3 ms·
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 cha
by 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 agoI'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.