3 ms·

> 1. Report the fact that disagreement exists. Phrased differently, stop taking academics at their word when they claim there's a consensus. Do some basic web s

> 1. Report the fact that disagreement exists. Phrased differently, stop taking academics at their word when they claim there's a consensus. Do some basic web searches to find people who disagree. Get quotes from them. Stress on the word people; not just other academics but literally anyone disagreeing on scientific grounds eliminates the claim of consensus. Bloggers are fine. This is how you get journalists to report disagreements that don't exist in reality. For example, whether the earth is flat, whether climate change is real, etc. > 2. READ the papers. Literally nobody reads the papers. A huge amount of news isn't even investigated. A large number of news these days is regurgitated from other sources.

mike_hearn 3y ago
Journalists love reporting on flat Earthers even though their beliefs have no impact on anything in the real world: https://news.google.com/search?q=%22flat%20earth%22&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen https://news.google.com/search?q=%22flat%20earth%22&hl=en-US... Realistically, journalists like to report on fringe or weird beliefs so they can laugh at the people holding them, and dislike reporting on serious disagreement with things they want to be true. Agree that almost nobody is reading the papers, outside of random tweeters and bloggers. Journalists might as well start, though. Reading obscure documents is a part of the job, classically at least.
SoftTalker 3y ago
You can still look at credentials. If there is disagreement among people with appropriate background, experience, and education, it can be reported as a legitimate disagreement. The journalist should be evaluating the credentials of sources, but not what they say, and not on the basis of whether the journalist personally agrees with them.
hackyhacky 3y ago
> This is how you get journalists to report disagreements that don't exist in reality. For example, whether the earth is flat, whether climate change is real, etc. Correct. Part of the problem is that there is disagreement about whether a disagreement exists. Cranks believe that there is a vigorous debate about flat-earth/evolution/climate change, and scientists don't. Do how does one (journalist) objectively determine whether an issue is settled or not?

mike_hearn 3y ago

Journalists love reporting on flat Earthers even though their beliefs have no impact on anything in the real world: https://news.google.com/search?q=%22flat%20earth%22&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen https://news.google.com/search?q=%22flat%20earth%22&hl=en-US... Realistically, journalists like to report on fringe or weird beliefs so they can laugh at the people holding them, and dislike reporting on serious disagreement with things they want to be true. Agree that almost nobody is reading the papers, outside of random tweeters and bloggers. Journalists might as well start, though. Reading obscure documents is a part of the job, classically at least.

SoftTalker 3y ago

You can still look at credentials. If there is disagreement among people with appropriate background, experience, and education, it can be reported as a legitimate disagreement. The journalist should be evaluating the credentials of sources, but not what they say, and not on the basis of whether the journalist personally agrees with them.

hackyhacky 3y ago

> This is how you get journalists to report disagreements that don't exist in reality. For example, whether the earth is flat, whether climate change is real, etc. Correct. Part of the problem is that there is disagreement about whether a disagreement exists. Cranks believe that there is a vigorous debate about flat-earth/evolution/climate change, and scientists don't. Do how does one (journalist) objectively determine whether an issue is settled or not?