4 ms·
It's useful, at this point, to carry a default assumption that reporting is propaganda or otherwise misrepresented. This arguably extends even into research; R
by gorwell 5y ago
It's useful, at this point, to carry a default assumption that reporting is propaganda or otherwise misrepresented. This arguably extends even into research;
Richard Smith, who edited BMJ for 13 years, on the state of health research: "It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary."
https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1417695524883296257 https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1417695524883296257
- loopz 5y agoYou ask to rely on evidence, and then quote a Twitter post. It's true journalists often get things wrong. Anybody who has been part of something newsworthy, will learn that what is written is hard to recognize after the fact. Reporting "as it were" is exceptionally hard and requires in-depth research, time and efforts. But that doesn't mean pure speculation and wishful thinking weighs heavier than consensus among experts. By all means take things with grains of salt, but don't fall for con-artists and bullshitters in the name of "skepticism".