Carol Platt Liebau: Whose "Experts"?

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Whose "Experts"?

Today, the Washington Post runs this piece, headlined "Fight Over Documents May Favor Bush, Experts Say," noting that the Clinton Administration's own arguments will bolster Bush Administration efforts not to surrender documents to Congress about the firings of US attorneys.

Yet last week in the Los Angeles Times, this piece read as follows:

Q: Who would win if the U.S. attorneys case went to court?

A: The courts have indicated that they would decide who wins by weighing the need for independence by the executive branch against the oversight role of Congress.

Though there is debate on this issue, most experts seem to believe the scales tip in favor of Congress.

Moral of the story? Be very, very careful when journalists start citing "experts": It all depends on which "experts" one chooses to cite. Global warming devotees in particular should take note.


Blogger Earth to Carol said...

The IPCC reports are not one expert's opinion. It's just an "Inconvenient Truth", one might say.

1:27 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

Right wingers choose to use all sorts of strange "experts".

I personally choose experts that have been "peer reviewed" and who have little, if any, political axe to grind to come up with their conclusions.

That's why I believe in human-caused global warming. All those climatologists have no political axe to grind except to report what they see is a scientifically provable fact.

Global warming deniers, however, are replete with funding from oil companies and right wing political parties.

And the ratio is about 999:1 in favour of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming.

As Stephen Colbert said: "Truth has a left wing bias".

8:32 PM  
Blogger Greg said...


6:08 AM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

This is Greg:


6:22 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

LA LA LA ...

Did you say something?

... LA LA LA

10:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home