3 ms·
While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism.
by yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism.
- magicalist 7y ago> While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism. I don't see why a random internet commentator's pet theory (with nothing in the article to support it) should be treated as necessarily better.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y agoNeither do I. That’s why I didn’t suggest that.
- endorphone 7y agoSure, if the root post analyzed the study, or even did the most cursory skim of it, and pointed out how the article differed from its conclusions, that would be valuable. They didn't. They blanket dismissed it, gave their own theory, and expressed how tired they are from this cross they must bear. https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-2019.pdf https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-20... (77MB) There's the actual study. The BBC article is pretty accurate in its summary.
- marcosdumay 7y agoThe article title is even not accurate with the contents. Why must the GP dig any deeper?
- hanniabu 7y agoBecause they dismiss the whole article because of the title and then try to dismiss the article with irrelevant topics.