The āexpertā quoted was an unidentified Reddit user! Nowhere in the article was it stated what was being taught. This isnāt an article for information, itās just an attempt to fan the flames of division.
Not saying I agree or not with whatās happening in (surprise) Florida. Just saying nothing in this article provides for discussion or critical thinking about the topic.
āItās evil more than it is stupid,ā said a Reddit user discussing the Guardian article, while another lamented the forces enabling this and anti-environmental policy planning like Project 2025 as ādoing the bidding of oil companies.ā
The Florida Department of Education has approved screening videos that deny the Earthās 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 itās 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 PragerUās videos, NPR reports, thereās nothing to stop teachers from independently airing the material. As a Florida Department of Education spokesperson said in a statement, the material aligns with Floridaās revised civics and government standards.
Not glossing over it. The first sentence is āaccording to the Guardian,ā but doesnāt actually share what was being taught. Are they properly evaluating the material? Canāt know, they didnāt 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 Iām 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 didnāt learn that from the article. There are plenty of links available from Prager U on the internet. Iād 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. Itās as plain as day. All their videos are on youtube if you want to go look specifically at what they are showing.
All Iām saying is if someone says to me ākids are being shown bad stuffā Iād like to be able to see for myself what they are being shown to make my own decision. Just saying āitās stuff thatās made by these people who have an agendaā isnāt sufficient, in my opinion. Because it is so easy to link to the stuff as you rightfully point out, that it wasnāt makes me question the integrity of the reporting.
I donāt have an agenda. In fact, I suspect weāre on the same side of the debate. Iām in favor of critical thinking and Iām 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, thatās 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 āFlorida badā and āPrager U bad.ā It doesnāt 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 arenāt 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 ānewsā 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 donāt think a reddit or is a good source (which it isnāt, which is why you can read supporting articles they linkā¦). Hereās a decent portion of the guardian article is below, but itās clear that PragerU is pushing objectively false propaganda to children, both downplaying the impact that current policies have on the environment and (to no oneās 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 Floridaās department of education.
Teachers who use the materials āwill not be reprimanded, cannot be pushed back on about it, we are approved on the curriculumā, said Jill Simonian, director of outreach at PragerU Kids, the youth arm of the organization. āMore states are following. Florida ā Iām applauding. This is step in the right direction.ā
ā¦
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. āRenewable energy sources donāt contribute much energy,ā the video states. āUnlike coal, energy from the wind or sun is unreliable, expensive and difficult to store.ā
The video concludes by raising the specter of Nazi Germany, with Aniaās grandfather praising her stand against people concerned about climate change by comparing it to the Warsaw uprising. āThrough her familyās stories, Ania is realizing that fighting oppression is risky and that it always takes courage,ā 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. āWind and solar just arenāt powerful enough to power the modern world, the energy from them isnāt dense or robust enough,ā says Will, as a bird is shown falling dead from the sky after being hit by the blades of a wind turbine. āWindmills kill so many birds,ā Will adds, mournfully.
A further video extols the benefits of plastics ā 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 ā 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 āfossil fuels are cheap and plentiful, thank goodness!ā
You donāt get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, Iām 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 āReddit Userā is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.
Itās objectively true that Prager is a christofascist that uses his platform to whitewash history including slavery and colonialism, and demonize any progressive beliefs. Itās propaganda.
Sure I agree. Did the article provide evidence of that? Or did it take that as a premise? It also isnāt 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. Iām pretty sure that PragerU material can be shown in most states schools, but if there is an example of a state that doesnāt allowed PragerU Iād love to see how they word it.
If youāre trying to claim neutrality while complaining that a news article is being uncharitable to prageru, youāre either extremely uninformed or extremely disingenuous.
My issue was with the article, not the position. It wasnāt informing. It was pandering. After watching the video I am better informed about the counterpoint to my own beliefs.
And donāt 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.
Iām not sure why youāre being so heavily downvoted, youāre absolutely right. Neither the Yahoo article nor the Guardian article itās 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 donāt see where youāve advocated for the morons in the least, just asked that journalistās do their jobs.
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 PāUā if I want to see it. I donāt think The Guardian needs to submit its readers to more crap in the article.
The āexpertā quoted was an unidentified Reddit user! Nowhere in the article was it stated what was being taught. This isnāt an article for information, itās just an attempt to fan the flames of division.
Not saying I agree or not with whatās happening in (surprise) Florida. Just saying nothing in this article provides for discussion or critical thinking about the topic.
āItās evil more than it is stupid,ā said a Reddit user discussing the Guardian article, while another lamented the forces enabling this and anti-environmental policy planning like Project 2025 as ādoing the bidding of oil companies.ā
Seems like it says what was being taught right at the start?
They also quote a researcher at Kansas State University and itās kind of weird you glossed over that entirely to focus on the reddit user.
From Motherjones
Not glossing over it. The first sentence is āaccording to the Guardian,ā but doesnāt actually share what was being taught. Are they properly evaluating the material? Canāt know, they didnāt 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 Iām 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 didnāt learn that from the article. There are plenty of links available from Prager U on the internet. Iād 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. Itās as plain as day. All their videos are on youtube if you want to go look specifically at what they are showing.
All Iām saying is if someone says to me ākids are being shown bad stuffā Iād like to be able to see for myself what they are being shown to make my own decision. Just saying āitās stuff thatās made by these people who have an agendaā isnāt sufficient, in my opinion. Because it is so easy to link to the stuff as you rightfully point out, that it wasnāt makes me question the integrity of the reporting.
I donāt have an agenda. In fact, I suspect weāre on the same side of the debate. Iām in favor of critical thinking and Iām 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, thatās 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 āFlorida badā and āPrager U bad.ā It doesnāt 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 arenāt 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 ānewsā 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 donāt think a reddit or is a good source (which it isnāt, which is why you can read supporting articles they linkā¦). Hereās a decent portion of the guardian article is below, but itās clear that PragerU is pushing objectively false propaganda to children, both downplaying the impact that current policies have on the environment and (to no oneās 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):
ā¦
You donāt get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, Iām 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 āReddit Userā is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.
It didnāt quote the Redditor as an expert. That was an opinion section. The quoted expert in the article was the Kansas university researcher.
Itās objectively true that Prager is a christofascist that uses his platform to whitewash history including slavery and colonialism, and demonize any progressive beliefs. Itās propaganda.
Sure I agree. Did the article provide evidence of that? Or did it take that as a premise? It also isnāt 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. Iām pretty sure that PragerU material can be shown in most states schools, but if there is an example of a state that doesnāt allowed PragerU Iād love to see how they word it.
If youāre trying to claim neutrality while complaining that a news article is being uncharitable to prageru, youāre either extremely uninformed or extremely disingenuous.
Sorry, Iām 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.
Hereās the animation produced by PragerU and enforced for the Florida schoolās curriculum:
https://www.prageru.com/video/poland-anias-energy-crisis
And hereās 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 wasnāt informing. It was pandering. After watching the video I am better informed about the counterpoint to my own beliefs.
And donāt 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.
Iām not sure why youāre being so heavily downvoted, youāre absolutely right. Neither the Yahoo article nor the Guardian article itās 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 donāt see where youāve advocated for the morons in the least, just asked that journalistās do their jobs.
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 PāUā if I want to see it. I donāt 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