7 ms·
Flagged. The Washington Times is not a reputable source. If people want to discuss this, please replace the article with one that isn't a dumpster fire of delib
by ohazi 7y ago
Flagged. The Washington Times is not a reputable source. If people want to discuss this, please replace the article with one that isn't a dumpster fire of deliberately misleading information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford
She was paid by a conservative think tank for years and didn't disclose her conflict of interest.
- war1025 7y agoWould people consider it a conflict of interest if someone was paid by a liberal think tank for years and published research in line with that viewpoint? The question should be weather the research is replicable, not who funded it.
- ohazi 7y ago> Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. Keep in mind that peer review is the lowest bar for academic quality. It's barely table stakes.
- war1025 7y agoDon't believe I said anything regarding peer review.
- gremlinsinc 7y agoPeer review usually means people tried to replicate it. Lack thereof usually means most reputable scientists won't even give it the light of day because it's not based in reality.
- masonic 7y agoReplication is not usually a role for the peer review process, hence the "replication crisis" of the past decade.
- war1025 7y agoPeer Review is basically just gate-keeping for journals. It has nothing to do with replicating the research, just with verifying that the person submitting the paper crossed their Ts and dotted their Is rigorously enough.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- stillbourne 7y agoIt's not even research, the skeptics community gave her a thrashing for her "work" here is a deep dive on her "research" and why its all bullshit: https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford
- not_a_cop75 7y agoIs somebody automatically disreputable based upon their political affiliation? If so, perhaps MacCarthyism is alive and well! It would be fair game, of course to analyze the article and list the reasons it is or isn't accurate.
- ohazi 7y agoThe reason the article isn't accurate is that it (deliberately) fails to mention the actual reason she was fired: failure to disclose a financial conflict of interest, along with failure of any of her academic work to meet the lowest bar of academic quality after fifteen years. Nobody took issue with her political affiliation.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoThis is the problem with most publications. It's get the news out first, rather than research and try to be unbiased. Bias is unfortunately what our news is today.
- ohazi 7y agoThe problem you described is real, and is visible to some degree at all publications. But you're either misinformed or are being disingenuous if you think you can credibly claim that the Washington Times is in any way comparable to other more reputable publications in this regard. They are a clear outlier with a motivated bias. The Washington Times does not skip research to get their publication out first, they deliberately craft misleading and false stories in order to serve their conservative narrative.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoDo you have some personal insider knowledge to substantiate this with? I mean I have some pretty heavy personal bias about the Washington Post being pro Amazon, and I would totally understand it if it was. But even then, I can't make a claim that they are deliberately making false stories. That's a level of knowledge I can't claim to have. That's also potential libel on your part.
- campfireveteran 7y agoThank you for flagging. They are one notch away from the ilk of InfoWars (Alex Jones) and Danger & Play (Mike Cernovich). What sucks is that HN publishes to the feed APIs before flagging/moderation happens, polluting aggregators and other media sources with phony news.