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?
They also quote a researcher at Kansas State University and it’s kind of weird you glossed over that entirely to focus on the reddit user.
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.
If you’re trying to claim neutrality while complaining that a news article is being uncharitable to prageru, you’re either extremely uninformed or extremely disingenuous.
My issue was with the article, not the position. It wasn’t informing. It was pandering. After watching the video I am better informed about the counterpoint to my own beliefs.
And don’t listen to me, a random Lemmy user, but my take was that it was a terrible argument and I was offended by it. I worry that this is what is being promoted as material suitable for educational purposes.
I’m not sure why you’re being so heavily downvoted, you’re absolutely right. Neither the Yahoo article nor the Guardian article it’s based on did the legwork to back up the premise. To drown out the misinformation, journalists need to bring the facts, else they leave the narrative open to bad faith criticism. I don’t see where you’ve advocated for the morons in the least, just asked that journalist’s do their jobs.
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 kinda agree with the guy here. I am not going to give a dumb article a pass just because I agree with its conclusions. Any “news” article that quotes a random Redditor as an expert is trash.
You (and @blewit) could just click where it says 'The Guardian and read the source article if you don’t think a reddit or is a good source (which it isn’t, which is why you can read supporting articles they link…). Here’s a decent portion of the guardian article is below, but it’s clear that PragerU is pushing objectively false propaganda to children, both downplaying the impact that current policies have on the environment and (to no one’s surprise) comparing the people who rightly fight against climate change to Nazis (instead of the people attempting to eradicate trans people like the Nazis actually did):
Videos that compare climate activists to Nazis, portray solar and wind energy as environmentally ruinous and claim that current global heating is part of natural long-term cycles will be made available to young schoolchildren in Florida, after the state approved their use in its public school curriculum.
Slickly-made animations by the Prager University Foundation, a conservative group that produces materials on science, history, gender and other topics widely criticized as distorting the truth, will be allowed to be shown to children in kindergarten to fifth grade after being adopted by Florida’s department of education.
Teachers who use the materials “will not be reprimanded, cannot be pushed back on about it, we are approved on the curriculum”, said Jill Simonian, director of outreach at PragerU Kids, the youth arm of the organization. “More states are following. Florida – I’m applauding. This is step in the right direction.”
…
In one of the videos allowed by Florida, a girl in Poland called Ania is shown questioning the need to transition away from coal, a key driver of the climate crisis, to renewables. Her parents tell her that the planet has heated up and cooled since prehistoric times, even without the burning of fossil fuels.
Ania clashes with friends who want swift action on the climate crisis and starts a blog in which she raises doubts about switching to renewable energy and frets as her community is plunged into destitution without coal. “Renewable energy sources don’t contribute much energy,” the video states. “Unlike coal, energy from the wind or sun is unreliable, expensive and difficult to store.”
The video concludes by raising the specter of Nazi Germany, with Ania’s grandfather praising her stand against people concerned about climate change by comparing it to the Warsaw uprising. “Through her family’s stories, Ania is realizing that fighting oppression is risky and that it always takes courage,” the voiceover states.
Other approved videos have similar themes, with one showing two children, Leo and Layla, being told by their scientist uncle, Will, about the supposed inadequacies of renewable energy. “Wind and solar just aren’t powerful enough to power the modern world, the energy from them isn’t dense or robust enough,” says Will, as a bird is shown falling dead from the sky after being hit by the blades of a wind turbine. “Windmills kill so many birds,” Will adds, mournfully.
A further video extols the benefits of plastics – which come from a byproduct of oil and gas production and are now found strewn in the air, the oceans, the mountains and even in the placentas of unborn babies – as being superior to killing animals for their body parts, with Leo commenting he prefers having a plastic bicycle helmet to wearing a turtle shell on his head. Leo Baekeland, the Belgian chemist known for the invention of Bakelite, is shown in the video declaring that “fossil fuels are cheap and plentiful, thank goodness!”
You don’t get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, I’m not arguing any of that. But quoting a random Redditor in any way in a news article that is not about Reddit is dumb, and contributes to the dumbing down of news. For all we know, that “Reddit User” is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.
No, I totally understand what you’re saying and agree with you. But from my perspective, it sounds like a lazy critique of the article not having the info you wanted when it’s in an article linked in the first paragraph.
Maybe I’m out of pocket here, but I’m so used to people criticizing articles because they didn’t bother to read them/linked articles that directly answered the complaints provided. I definitely agree that they should have included it in the actual article (or better yet, if OP just linked to the guardian article directly), I just get frustrated seeing people complain about lack of information when it’s literally just a click away.
It’s objectively true that Prager is a christofascist that uses his platform to whitewash history including slavery and colonialism, and demonize any progressive beliefs. It’s propaganda.
Sure I agree. Did the article provide evidence of that? Or did it take that as a premise? It also isn’t saying anything anything that is unique about PragerU, except that the materials can be shown in Florida schools. A ton of shitty propaganda can be shown in Florida as well as other states. I’m pretty sure that PragerU material can be shown in most states schools, but if there is an example of a state that doesn’t allowed PragerU I’d love to see how they word it.
“Can be shown” and “included in curriculum” are a bit different. And yeah, if you’re around my age and American, you probably learned that Christopher Columbus discovered America and did nothing else. We should be against all of that bullshit, not talking about whatever other misinfo is still kicking around the school system as if that’s justification to ADD MORE PROPAGANDA.
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?
They also quote a researcher at Kansas State University and it’s kind of weird you glossed over that entirely to focus on the reddit user.
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.
If you’re trying to claim neutrality while complaining that a news article is being uncharitable to prageru, you’re either extremely uninformed or extremely disingenuous.
Sorry, I’m clearly doing a terrible job making my point.
So instead, I just did a quick search. If the person writing the article included this information I would never had said anything.
Here’s the animation produced by PragerU and enforced for the Florida school’s curriculum:
https://www.prageru.com/video/poland-anias-energy-crisis
And here’s a more thorough article with facts and details, that does beyond calling a Reddit user and expert for a clickbait headline:
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/08/prageru-climate-skeptic-science-florida-education/
My issue was with the article, not the position. It wasn’t informing. It was pandering. After watching the video I am better informed about the counterpoint to my own beliefs.
And don’t listen to me, a random Lemmy user, but my take was that it was a terrible argument and I was offended by it. I worry that this is what is being promoted as material suitable for educational purposes.
I’m not sure why you’re being so heavily downvoted, you’re absolutely right. Neither the Yahoo article nor the Guardian article it’s based on did the legwork to back up the premise. To drown out the misinformation, journalists need to bring the facts, else they leave the narrative open to bad faith criticism. I don’t see where you’ve advocated for the morons in the least, just asked that journalist’s do their jobs.
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 kinda agree with the guy here. I am not going to give a dumb article a pass just because I agree with its conclusions. Any “news” article that quotes a random Redditor as an expert is trash.
You (and @blewit) could just click where it says 'The Guardian and read the source article if you don’t think a reddit or is a good source (which it isn’t, which is why you can read supporting articles they link…). Here’s a decent portion of the guardian article is below, but it’s clear that PragerU is pushing objectively false propaganda to children, both downplaying the impact that current policies have on the environment and (to no one’s surprise) comparing the people who rightly fight against climate change to Nazis (instead of the people attempting to eradicate trans people like the Nazis actually did):
…
You don’t get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, I’m not arguing any of that. But quoting a random Redditor in any way in a news article that is not about Reddit is dumb, and contributes to the dumbing down of news. For all we know, that “Reddit User” is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.
No, I totally understand what you’re saying and agree with you. But from my perspective, it sounds like a lazy critique of the article not having the info you wanted when it’s in an article linked in the first paragraph.
Maybe I’m out of pocket here, but I’m so used to people criticizing articles because they didn’t bother to read them/linked articles that directly answered the complaints provided. I definitely agree that they should have included it in the actual article (or better yet, if OP just linked to the guardian article directly), I just get frustrated seeing people complain about lack of information when it’s literally just a click away.
It didn’t quote the Redditor as an expert. That was an opinion section. The quoted expert in the article was the Kansas university researcher.
It’s objectively true that Prager is a christofascist that uses his platform to whitewash history including slavery and colonialism, and demonize any progressive beliefs. It’s propaganda.
Sure I agree. Did the article provide evidence of that? Or did it take that as a premise? It also isn’t saying anything anything that is unique about PragerU, except that the materials can be shown in Florida schools. A ton of shitty propaganda can be shown in Florida as well as other states. I’m pretty sure that PragerU material can be shown in most states schools, but if there is an example of a state that doesn’t allowed PragerU I’d love to see how they word it.
“Can be shown” and “included in curriculum” are a bit different. And yeah, if you’re around my age and American, you probably learned that Christopher Columbus discovered America and did nothing else. We should be against all of that bullshit, not talking about whatever other misinfo is still kicking around the school system as if that’s justification to ADD MORE PROPAGANDA.
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.
deleted by creator