Hah! If that's true then why do rich billionaires so often buy money-losing newspapers? Because they like burning dollars? And why are there so often easily ca

Hah! If that's true then why do rich billionaires so often buy money-losing newspapers? Because they like burning dollars? And why are there so often easily caught factual errors in news articles that just happen to fit the journalists agenda? Here's a good example from this weekend: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41521671/100-women-amy-cuddy-on-how-posture-can-boost-your-confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41521671/100-women-amy-cu... The BBC is running some vacuous "top 100 inspiring and aspirational women" series. They really like Amy Cuddy. She's typically described as a psychologist who shows people how to create changes in their own biochemistry by "power posing". Search her name and in the first page of results you'll find an article by Slate (written by scientists, not a journalist) that reveals her to be a fraud: her research doesn't replicate and she knows it doesn't. The effect she promotes doesn't exist at all. But she continues to milk the media and TED Talk circuit by promoting these feel-good ideas as if they were based in science. It takes all of 10 seconds to discover that Cuddy is a fraud. Yet the BBC is promoting her repeatedly. Why? Because the articles are written by a feminist who likes the idea of Cuddy as an example of a successful and inspiring female scientist. No desire to inform need intrude! Sorry, if you really believe journalist's priority is to neutrally inform with good information then you can't read many newspapers. I'll give you a tip: newspapers don't employ fact checkers.