The Florida Department of Education has approved screening videos that deny the Earth’s changing climate to schoolchildren in the state, according to the Guardian.
Animations from Prager University Foundation, a conservative group that pushes untruths about sustainable energy and the warming of the planet, will now be a part of the public school curriculum in Florida.
Seems like it says what was being taught right at the start?
While no school district has announced plans to show any of PragerU’s videos, NPR reports, there’s nothing to stop teachers from independently airing the material. As a Florida Department of Education spokesperson said in a statement, the material aligns with Florida’s revised civics and government standards.
Not glossing over it. The first sentence is “according to the Guardian,” but doesn’t actually share what was being taught. Are they properly evaluating the material? Can’t know, they didn’t state what was being shared.
Second sentence is not clarifying what is being shown, just that it comes from an organization that has an agenda.
All I’m saying here is this article is very heavy in divisiveness and absent with specific details. That should raise concern.
I click on the article to see what craziness Florida is doing now. I didn’t learn that from the article. There are plenty of links available from Prager U on the internet. I’d like to have seen exactly what are in those animations being shown to the kids. At best this is sloppy reporting not sharing those links.
They explicitly state that they are showing PragerU videos as educational material in public school. It’s as plain as day. All their videos are on youtube if you want to go look specifically at what they are showing.
All I’m saying is if someone says to me “kids are being shown bad stuff” I’d like to be able to see for myself what they are being shown to make my own decision. Just saying “it’s stuff that’s made by these people who have an agenda” isn’t sufficient, in my opinion. Because it is so easy to link to the stuff as you rightfully point out, that it wasn’t makes me question the integrity of the reporting.
I don’t have an agenda. In fact, I suspect we’re on the same side of the debate. I’m in favor of critical thinking and I’m certainly not denying global warming/climate change or whatever we are calling it. To be clear: if these kids are being taught it is a hoax, that’s bad in my opinion.
But news should be informing us. And this article fails to provide us the information we need to arm ourselves against climate change deniers. All it does is say “Florida bad” and “Prager U bad.” It doesn’t give us the details to educate us and arm us with facts. That approach to persuasion, on either side of the topic, should concern all of us.
No, you are honestly wilding out over this. The article was fine and you are in a contrarian overdrive in a way that makes me think you aren’t being entirely forthright.
I think The Guardian is right not to share the actual bullshit. The article would just be another example of TMZ or Entertainment Tonight if they just flung the lies all over. I know where to find P”U” if I want to see it. I don’t think The Guardian needs to submit its readers to more crap in the article.
Seems like it says what was being taught right at the start?
From Motherjones
Not glossing over it. The first sentence is “according to the Guardian,” but doesn’t actually share what was being taught. Are they properly evaluating the material? Can’t know, they didn’t state what was being shared.
Second sentence is not clarifying what is being shown, just that it comes from an organization that has an agenda.
All I’m saying here is this article is very heavy in divisiveness and absent with specific details. That should raise concern.
I click on the article to see what craziness Florida is doing now. I didn’t learn that from the article. There are plenty of links available from Prager U on the internet. I’d like to have seen exactly what are in those animations being shown to the kids. At best this is sloppy reporting not sharing those links.
They explicitly state that they are showing PragerU videos as educational material in public school. It’s as plain as day. All their videos are on youtube if you want to go look specifically at what they are showing.
All I’m saying is if someone says to me “kids are being shown bad stuff” I’d like to be able to see for myself what they are being shown to make my own decision. Just saying “it’s stuff that’s made by these people who have an agenda” isn’t sufficient, in my opinion. Because it is so easy to link to the stuff as you rightfully point out, that it wasn’t makes me question the integrity of the reporting.
I don’t have an agenda. In fact, I suspect we’re on the same side of the debate. I’m in favor of critical thinking and I’m certainly not denying global warming/climate change or whatever we are calling it. To be clear: if these kids are being taught it is a hoax, that’s bad in my opinion.
But news should be informing us. And this article fails to provide us the information we need to arm ourselves against climate change deniers. All it does is say “Florida bad” and “Prager U bad.” It doesn’t give us the details to educate us and arm us with facts. That approach to persuasion, on either side of the topic, should concern all of us.
No, you are honestly wilding out over this. The article was fine and you are in a contrarian overdrive in a way that makes me think you aren’t being entirely forthright.
I think The Guardian is right not to share the actual bullshit. The article would just be another example of TMZ or Entertainment Tonight if they just flung the lies all over. I know where to find P”U” if I want to see it. I don’t think The Guardian needs to submit its readers to more crap in the article.
There is more info about the content of the videos in the Guardian article.
But no links, even though the Guardian article has a ton of links to tangential subjects mentioned in the article.
The video in question is directly embedded in the guardian article, which Yahoo links to in the very first sentence. What are you on about?