4 ms·
The problem is that the initial, flawed findings fit the biased narrative that the many in the media (both traditional and social) prefer to perpetuate. As a re
by grantlmiller 9y ago
The problem is that the initial, flawed findings fit the biased narrative that the many in the media (both traditional and social) prefer to perpetuate. As a result, the surveys and stories that support their biases get top billing as headlines for days or weeks. People are often so eager to hear claims that support their beliefs that they don't investigate the credibility of the claims.
When the truth comes out, the same media outlets will likely do nothing and at most will publish a small redaction (same goes for individuals who spread this on social media). I have no expectation that the true nature of this study will be widely reported or nearly as promoted as the initial false results.
The world needs more rational skeptics. We have to hold each other accountable by ask probing questions about the nature of "facts" that are presented us. Seek truth.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tyingq 9y agoHow far off will the refined results be though? The sensational number was half of minimum wage. Is 7/8ths that much different of an issue?
- OiNG 9y agothe medium article claims pay was computed as follows: dollars_earned_driving * percentage_of_total_wage_from_driving assuming this is correct, the less drivers rely on driving as a primary source of income, the more incorrect the $3.37 figure would be. curious to see the updated results.
- johnhenry 9y agoSomeone made a public claim using public data and methodologies. Someone else refuted it. That original someone is going to check again and get back to us. I agree that the world needs rational skeptics -- and yes, perhaps more -- but looks like the peer review process is working properly here. Don't see a need to blame media bias?
- geezerjay 9y agoYou're confounding two entirely different things: media bias and the scientific process. The whole problem is that the media filters data that fit their agenda, even if its half-baked and incomplete. Then, when more info appears, if it contradicts the media's bias then they won't report it. They turn a blind eye to the facts and keep parttong their talking points.
- johnhenry 9y agoI don't believe I'm confounding the two; I'm not saying that media bias isn't a problem. I'm pointing out that there's no reason to assume it is the reason for (possible) misinformation in this particular case.
- fenleyman 9y agoI have a question: What is exactly the affiliation of the authors? To me, it looks like all of the authors are currently at Stanford but the study is run by an institute at MIT. Any clarification?