> The problem of journalists misrepresenting a company (either by mistake or on purpose) is as old as the hills. It was as true back when the media was widely t

> The problem of journalists misrepresenting a company (either by mistake or on purpose) is as old as the hills. It was as true back when the media was widely trusted, as it is now. Perhaps what's happening is that established bad practices are becoming more noticeable as technology advances (in this case, the subjects of stories can post at little or no cost a widely read rebuttal) > There are stories that were completely made up by Estonian teenagers, with no connection to facts at all, which were widely republished and shared It sounds like we agree that factual inaccuracies, both on the detail and summary level are harmful. However, in my view, connection with the facts of the matter is only important in that it represents a commitment on the part of the journalist to educate the public on a specific topic. Education toward a more accurate position is the key here. For example, it was recently pointed out that flossing has no RCTs to support it. This is to not say that flossing has no supporting evidence. Flossing has a tremendous amount of longitudinal evidence to support it. There is also little to no evidence of any kind to discourage flossing. Despite this, the New York Times reported the story as "maybe there's no need [to floss]"[1]. That's a very misleading representation of expert opinion, presumably done to increase readership. I fail to see how the NYTimes' version of the story is somehow preferable to a hypothetical fact free version written (as in your example) by an Estonian teenager. At least the fact free version is easier to discard as rubbish. One can only wonder how many dental problems the NYTimes' spinned version of the story will cause. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/health/flossing-teeth-cavities.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/health/flossing-teeth-cavi...