4 ms·

>> we immediately contacted the editors to retract it. And that's how the most effective fake news works. A tiny fraction of the people who see (and spread) th

by m0zg 8y ago

>> we immediately contacted the editors to retract it. And that's how the most effective fake news works. A tiny fraction of the people who see (and spread) the original article will ever see the retraction. And ever fewer will spread it.

thatoneuser 8y ago
That’s true, but it’s an unavoidable consequence of research publication. You don’t produce new science and hold onto it for years waiting to see if someone challenges your non-published result. Alternatively, I think fake news is artificially engineered to achieve the effect. So unless this group was deliberately producing fake conclusions I personally wouldn’t call them fake news.
- m0zg 8y ago
  I'm not even talking about research publication. I'm talking about today's mainstream press. The algorithm there is simple: issue a bombastic, click grabbing "story", let people generate traffic (and ad revenue) for a few days. Then either change the article, or delete it, or issue a milquetoast "retraction". A team I ran at one of my past jobs was interviewed by NYTimes once. What was published was extremely editorialized to drive clicks, and as a result bore little resemblance to what people actually said. We didn't even bother asking for a retraction, but after that incident I've been extremely distrustful of basically everything I read in the media, no matter the source, unless I see direct, unedited evidence. And even then I'm distrustful if evidence appears to be taken out of context, which it is at least 90% of the time. I just wish the "journalists" would stop killing their own profession, and start behaving like adults. The only prominent voice I trust these days is Glenn Greenwald.
daveguy 8y ago
I don't know about that. I would say most people know that the anti-vaccine research was rescinded. And especially if you search for info you are more likely to read about the fact that it was wrong than not. If the impact is large enough there will be a maybe-not-equal, but opposite reaction.

by m0zg 8y ago

thatoneuser 8y ago

That’s true, but it’s an unavoidable consequence of research publication. You don’t produce new science and hold onto it for years waiting to see if someone challenges your non-published result. Alternatively, I think fake news is artificially engineered to achieve the effect. So unless this group was deliberately producing fake conclusions I personally wouldn’t call them fake news.

m0zg 8y ago
I'm not even talking about research publication. I'm talking about today's mainstream press. The algorithm there is simple: issue a bombastic, click grabbing "story", let people generate traffic (and ad revenue) for a few days. Then either change the article, or delete it, or issue a milquetoast "retraction". A team I ran at one of my past jobs was interviewed by NYTimes once. What was published was extremely editorialized to drive clicks, and as a result bore little resemblance to what people actually said. We didn't even bother asking for a retraction, but after that incident I've been extremely distrustful of basically everything I read in the media, no matter the source, unless I see direct, unedited evidence. And even then I'm distrustful if evidence appears to be taken out of context, which it is at least 90% of the time. I just wish the "journalists" would stop killing their own profession, and start behaving like adults. The only prominent voice I trust these days is Glenn Greenwald.

daveguy 8y ago

I don't know about that. I would say most people know that the anti-vaccine research was rescinded. And especially if you search for info you are more likely to read about the fact that it was wrong than not. If the impact is large enough there will be a maybe-not-equal, but opposite reaction.