Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's Plant Life Far Less Diverse Than Thought

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the consolidating-knowledge dept.

Earth 338

Meshach writes "A report out of FOX News (I know, I know) says that there are far fewer unique species of plants than previously thought. The report states that only about a third of named species are actually unique. The rest have been 'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists."

cancel ×

338 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ah faux news (-1, Flamebait)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717490)

so is it April 1st already? Oh wait they said faux news.

Re:ah faux news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717578)

I'll take Fox over the hysterical bimbos at ABCCBSNBCMSNBCCNN

Re:ah faux news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717596)

I can't see why this would be a political issue. I mean, if FOX news came out saying P=NP, would people assume that this was part of some secret hidden political agenda?

"You know, if P=NP, it translates into a lot of seats for the GOP, and a catastrophe for the environment. Obama strongly feels that P != NP"

Re:ah faux news (-1, Flamebait)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717660)

No, because the people that watch Fox news think that every other news network is part of some secret hidden political agenda and therefor it's real.

Re:ah faux news (1, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717696)

No, because the people that watch Fox news think that every other news network is part of some secret hidden political agenda and therefor it's real.

True. Most news networks don't even try to hide their political agenda.

Re:ah faux news (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718204)

No, because the people that watch Fox news think that every other news network is part of some secret hidden political agenda and therefor it's real.

True. Most news networks don't even try to hide their political agenda.

Amusingly enough if I want a more honest opinion of any international matter I actually turn to Chinese news. Their translators maybe aren't good enough at English to sensationalise or ad lib the facts but I rather like the Xinhua's dry delivery of facts. I've seen too many politically motived fairytales in BBC, NBC and FOX to really trust them for anything more than gossip or entertainment. Not saying that I trust Xinhua much either but it's nice to read strangely phrased news that isn't dowsed in patriotism (their own non-international news of course drips with National pride and should not be avoided)

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/ [xinhuanet.com]

Re:ah faux news (4, Informative)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717774)

That's almost by design. The Fox News bias is from the original founding idea: studies showed most vocal conservatives (as opposed to real conservatives) didn't want facts and didn't want to learn. They wanted to hear only what re-enforced their already limited and slanted viewpoints. It was consciously created with that in mind. Some of the "talent" involved have even made comments, off camera, at social events, like, "Oh, that's just the act, get over it," or, "It's what I do for a job, who believes that crap?"

Interestingly enough, surveys also show that those very same people, when presented with facts that disrupt or disprove what they want to believe will ignore those facts and will become even more emotionally entrenched and committed to what they want to believe is true - even after seeing proof it is false.

Re:ah faux news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34718254)

Interestingly enough, surveys also show that those very same people, when presented with facts that disrupt or disprove what they want to believe will ignore those facts and will become even more emotionally entrenched and committed to what they want to believe is true - even after seeing proof it is false.

That is the most concise and precise definition of the far left I have ever read. Thanks!

Re:ah faux news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34718368)

If you can't see it applies to extremists at both ends, then you're pretty stuck at one end yourself and too blind to see it, so I guess it describes you, too.

Re:ah faux news (0, Troll)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717968)

Or they think that given the choice between watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that paints them as assholes for not agreeing with their agenda and watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that doesn't, they'll take the latter.

I know it may come as a shock to some but most people in the US aren't liberals.

Personally, I'm waiting for a news channel that caters to fascist libertarians* like me.

* Characterized by an absolute ruler who: A) Takes great pleasure in ordering public torture and execution of any group (governmental, commercial, or grass roots) or individual violating the individual liberty of any citizen. B) Enjoys finding creative ways of humiliating parliamentary members who try to pass bad, unnecessary, repressive, or otherwise retarded laws. C) Is otherwise content to get paid huge sums of money to sit around and do fuck all.

Re:ah faux news (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718350)

I can't see why this would be a political issue.

It isn't. But we have a moderation system where the average dumbshit can add the word 'Insightful' to any post he finds interesting. Since nobody considers the consequences of modding up comments that you happen to agree with, we end up with a thread like this where there's an interesting story about the problems with data collection but everybody's babbling about the source it came from.

Re:ah faux news (0)

pleasegetreal (744605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717670)

To some people, it is more important who says something than what they say, truth be damned. It is no coincidence that those people are almost uniformly liberals/progressives/5 year olds.

Re:ah faux news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717728)

I am utterly dazzled by the cleverness of your post. You should immediately go brag to your friends about your work here. Seriously.

Re:ah faux news (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717964)

Citation needed.

Re:ah faux news (2, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717672)

I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

Or, you can simply evaluate stories as they are, and quit whining about "faux news". A news org can have a viewpoint and still be a news org. This is the model, in fact, in much of the world, especially Europe. America's one of the few places where big sources pretend not to have a viewpoint.

Re:ah faux news (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717718)

Which one of those others fought a lawsuit to preserve their right to lie?

I have no problems with any news of any political leaning, but outright lying seems a bit much if you want to call it news.

Re:ah faux news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717966)

So are you accusing Fox News of lying in this article? (On a side note, the story was sourced by NewsCore, which is essentially Rupert Murdoch's answer to the AP or Reuters.)

Re:ah faux news (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718124)

Not at all. I am only claiming that these other groups are not on the same level as they have yet to fight for that right.

Re:ah faux news (-1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717796)

No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization. Well, not quite, a news organization can't set out to have one and still be a news organization.

I realize that in modern times with Murdoch's influence people no longer believe that, but the fact is that news organizations generally have a view point only by accident. Any reputable journal of opinion is striving to not have one which is based upon anything other than the facts. Sure it's inevitable that they won't be perfect, but organizations like Fox which aren't even trying make a mockery of journalism.

Re:ah faux news (3, Interesting)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717890)

The real issue is that the organization itself has a view that skews towards a certain ideology. There's not an issue with individuals within said organization having a point of view of their own (it's almost always seen in its most obvious form with selections of stories done near the end of a given anchor's newscast for filler), but it's the overarching "we'll only recruit people with X ideology" that's an issue at some of the cable networks in the US.

Re:ah faux news (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718016)

No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization.

So, you are saying that there are no news organizations, and never have been any.

Re:ah faux news (1, Insightful)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718192)

No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization. Well, not quite, a news organization can't set out to have one and still be a news organization.

      So NBC, CBS, ABC,CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc, are pure as the driven snow? And their tendency to spew every nonsensical DNC talking point is just good journalism? Got it.

        Brett

Re:ah faux news (4, Funny)

quenda (644621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717954)

You mean Fox News is real?! I thought it was just a parody invented by the Daily Show. We get the "International Edition" of that here, and they show clips of Fox.
C'mon ... it is just a joke, right?

Re:ah faux news (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718006)

No, it's real. It's got far and away the largest viewer base of any of the new channels. Glenn Beck is real too.

This is kind of like the inverse of Santa Claus.

Re:ah faux news (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718320)

Yes, but if you add up the total viewership of the sane news channels and compare it to the number of mouth-breathing nose-picking illiterates who watch Fox News some hope is restored.

Re:ah faux news (2, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717974)

I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

I'll second that if we can add Huffington Post and Daily Kos to the list.

Re:ah faux news (1)

Comodoslam (1945452) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718040)

I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

No deal.

Re:ah faux news (5, Informative)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718278)

>I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

None of those media news outlets have gone to court, though, to argue that their right to deliberately lie to and consciously mislead their readership is protected by the First Amendment.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html [relfe.com]

That, to me, says cease using Fox News as a source (and burn it with fire).

Re:ah faux news (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718334)

All I know is that I'm so glad to see that people are WAKING up to see how WRONG SCIENCE is and that we can rely on ONE THING the ALMIGHTY GOD that created us.

Re:ah faux news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717680)

Despite my severe dislike of Fox News' television programs and editorializing, I find the idea of dismissing them out of hand simply because of who they are to be disturbing.

Unless they're talking about politics. Then....perhaps.

Re:ah faux news (4, Insightful)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717792)

Considering how they ignore science when it's inconvenient to their agenda, like the recent memos on global warming, for example, they've shown they can intentionally distort science as much as they distort politics.

Re:ah faux news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34718168)

Fox News ignores science? Global Warming advocates side-stepped the Scientific Method every time it gets in their way. And then they don't even allow for peer-review, which is fundamentally important to validating the Scientific Method. Then they want everyone to radically change the way they do things and they wonder why there is so much blow-back.

Just because you have data doesn't mean you have science facts - unless you follow the Scientific Method and can PROVE your theories to be correct, and submit them for peer review, they are just that - theories.

We have plenty of other theories - string theory, brane theory, the theory of evolution. Why is global warming supposed to be science fact?

Re:ah faux news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34718302)

Ahh.

Another sophist without all the facts.

You must be a Fox News fanboy!

(When you started your rant with typical Fox attacks that have nothing to do with facts, you gave yourself away!)

Re:ah faux news (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718332)

Interesting. You claim that hundreds of scientists are in fact willfully falsifying data? An amazing claim. One which, of course, you'll actually have to provide evidence for, of course.

Re:ah faux news (1)

enormouspenis (741718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718148)

Despite my severe dislike of Fox News' television programs and editorializing, I find the idea of dismissing them out of hand simply because of who they are to be disturbing.

Unless they're talking about politics. Then....perhaps.

Wait just a minute!!!! I KNEW, just KNEW that somewhere on this board there was someone I disagree with politically that actually is intelligent with critical cognitive skills. Someone who'll stand up and doesn't just follow the adolescent POP wave here. Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. I'm going to add you to my...wait a minute....I already follow several "anonymous cowards". Which one are you?

Re:ah faux news (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717852)

I find it baffling that the submitter chose to link to the Fox News source when this news item has literally been plastered all over the internet all day long. It's being covered by dozens and dozens of news outlets, almost all of which are less politically toxic that Fox News.

Re:ah faux news (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718074)

As much as I dislike Fox News for their political stories, their other stories aren't actually that bad.

So you are against Darwin? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718126)

The whole thing came about because of an idea Darwin had and put in motion.

By disclaiming this story are you really saying you disagree with Darwin? And I thought Creationists were mad! At least they read source material before they decide something is true or not.

Re:So you are against Darwin? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718346)

I've talked with a lot of Creationists, and I've rarely encountered one that has read anything on evolution or biology beyond what they may have briefly seen in a high school textbook.

nothing new here (0)

Beer is good (1415089) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717510)

Sounds like the posts on Slashdot. Only about 1/3 are original.

Re:nothing new here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717820)

No kidding, I'd say say something like 2/3 of all posts on Slashdot are totally unoriginal.

Re:nothing new here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717934)

wow did you actually just say exactly the same thing as the gp? fucking idiot.

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34718340)

I'd say that like 3/3 of all posts on Slashdot are totally unoriginal.

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34718342)

Woooosh...

Re:nothing new here (0)

iwannasexwithyourmom (1804754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717962)

wah wah wah shut the fuck up and go somewhere else then you fucking moron.

Yay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717518)

Celebrity diversity this you liberal motherfuckers!
The only vegetables are the ones on CNN.

o rly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717532)

Fox News reporting on something not positive about the environment? Never saw that coming.

Meh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717544)

Although I have a great distaste for faux news, having multiple names for one thing sounds extremely likely, it's even done in most modern languages.

Re:Meh (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718060)

'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists."

One would certainly HOPE it was from separate scientists, now wouldn't one.....

Having the same guy name the same snail again and again and nobody catching it wouldn't say much about the rest of the guy's peers.

Often by separate LIBERAL scientists (4, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717546)

right?

Re:Often by separate LIBERAL scientists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717654)

No, by Palin who forgot and washed all her notes off her hands.

Than Thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717566)

The only thing that has changed is our current state of knowledge.

This study does not look at what this level of diversity says about the environment good or bad.

It merely helps quantify our former ignorance.

Typical of Fox (-1, Flamebait)

mhollis (727905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717594)

So in order to sow doubt about the scientific community reporting that we're killing off species and that biodiversity is important, faux news is reporting another lie. Here's a tip for those of you getting news from the Murdoch empire: Don't use that as your single source. Read, watch and listen to other outlets, else you will be ill-informed like the rest of the lemmings who just watch faux news [tinyurl.com]

Re:Typical of Fox (4)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717706)

Well, the finding is by the Royal Botanic Gardens in London, and other reputable sources. And it seems plausible; before DNA sequencing and the Internet, it would be incredibly hard to prove nobody else had named the species previously.

As for Fox... I think it is worth following, in addition to a number of other sources. They definitely give a different selection of stories than less biased sources , but what they report is rarely flat-out false.

As for the Reader Comments on their story pages, and even the Opinion section, yeah, they're pretty out there.

Re:Typical of Fox (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717750)

Interesting. According to your thesis, TFA should have at least a closing line suggesting that saving the whales / polar bears / sea kittens isn't all that important because there aren't that many of 'them' to begin with, that biodiversity is just a buzz word for the lefties.

Actually, the TFA mentions nothing of the sort - just that somebody finally got around to cataloging "all" plant species and found a bunch of duplicates and a bunch more variations that probably aren't species. Given that plant taxonomy has been ongoing since the 1700's (in the Western world, I have no idea if Asian science is so hung up on cataloging) and that thousands of people in hundreds of different places and times have done the work, it's rather unsurprising to find duplicates.

I have no idea why Fox picked this up but they've not apparently done anything ridiculous with it. Give it to Glen Beck and maybe he can make it Obama's fault - that might be next week but for now it seems to be just straight up reporting.

+1 tin foil hat stars for you

Re:Typical of Fox (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717952)

You almost got it. It's the "dumb scientists" subtext, which an anti-intellectual audience seems to appreciate and reinforces their group identity. It's just in the choice of which wire article gets published.

No wait, the Wild Nature section is in fact the Onion in disguise. Headlines:

- Ancient 8-Foot Sea Scorpions Probably Were Pussycats
- World's Plant Life Far Less Diverse Than Previously Thought
- Man Shoots, Kills 'Chupacabra' in Ky
- World's Smartest Dog Knows More Than 1,000 Words
- Invasive Species Lie In Wait, Strike After Decades
- Japanese Fish Thought Extinct Found, 70 Years Later
- Egyptian Resort Limits Swimming After Shark Attacks
- Scientists Dress Up as Giant Pandas

Re:Typical of Fox (0)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717752)

Here is a more politically-correct source for the same story: Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] . It says essentially the same thing but will not induce those painful knee-jerks.

Re:Typical of Fox (1, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717778)

If politically correct means way more to the left than even Fox is to the right then sure.

Another hypocrit liberal (-1, Flamebait)

pgmrdlm (1642279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717978)

Conservitive sources are never to be beleived where liberal sources always should be.

And no you cunt, I do not read Fox news. But I fucking hate hypocrits like you. Your a primary example why I hate liberals. Your also a primary example why I feel the only good liberal is a dead one.

Can't wait till you become a good little liberal. I'll make sure I piss on your fucking grave when you do.

Re:Typical of Fox (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717992)

Your URL is tiny. (points and laughs)

It's also broken. Maybe just try posting the real link next time.

As opposed to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717600)

The rest have been 'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists.

As opposed to being discovered multiple times by the same scientist?

Re:As opposed to? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718118)

I wouldn't rule that out either. Some animals can be so different in different phases of their life that even professionals can get them mixed up, especially when they have not been watched for their entire life span.

We're not so diverse either (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717648)

There's only one human race.

Re:We're not so diverse either (1)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717704)

And I think we're losing it.

Re:We're not so diverse either (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717756)

There's only one human race.

I suspect some at Fox News might disagree with that.

Re:We're not so diverse either (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718240)

I suspect some at Fox News might disagree with that.

As opposed to MSNBC, who would be afraid of using the word "race" lest they offend somebody. They'll refer to it as a 'species unit.'

strange brew that's also good for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717656)

That would be home made Kombucha. As unique as it gets.

Even if true, the conclusion is not justified. (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717682)

The fact that existing discovered and named flora is redundant should not be too surprising. But the number that we have discovered has no bearing whatsoever on the amount or variety of undiscovered flora, at all. So a statement like "World's Plant Live Far Less Diverse Than Thought" is simply irresponsible. The former situation is simply not evidence of the latter. It has long been acknowledged that we have only formally "discovered" and categorized a small fraction of the Earth's actual diversity.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified. (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717850)

I've got a marine example about the extent of undiscovered species but it still applies. At the moment there is a large ongoing survey of marine life in part of Australia's great barrier reef (emphasis added):
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3095035.htm#transcript [abc.net.au]

Dr John Hooper (Queensland Museum):"Things like the Echinoderms which we thought were relatively well known, the whole Holothurians alone, we had a visiting French researcher who looked at the collection of about 130 species we've got and he said you've probably got about 30 new species here, but this big one over here, he was referring to something the size of a house brick, is possibly a new genus as well. This is something you'd trip over if it was on a beach."

The podcast is at: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/12/ssw_20101218_1213.mp3 [abc.net.au]

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified. (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718084)

Are botanists surprised? The article doesn't justify that with any of its quotes, either. It seems reasonable professional botanists were aware of the problem's approximate magnitude and would see this as entirely reasonable. It's just a massive amount of work to test on the order of 1,000,000 items for uniqueness.

So, the title "World's Plant Life Far Less Diverse Than Thought" seems bogus and is probably just there to grab your attention.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717698)

Whats the big deal? (4, Insightful)

mrwolf007 (1116997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717700)

As far as i can tell as a non-american is that Fox News is a pretty lowly news outlet.

However that doesnt automaticly mean the story cant be true.

Just start assuming the opposite. "There are no duplicates within the millions of plants discovered." In a database of that size, with manually made entries for well over a 100 years, highly unlikely.

So, without further knowledge, one can only speculate about the percentage of duplicate entries.

Re:Whats the big deal? (0)

black3d (1648913) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717818)

The big deal is strong democratic bias in the geek community, who equate "liberalism" with "freedom" and "freedom" with.. well, just about everything most Slashdot submitters stand for; Whom fail to realize that both political parties want exactly the same thing - and the only reason different parties exist is because different people have different psychological triggers. The end result in regards to social position, wealth, and rights of the individual, will always end up virtually the same in both cases. It just so happens that the triggers used by the Democrats - largely suggestions regarding intelligence and freedom, have a huge pull with geeks, who jealously guard both perceived attributes.

And how this relates to Fox News, is that it's a large right-wing, Republican TV network. Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie and you're actually an idiot if you believe. Conformity at its finest, all round.

Re:Whats the big deal? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718164)

Is that meant to be trolling? The first paragraph seems crafted to insult most people here with hard-to-refute generalities. Also,

Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie

is just patently silly (even assuming you meant "spout" instead of "sprout").

Re:Whats the big deal? (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718268)

Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie and you're actually an idiot if you believe. Conformity at its finest, all round.

Let's see...if I agree with Fox News, I'm a mindless tool and a lemming. But if I get on the bandwagon and trash them, I'm also a mindless tool and a lemming. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

Or, you could have an opinion of your own...of course, 'round these parts, that's known as trolling and flamebait.

Re:Whats the big deal? (4, Funny)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717854)

Yes but 66% duplicates? That's almost as bad as slashdot. *ducks*

Re:Whats the big deal? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717914)

Almost anywhere in the world Fox News would not be called a news outlet. And sure it could be true, but that does not mean that it is news. It is then just something that fits their purpose.

The Actual Source (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718038)

Well, there's a lot of details from the actual source of the study [kew.org] that are left out of the Fox News report. Like the fact that they used a taxonomic knowledge in a rulebase to reduce the set of unique plants. While fascinating, one must wonder how well an automated system could perform such a feat. Note: The part about putting "discovered" in double quotes is not found in the original source article but arises in the Fox News article. You might want to be careful as you could be insinuating gross incompetence in the field of botany across its entire history. It's also possible that this algorithm for reducing the list needs to be worked on.

Re:Whats the big deal? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718072)

It is real simple. Fox News broadcasts as many negative articles as positive about Democrats and as many positive articles as negative about Republicans (this according to the Pew Foundation). Since most people just know that Republicans are evil and Democrats are good, Fox News must be very biased.

Glenn Beck's follow up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717720)

I can't wait to see how Glenn Beck will blame this on Obama and somehow claim this has damaged America.

But wait... (0, Flamebait)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717742)

A report by The Real News, which followed a similar report by Smart People, says that any report by FOX News should be completely ignored until corroborated by a genuine news agency.

Re:But wait... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717800)

> ...a genuine news agency.

Which can be reliably identified by a superficial examination of the political slant of their columnists.

how can this be? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34717802)

Darwin and his successors, acting within a few years of his death assembled a list of 400,000 plant species back in the 1880's, about the same time that the telephone and radio were just being invented. There were no computers, Internet, electronic devices, television, cars, airplanes, or even air conditioning (crucial for those summer scientific conferences held in resort locations). Even the ballpoint pen came later. So today, with the advantage of the last 130 years of continuous scientific discovery and refinement, as well as machines and technology of all kinds to aid investigation, collaboration, and record-keeping, the updated list is rolled out with... 300,000 species?

Either someone is slacking in academia-land, or some of our leafy friends have been calling it quits.

Department of the obvious (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717822)

This really shouldn't come as much surprise. There are plenty of plants that look dramatically different at different stages of their life; if they were being "discovered" for the first time they could well be called different species. Add to that the differing languages spoken by different botanists when attempting to classify species and the problem grows very quickly.

And for that matter, with molecular biology our notion of "species" is changing as well. Now a species is defined more along the lines of a unique genome (or at least uniquely organized genome) than simply on where and how it grows. Now we realize that - especially in the plant kingdom - there are many pairings of different species of plants that can hybridize and produce viable offspring.

So indeed, the number was due to be corrected at some point. This happens in other sciences, too; a while ago a few species of dinosaurs were recently re-classified as likely being juvenile specimens of other species.

Re:Department of the obvious (2)

Nutria (679911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718322)

And for that matter, with molecular biology our notion of "species" is changing as well. Now a species is defined more along the lines of a unique genome (or at least uniquely organized genome) than simply on where and how it grows.

I've often wondered about that... If "space aliens" used pre-DNA descriptive methods of defining species, they'd certainly categorize tall, blonde Swedes and African Pygmies as two difference species.

Undiscovered Species (1, Insightful)

tirefire (724526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717860)

Well I think it's just a tragedy how many poor undiscovered species face extinction every year.

Consider logging, a practice which harms the spotted owl. Now consider how many undiscovered species (it's in the thousands, just fyi) face an equal threat from logging. And consider how many of those undiscovered species are actually harmed by logging, not just in the minds of alarmists like me, but *really harmed*, as in dying! We have all fallen from grace, and must return to the Eden where humans and animals alike soaked in the love of Gaia, the Earth Mother. If we all partake in the Eucharist of Sustainability, we will attain Salvation.

Fox News does not have a monopoly on stupidity. On the environment, it enjoys a duopoly with career environmentalists.

Okay, ignore Fox (4, Informative)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717930)

But http://www.theplantlist.org/ [theplantlist.org] quotes their data right on the front page:

Accepted 298,900 28.7%
Synonym 477,601 45.9%
Unresolved 263,925 25.4%

Note that a full 25% could go either way. Fox is putting the predictable spin on the story that ALL news media will probably put on this to generate readership, but the takeaway is that now we know more. This is generally considered a good a thing, especially when you want to do this sort of thing repeatedly. They have a method, and are looking to expand and perfect it. Mission accomplished.

Which news network has the most viewers? (0, Flamebait)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717938)

More people watch Fox than any other news source. Fox haters, would you trust them more if they published fake air national guard memos like CBS did?

Re:Which news network has the most viewers? (2)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718210)

Popularity never has and never will be a redeeming quality in and of itself. Your average person is a mouth-breathing buffoon and it surprises me on a daily basis that they manage to tie their shoes in the morning much less go to work and do anything productive for society. Why would their view on what is a quality news source influence my opinion in the least?

Re:Which news network has the most viewers? (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718280)

It'd be nice if you fucktards would talk about the story instead of arguing about politics. Back in my day this was a nerd site.

Not really one third ... (1)

Evardsson (959228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717948)

If you take the time to actually read the article you find that out of ~1,040,000 species previously named, 300,000 are definitely distinct species. ~480,000 are pseudonyms for those, and another ~260,000 are as of yet undetermined as to their status as distinct species. Since those others are undetermined, it cannot be said with any certainty that they are not distinct species. It would be just as (un)truthful and (in)correct to lump those in with the 300,000 known species and call it more than half.

Shoddy work on the part of the reporter.

Re:Not really one third ... (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718206)

I often wish in science stories reporters were barred from doing anything but quoting experts. It wouldn't sell nearly as well, but it'd be a lot more accurate. (Yes, you can misquote people.)

Evolution of knowledge (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34717998)

In the past, when a Fox News reporter was given the task of count different plant species, usually went like "1...2... too many". But things are improved, probably after seeing really big numbers related to US debt or bank bailouts, now when faced with the same task this time realized that the amount of plants weren't that many.

Join us tomorrow for part 2 (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718042)

When we show the universe is not as old as we thought...

Because when you think about it (0)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718076)

That was really too many for God to have made in 7 days.

Tar 'em with the same brush! (1)

Jimbookis (517778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718086)

They've lumped half the plant species into a group they say are un-American communist sympathisers (and so should be exterminated)!

Bias does not exclude fairness (1)

RL78 (1968236) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718092)

Everyone is biased in one way or another. One can be totally biased and be totally fair at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Fox is certainly an organization run and staffed primarily by conservatives. This doesn't inherently discredit them as a news organization. They, as everyone chooses whether to allow their bias to influence the truth.

Oh no's (2)

Evil_Ether (1200695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718102)

This is going to be really bad for biodiversity.

morons? losing respect for commenters here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34718188)

after reading some of these comments, it's obvious that so many people allow themselves to be swayed by the 10-second out-of-context clips that are put together to try to discredit Fox News. It's really becoming quite a joke.

Fox has shown a light on the blatant liberal bias that has been going on among ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN the past two decades, and they absolutely hate them for it. and the people who deny this just say the overwhelming majority who watch Fox are just people who are wowed by the 'flashy graphics' that Fox uses. give me a break...

The fact that Fox very often shows clips of the other networkss blatant attack of Fox, whereas the other networks very rarely do this is just more evidence of this. I still switch over the other networks often enough to know this.

Evil scientist (0)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718274)

First they give everything more names to confuse things. How many things can there really be ? There was one ark. Everything fit on the ark. That things appear different is just a miracle from God. I'm waiting for the story to break that there are actually far fewer gods than the average fox viewer thought there was.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>