5 ms·

While there are some fine examples of journalism with integrity, I don't see any evidence of that being the norm or traditionally the norm. For every Pulitzer P

by KGIII 9y ago

While there are some fine examples of journalism with integrity, I don't see any evidence of that being the norm or traditionally the norm. For every Pulitzer Prize winner, there are thousands of articles about Bat Boy and $politician being a baby eating demon. A good example would be the New York press. Most of their papers, of which there were many, were owned/operated by political parties - according to the documentary series called, simply, New York. I suspect your vision of these principles is subjected to some sort of bias? I'm not sure what it is called. It might be survivorship bias, or maybe confirmation bias? I don't want to speculate, as that's not my domain. However, I don't actually think those principles have ever really existed - as a general rule. Again, there are examples of such, but it doesn't appear to be the norm. If you get bored, go down to your local library and have them dig you out some old microfiche. This is nothing new. Censorship and biased reporting have been a known problem and already is the norm. To be clear, I agree it is a problem. It's a horrible problem. However, it's not new and it's aleady normalized. That's why I constantly speak out to support the freedom of expression. That's why I recently, in HN, spoke out to support the Nazis right to express themselves and why I decried Google taking away their domain name. I don't like Nazis. I like free speech. Nazis are pretty deplorable, after all. As for censorship, it comes in various forms. Soft censorship is most common, in the Western world. I can relate a time when it happened to me, if you want. I was a freelance journalist back in my university days.

amoorthy 9y ago
Good point regarding pervasive bias in journalism, intentional or not. I've been thinking about how to help people identify bias and poor quality citations and built a chrome plug-in to do so. This is Beta but would appreciate any feedback you all have. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/civikowl/clbbiejjicefdjlblgnojolgbideklkp?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/civikowl/clbbiejji...
- KGIII 9y ago
  I am tablet-bound, at the moment. I'll check it out, probably over the weekend. I've emailed myself a link. I will check to see if I can contact you through the site - though I will be using it in Opera. It does make me question this, however. How are you certain you're not introducing your own biases with it? Or, perhaps not even biases of your own? Sometimes bias exists simply by virtue of externalities. An example might be that, when differentiated by economic ability, black people don't actually do more drugs than white people - though crime stats would indicate otherwise. The difference is their neighborhoods are policed more heavily and the biases in enforcement. Notably, even black officers may be biased in their enforcement. It really seems like a tough nut to crack. I'm a mathematician, not a social scientist. I don't actually have any idea how to fix this.
  - amoorthy 9y ago
    Thank you very much for offering to take a look. Btw, you can email feedback directly to me at amoorthy at civikowl dot com. I'll also check this thread regularly if that's easier for you. (Oh, and only works on Chrome for now; sorry) We may introduce some bias through our algorithm, insofar as the weights we assign various factors favor one type of article over another. But we haven't used a training set yet (which is where ingrained biases would be factored in) so the algorithm is fairly simple for now. I agree with you this isn't an easy problem to crack. We wanted to see if (a) there's interest in a solution and (b) reservations about our approach before investing more. So this is exactly the kind of feedback that's helpful. Thank you again.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I have it working in Opera. I am unavailable for a few hours but I will try to give it some unbiased testing, later tonight and over the weekend. I'm not heavy into the soft sciences. I'm a mathematician (complete with Ph.D.!) if that'll help you? I'm not sure if you're open source. To be truly objective, I may actually need to see that. I'm very much retired - and willing to sign both an NDA and a non-compete, if you want. If you don't want, I'm not sure how much I can offer other than observations. It will also take a bunch of research to the methodology, but I'm not actually doing anything better.
      - amoorthy 9y ago
        Wow! Thanks for offering to help. Can you email me at amoorthy at civikowl dot com and we can figure out how best to work together?
- croon 9y ago
  I just tried it out for a bit, and went around a few articles. I'm going to approach this from assumptions, and then thoughts based on those, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. * It grades based (purely?) on linked sources. * It grades those sources based on their host's bias and credibility ranking (sourced by mediabiasfactcheck.com?). Given those, the extension's rating of an "objectively good" outlet and an "objectively bad" outlet referencing themselves in a followup article would differ only based on some databases credibility ranking? If the user only trusted this extension, I could as an outlet easily trick it by linking in external sources such as quackblog.biz and truthiness.zone, while decrying a link from biasedrag.com to present the veneer of offering counterpoints. I applaud the effort, but I don't think looking at sources for news works, as outside of science news, they are usually the first to post on things, and thus the only "news" linking to sources, are second-hand outlets or blogs. The first reuters article I tried for example didn't get a rating: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-amazon-mining/brazil-judge-blocks-decree-opening-amazon-area-to-mining-idUSKCN1BA266 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-amazon-mining/braz... Without transparency, you as the extension author becomes the central arbiter of news, which is IMHO more dangerous than a status quo of outlets. A lot of news that is factual, unbiased, etc don't require a counterpoint or opposing views as a fact at its core is a fact. A lot of topics are of course aggregates where things get muddy, and statistics involve a lot of assumptions. I like the idea, but I'm unsure of the possibility of the venture.
  - amoorthy 9y ago
    Wow, thank you for writing out such detailed feedback! Your initial assumptions are correct on the inputs to the algorithm. >the extension's rating of an "objectively good" outlet and an "objectively bad" outlet referencing themselves in a followup article would differ only based on some databases credibility ranking? I may not understand your question. But there's an algorithm that factors in count of sources, diversity of sources, political leaning of sources, credibility of sources, and (soon) author depth of experience in that topic. So it's more than simply referencing a database. Does that give you more confidence in what the rating or not enough? >If the user only trusted this extension, I could as an outlet easily trick it by linking in external sources such as quackblog.biz and truthiness.zone, while decrying a link from biasedrag.com to present the veneer of offering counterpoints. True. You'd have to link to sites that are rated by Mediabiasfactcheck (MBFC) so you can't link to random stuff and get a high rating. And if the author was trying to game the rating at least they did decry the points from an alternate viewpoint; that's better than what happens with the news today. MBFC is not perfect of course but their methodology follows the Fact-checkers’ Code of Principles developed by Poynter Institute so is generally consistent and high quality. >I applaud the effort, but I don't think looking at sources for news works, as outside of science news, they are usually the first to post on things, and thus the only "news" linking to sources, are second-hand outlets or blogs. Fair point on breaking news. We wanted to first solve for non-breaking-news (i.e. issue centric), which do have sources and those range widely in quality. i.e. most things discussed on HN are not breaking news but deeper news. On breaking news we plan to have some calculations based on source info like tweets/posts/videos as well as author's expertise in that topic. What do you think? The Reuters article has no links hence we cannot rate it. Not great but maybe helping people to get accustom to looking at sources, or lack there of, is good in and of itself? >Without transparency, you as the extension author becomes the central arbiter of news, which is IMHO more dangerous than a status quo of outlets. Agreed. I'll update our FAQ to be clearer on how we do the rating. (Just rolled out yesterday so a bit slow on the documentation; sorry). I hope we can make clear that there is no objective arbiter of bias but rather such tools can help you get smarter about evaluating the news you read. >A lot of news that is factual, unbiased, etc don't require a counterpoint or opposing views as a fact at its core is a fact. A lot of topics are of course aggregates where things get muddy, and statistics involve a lot of assumptions. Agreed on both points, though I might counter that there's no such thing as unbiased news just because of topic selection and language used. Anyway, our algorithm doesn't require that counter-points be considered though it does evaluate that. So an article with high quality sources that lean one way politically can score ok but we'll notify the user of this lean preference. We are unlikely to be able to say a claim is true or false, or that statistics are selectively being used to prove a point. That's pretty tough to do with an algorithm. But maybe the counterpoint sourcing can at least hint at if the author has considered this? >I like the idea, but I'm unsure of the possibility of the venture. We wanted to see if the idea has merit and your sentence is exactly what I was looking for. So thank you and thank you for all the feedback. As for the venture... I hear you, we have more to do. Please let me know of any other comments. I'm at amoorthy at civikowl dot com.
vacri 9y ago
> support the Nazis right to express themselves I'm not particularly fussed over nazism getting a raw deal in the free speech debate. It's not the 'thin end of the wedge' when an ideology that caused the deaths of over 50M people in a mere half-decade is verboten. That's not a particularly 'slippery slope' to slide down. Nazism has had its run, and it proved to be the single worst ideology in the history of humankind. If someone thinks that perhaps the Nazis had some good ideas, fine, argue for those... but grab a new name. After all, if it's the ideas that matter, then losing the branding shouldn't be a problem.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Unless they were making credible threats, I don't really care. If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. Not with domain names, no. They took property, without judicial oversight. They can get their domain back after sixty days, if they can find a new registrar. I don't like what they had to say, and I'm not white so they pretty much hate me, but the freedom of expression extends to even stupid people. Freedom of speech shouldn't be about just the absolute barest considerations of legal protections, it should be a social ideal. Yeah, the Nazis hate me. Yeah, they pretty much suck in every way. I kinda like being able to say they suck and I really don't care that they think the same about me. I care when it becomes a credible threat. Well, slander is not acceptable so long as truth is an assertive defense. We are probably not going to agree about this. That's okay, I know I hold a very strong view. It doesn't bother me that they speak. It just makes them easier to identify.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    > If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. That is, in my opinion, the key point.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      It is my sincere hope that Americans will at some point realize that they are the only ones that feel this way. Almost everyone else on the planet feels strongly that at least some opinions should be repressed. These days it's mostly "racist" views, which may or may not actually be racist. For instance, the old leftist view of isolationism and protectionism as a way to defend workers rights worldwide is repressed as racist because it advocates closed borders (for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with ethnic or religious differences, but to prevent worker competition from crushing wages). But various ideas that have somehow acquired protected status are being censor-protected against criticism as well. From religions, quite a few individuals, and even events. In some ways quite successfully. Since I regularly stay in Paris, for instance, I can tell you that the constant riots and car burnings that were reported for a short while in 2011 are still going strong and it is almost absurdly normal for riots to occur in all the large cities in France, with constant violence, victims and all you'd expect from riots, except it's now a constant part of life. I even hear that the same happens in large neighboring cities, like Brussels. It's beyond absurd how this is reported, reminiscent of how anti-government actions are reported in places like the middle east or Africa. The issue is that, as absurd as it sounds, there is a large-scale mostly-immigrant uprising against the French state constantly happening in France. Reading French or international press, I find this idea absurd, and yet, you can easily go out and see this happen near where I normally stay (as long as you're male). But this is obviously the new normal, and it mostly makes you wonder what is happening. The government, for it's part, has actually published that they're indeed doing this. Again, it's utterly surreal that this is normal in Western Europe.
mirimir 9y ago
Yes, we agree that there's a problem. A longstanding problem. And maybe it's hopeless. So what can we do but stand for integrity and freedom of expression? And yes, that includes Nazis. Once you say "OK, but not them!", you no longer have a principal. More like a strategy.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I took a bunch flak for it, but the votes eventually turned positive. A day later EFF put out a statement that was much as I had written and the ACLU has done the same. I think I'm in fine company. So, maybe there is hope? Maybe it isn't hopeless, so much as it is a battle that can't be won, merely sustained. They say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I suspect they are right. Also, I might just be imagining that quote, come to think of it. If they don't say it, they should.
qubex 9y ago
Similarly, I have consistently supported James Damore — not because I agree with his views (though he makes a much subtler and better-supported case than the subsequent media hysteria would have suggested) but because at some point in the future the next real social breakthrough will come from somebody who pipes up and mentions some hitherto-unnoticed and probably controversial point. In shutting him down in the way they did he was pushed towards the open arms of the right and alt-right media who are more than happy to use him, and the treatment that was reserved for him, as proof positive that the ”mainstream media” is manipulative and beholden to a particular mindset to which they are unequivocally biased. I've been the lone voice (of reason, I'd like to think) in many a crowd, and unfortunately a social environ wherein the immediate reaction is basically an immune response against the errant ’fool’ is both typical and deeply sub-optimal.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > he was pushed towards the open arms of the right and alt-right media I dispute that he was "pushed" since his views were already in that direction (and the MRA overlap therein.)
  - qubex 9y ago
    Fair point. For sure the fate that befell him did nothing to change his opinions.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      I'd suggest that someone with such a blinkered pseudoscience view of the world would be unlikely to have his opinions changed by anything sort of a mind-altering epiphany (he's basically a sexual equality flat-earther, really.)
      - qubex 9y ago
        Did you read the version of his memo with the footnotes? Did you read the referenced material? Or did you just rely on the premasticated rendition relayed by most outlets? I ask because that's a necessary step before declaring something to be ’pseudoscience’ which it might well be. If you have not, you are potentially falling victim to the inherent bias that this sub-tread is all about.

by KGIII 9y ago

amoorthy 9y ago

Good point regarding pervasive bias in journalism, intentional or not. I've been thinking about how to help people identify bias and poor quality citations and built a chrome plug-in to do so. This is Beta but would appreciate any feedback you all have. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/civikowl/clbbiejjicefdjlblgnojolgbideklkp?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/civikowl/clbbiejji...

KGIII 9y ago
I am tablet-bound, at the moment. I'll check it out, probably over the weekend. I've emailed myself a link. I will check to see if I can contact you through the site - though I will be using it in Opera. It does make me question this, however. How are you certain you're not introducing your own biases with it? Or, perhaps not even biases of your own? Sometimes bias exists simply by virtue of externalities. An example might be that, when differentiated by economic ability, black people don't actually do more drugs than white people - though crime stats would indicate otherwise. The difference is their neighborhoods are policed more heavily and the biases in enforcement. Notably, even black officers may be biased in their enforcement. It really seems like a tough nut to crack. I'm a mathematician, not a social scientist. I don't actually have any idea how to fix this.
- amoorthy 9y ago
  Thank you very much for offering to take a look. Btw, you can email feedback directly to me at amoorthy at civikowl dot com. I'll also check this thread regularly if that's easier for you. (Oh, and only works on Chrome for now; sorry) We may introduce some bias through our algorithm, insofar as the weights we assign various factors favor one type of article over another. But we haven't used a training set yet (which is where ingrained biases would be factored in) so the algorithm is fairly simple for now. I agree with you this isn't an easy problem to crack. We wanted to see if (a) there's interest in a solution and (b) reservations about our approach before investing more. So this is exactly the kind of feedback that's helpful. Thank you again.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I have it working in Opera. I am unavailable for a few hours but I will try to give it some unbiased testing, later tonight and over the weekend. I'm not heavy into the soft sciences. I'm a mathematician (complete with Ph.D.!) if that'll help you? I'm not sure if you're open source. To be truly objective, I may actually need to see that. I'm very much retired - and willing to sign both an NDA and a non-compete, if you want. If you don't want, I'm not sure how much I can offer other than observations. It will also take a bunch of research to the methodology, but I'm not actually doing anything better.
    - amoorthy 9y ago
      Wow! Thanks for offering to help. Can you email me at amoorthy at civikowl dot com and we can figure out how best to work together?
croon 9y ago
I just tried it out for a bit, and went around a few articles. I'm going to approach this from assumptions, and then thoughts based on those, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. * It grades based (purely?) on linked sources. * It grades those sources based on their host's bias and credibility ranking (sourced by mediabiasfactcheck.com?). Given those, the extension's rating of an "objectively good" outlet and an "objectively bad" outlet referencing themselves in a followup article would differ only based on some databases credibility ranking? If the user only trusted this extension, I could as an outlet easily trick it by linking in external sources such as quackblog.biz and truthiness.zone, while decrying a link from biasedrag.com to present the veneer of offering counterpoints. I applaud the effort, but I don't think looking at sources for news works, as outside of science news, they are usually the first to post on things, and thus the only "news" linking to sources, are second-hand outlets or blogs. The first reuters article I tried for example didn't get a rating: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-amazon-mining/brazil-judge-blocks-decree-opening-amazon-area-to-mining-idUSKCN1BA266 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-amazon-mining/braz... Without transparency, you as the extension author becomes the central arbiter of news, which is IMHO more dangerous than a status quo of outlets. A lot of news that is factual, unbiased, etc don't require a counterpoint or opposing views as a fact at its core is a fact. A lot of topics are of course aggregates where things get muddy, and statistics involve a lot of assumptions. I like the idea, but I'm unsure of the possibility of the venture.
- amoorthy 9y ago
  Wow, thank you for writing out such detailed feedback! Your initial assumptions are correct on the inputs to the algorithm. >the extension's rating of an "objectively good" outlet and an "objectively bad" outlet referencing themselves in a followup article would differ only based on some databases credibility ranking? I may not understand your question. But there's an algorithm that factors in count of sources, diversity of sources, political leaning of sources, credibility of sources, and (soon) author depth of experience in that topic. So it's more than simply referencing a database. Does that give you more confidence in what the rating or not enough? >If the user only trusted this extension, I could as an outlet easily trick it by linking in external sources such as quackblog.biz and truthiness.zone, while decrying a link from biasedrag.com to present the veneer of offering counterpoints. True. You'd have to link to sites that are rated by Mediabiasfactcheck (MBFC) so you can't link to random stuff and get a high rating. And if the author was trying to game the rating at least they did decry the points from an alternate viewpoint; that's better than what happens with the news today. MBFC is not perfect of course but their methodology follows the Fact-checkers’ Code of Principles developed by Poynter Institute so is generally consistent and high quality. >I applaud the effort, but I don't think looking at sources for news works, as outside of science news, they are usually the first to post on things, and thus the only "news" linking to sources, are second-hand outlets or blogs. Fair point on breaking news. We wanted to first solve for non-breaking-news (i.e. issue centric), which do have sources and those range widely in quality. i.e. most things discussed on HN are not breaking news but deeper news. On breaking news we plan to have some calculations based on source info like tweets/posts/videos as well as author's expertise in that topic. What do you think? The Reuters article has no links hence we cannot rate it. Not great but maybe helping people to get accustom to looking at sources, or lack there of, is good in and of itself? >Without transparency, you as the extension author becomes the central arbiter of news, which is IMHO more dangerous than a status quo of outlets. Agreed. I'll update our FAQ to be clearer on how we do the rating. (Just rolled out yesterday so a bit slow on the documentation; sorry). I hope we can make clear that there is no objective arbiter of bias but rather such tools can help you get smarter about evaluating the news you read. >A lot of news that is factual, unbiased, etc don't require a counterpoint or opposing views as a fact at its core is a fact. A lot of topics are of course aggregates where things get muddy, and statistics involve a lot of assumptions. Agreed on both points, though I might counter that there's no such thing as unbiased news just because of topic selection and language used. Anyway, our algorithm doesn't require that counter-points be considered though it does evaluate that. So an article with high quality sources that lean one way politically can score ok but we'll notify the user of this lean preference. We are unlikely to be able to say a claim is true or false, or that statistics are selectively being used to prove a point. That's pretty tough to do with an algorithm. But maybe the counterpoint sourcing can at least hint at if the author has considered this? >I like the idea, but I'm unsure of the possibility of the venture. We wanted to see if the idea has merit and your sentence is exactly what I was looking for. So thank you and thank you for all the feedback. As for the venture... I hear you, we have more to do. Please let me know of any other comments. I'm at amoorthy at civikowl dot com.

vacri 9y ago

> support the Nazis right to express themselves I'm not particularly fussed over nazism getting a raw deal in the free speech debate. It's not the 'thin end of the wedge' when an ideology that caused the deaths of over 50M people in a mere half-decade is verboten. That's not a particularly 'slippery slope' to slide down. Nazism has had its run, and it proved to be the single worst ideology in the history of humankind. If someone thinks that perhaps the Nazis had some good ideas, fine, argue for those... but grab a new name. After all, if it's the ideas that matter, then losing the branding shouldn't be a problem.

KGIII 9y ago
Unless they were making credible threats, I don't really care. If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. Not with domain names, no. They took property, without judicial oversight. They can get their domain back after sixty days, if they can find a new registrar. I don't like what they had to say, and I'm not white so they pretty much hate me, but the freedom of expression extends to even stupid people. Freedom of speech shouldn't be about just the absolute barest considerations of legal protections, it should be a social ideal. Yeah, the Nazis hate me. Yeah, they pretty much suck in every way. I kinda like being able to say they suck and I really don't care that they think the same about me. I care when it becomes a credible threat. Well, slander is not acceptable so long as truth is an assertive defense. We are probably not going to agree about this. That's okay, I know I hold a very strong view. It doesn't bother me that they speak. It just makes them easier to identify.
- mirimir 9y ago
  > If they were making credible threats, that's a matter for the courts - and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide. That is, in my opinion, the key point.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    It is my sincere hope that Americans will at some point realize that they are the only ones that feel this way. Almost everyone else on the planet feels strongly that at least some opinions should be repressed. These days it's mostly "racist" views, which may or may not actually be racist. For instance, the old leftist view of isolationism and protectionism as a way to defend workers rights worldwide is repressed as racist because it advocates closed borders (for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with ethnic or religious differences, but to prevent worker competition from crushing wages). But various ideas that have somehow acquired protected status are being censor-protected against criticism as well. From religions, quite a few individuals, and even events. In some ways quite successfully. Since I regularly stay in Paris, for instance, I can tell you that the constant riots and car burnings that were reported for a short while in 2011 are still going strong and it is almost absurdly normal for riots to occur in all the large cities in France, with constant violence, victims and all you'd expect from riots, except it's now a constant part of life. I even hear that the same happens in large neighboring cities, like Brussels. It's beyond absurd how this is reported, reminiscent of how anti-government actions are reported in places like the middle east or Africa. The issue is that, as absurd as it sounds, there is a large-scale mostly-immigrant uprising against the French state constantly happening in France. Reading French or international press, I find this idea absurd, and yet, you can easily go out and see this happen near where I normally stay (as long as you're male). But this is obviously the new normal, and it mostly makes you wonder what is happening. The government, for it's part, has actually published that they're indeed doing this. Again, it's utterly surreal that this is normal in Western Europe.

mirimir 9y ago

Yes, we agree that there's a problem. A longstanding problem. And maybe it's hopeless. So what can we do but stand for integrity and freedom of expression? And yes, that includes Nazis. Once you say "OK, but not them!", you no longer have a principal. More like a strategy.

KGIII 9y ago
I took a bunch flak for it, but the votes eventually turned positive. A day later EFF put out a statement that was much as I had written and the ACLU has done the same. I think I'm in fine company. So, maybe there is hope? Maybe it isn't hopeless, so much as it is a battle that can't be won, merely sustained. They say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I suspect they are right. Also, I might just be imagining that quote, come to think of it. If they don't say it, they should.

qubex 9y ago

Similarly, I have consistently supported James Damore — not because I agree with his views (though he makes a much subtler and better-supported case than the subsequent media hysteria would have suggested) but because at some point in the future the next real social breakthrough will come from somebody who pipes up and mentions some hitherto-unnoticed and probably controversial point. In shutting him down in the way they did he was pushed towards the open arms of the right and alt-right media who are more than happy to use him, and the treatment that was reserved for him, as proof positive that the ”mainstream media” is manipulative and beholden to a particular mindset to which they are unequivocally biased. I've been the lone voice (of reason, I'd like to think) in many a crowd, and unfortunately a social environ wherein the immediate reaction is basically an immune response against the errant ’fool’ is both typical and deeply sub-optimal.

zimpenfish 9y ago
> he was pushed towards the open arms of the right and alt-right media I dispute that he was "pushed" since his views were already in that direction (and the MRA overlap therein.)
- qubex 9y ago
  Fair point. For sure the fate that befell him did nothing to change his opinions.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    I'd suggest that someone with such a blinkered pseudoscience view of the world would be unlikely to have his opinions changed by anything sort of a mind-altering epiphany (he's basically a sexual equality flat-earther, really.)
    - qubex 9y ago
      Did you read the version of his memo with the footnotes? Did you read the referenced material? Or did you just rely on the premasticated rendition relayed by most outlets? I ask because that's a necessary step before declaring something to be ’pseudoscience’ which it might well be. If you have not, you are potentially falling victim to the inherent bias that this sub-tread is all about.