In the David vs Goliath battle David is incentivized to do exactly what Google is accusing this researcher of. Put out a controversial finding that supports yo

In the David vs Goliath battle David is incentivized to do exactly what Google is accusing this researcher of. Put out a controversial finding that supports your beliefs, regardless of whether or not it has been fully vetted. As a David you may not have the resources to fully vet the story anyways, particularly when the vetting process is defined by Goliath. Goliath of course has as an ocean of toxic incentives to maintain the status quo, promote their own Agenda, and Gatekeep David. I understand why researchers want to work at these giant institutions. It's harder to influence the narrative if these giant institutions can operate unhindered. On top of that as you mention the press is incentivized to side with David since it's a more compelling story. It 's part of the challenge of analyzing incentives, and means most people come to conclusions based on their prior beliefs. To come to the right conclusions you have to be able to dig deeper in the story than we have information to do so.