something where continuing news reports and interviews with a wide range of experts on the issue of California wildfires will be helpful. I have to guard against my bias against seeing fact-checkers as playing for a team and wanting to prove them wrong.
Neither do I, but it loses all credibility in my eyes when it quickly demonstrates the real point of the so-called fact check: fuelling the TDS flames, pun intended.
There have been plenty of credible analyses done of the various ways that fire risk could be better managed in that area, and I’d rather go right to those sources than waste any time on “fact checkers”.
However, it’s fair to write about the “fact checkers” because they do exist, and because so many people apparently pay attention to them. I can remember years ago when my father, who was a fairly well-read person, used to constantly look at what Snopes had to say.
This is a great post, Anthony.
Your compliment means a lot to me because this was a post that took too long to write, that I revised over and over and over -- am I strawmanning? am I being fair? is it coherent? what's the main point? -- and that, even upon publishing for public consumption, I thought was quite mid. I still do.
So to get a compliment feels like I didn't do too bad. Seriously, Barry -- thank you.
This topic’s been on my mind for months. We’ve never had more information available at our fingertips than we do today - yet deciphering ‘truth’ has never been more complex.
I know your essay wasn’t expanding on permission structures - but would be a good topic at some point.
These frameworks are constantly constructed behind the scenes but also in clear daylight - leads you to wonder “what is truth anymore”!
Here you go: https://www.tabletmag.com/feature/rapid-onset-political-enlightenment
This is a long, thought-provoking essay on how David Axelrod using the concept of "permission structures" to help get Obama elected, and how it informed Obama's theory of governance.