3 ms·

This euronews site is really weird. Majority owned by an advisor and friend of far right Orban. Pushing the same kind of anti-male conspiracy stuff as Tucker Ca

This euronews site is really weird. Majority owned by an advisor and friend of far right Orban. Pushing the same kind of anti-male conspiracy stuff as Tucker Carlson. Weird history of stories submitted for the domain.

linkingday 4y ago
think we should be focusing on the academic journal rather than the sketchy news site. this seems to be a legitimate study.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kurupt213 4y ago
  Forget silent spring ... sounds like we're headed for silent ding-a-ling.
sumy23 4y ago
I've been reading about this issue for a few years. Here is something in GQ from 2018: https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero
bergenty 4y ago
This particular paper seems legit.
npteljes 4y ago
I'm conflicted about this. A bias checker site lists it as being highly factual and pro-EU, left-leaning, which is basically antitheic to Orban. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/euronews/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/euronews/
- humaniania 4y ago
  "Any site attempting to measure the highly subjective issue of bias should be taken with a grain of salt, if not a heaping tablespoon. That appears to be the case with the popular Media Bias / FactCheck web site. The well-respected nonprofit journalism organizations Poynter Institute and the Columbia Journalism Review have raised questions about the site, its research credentials and owner Dave Van Zandt. Most troubling is its lack of serious research methods or credentials. Owner and editor Van Zandt is a self-described “armchair media analyst. Van Zandt said in a response (below) that he has worked in a research-related capacity in the healthcare industry. Media Bias / Fact Check's rankings are based on a scale that Van Zandt developed on his own; the research and reporting are done by volunteers. Use it at your own risk."
amai 4y ago
You can avoid Euronews and simply read the study directly: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412022002495 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...

linkingday 4y ago

think we should be focusing on the academic journal rather than the sketchy news site. this seems to be a legitimate study.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kurupt213 4y ago
Forget silent spring ... sounds like we're headed for silent ding-a-ling.

sumy23 4y ago

I've been reading about this issue for a few years. Here is something in GQ from 2018: https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero

bergenty 4y ago

This particular paper seems legit.

npteljes 4y ago

I'm conflicted about this. A bias checker site lists it as being highly factual and pro-EU, left-leaning, which is basically antitheic to Orban. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/euronews/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/euronews/

humaniania 4y ago
"Any site attempting to measure the highly subjective issue of bias should be taken with a grain of salt, if not a heaping tablespoon. That appears to be the case with the popular Media Bias / FactCheck web site. The well-respected nonprofit journalism organizations Poynter Institute and the Columbia Journalism Review have raised questions about the site, its research credentials and owner Dave Van Zandt. Most troubling is its lack of serious research methods or credentials. Owner and editor Van Zandt is a self-described “armchair media analyst. Van Zandt said in a response (below) that he has worked in a research-related capacity in the healthcare industry. Media Bias / Fact Check's rankings are based on a scale that Van Zandt developed on his own; the research and reporting are done by volunteers. Use it at your own risk."

amai 4y ago

You can avoid Euronews and simply read the study directly: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412022002495 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...