2 ms·

IIUC this is from page 40 [1] with the two articles being coca-cola's [2] and reuters [3]. With the key question being "% of teens who say the image on the ___

IIUC this is from page 40 [1] with the two articles being coca-cola's [2] and reuters [3]. With the key question being "% of teens who say the image on the ___ is more credible (reliable or trustworthy) than the other". I'm not actually sure Reuters is more trustworthy here. The claim being made is that Coca-Cola has a goal to use reusable packaging 25% of the time. Why is a third-party more reliable source of a companies's goals than the company? Hell, if we read the articles, Reuters is bunch of glued together quotes; at least coca-cola has coherency. Like, if we change this to Telsa and ask whether Tesla has a goal of FSD by 2012. I would also think Tesla is more credible in that they had a goal of FSD. Sure, they might not achieve it but the titles are about "pledging" not "achieving". [1]: https://newslit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/NLP-Teen-Survey-Report-2024.pdf https://newslit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/NLP-Teen-Surv... [2]: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/media-center/coca-cola-announces-industry-leading-target-for-reusable-packaging https://www.coca-colacompany.com/media-center/coca-cola-anno... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/coca-cola-criticized-plastic-pollution-pledges-25-reusable-packaging-2022-02-10/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/coca-c...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the claim being made is that Coca-Cola has a goal to use reusable packaging 25% of the time. Why is a third-party more reliable source of a companies's goals than the company? Parsed incredibly literally, sure. But at that point we're asking about reading comprehension and obviously dealing with someone working backwards from the answer they like. The context around the goal is whether it's actually being pursued and whether similar goals have been announced in the past and how those went. That's obviously not going to come reliably from the press release.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  And doesn't come from the reuter's article either. Reuter's comment about "In 2020, 16% of the company's packaging was reusable. That year, 90% of its refillable glass and plastic containers were collected, it said." is lifted straight from the press release.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  In addition: First article is claiming that Coca Cola is going to have a target of 25%. Second article is claiming also that (in a sense verifying that) and making an additional claim that Coca Cola is criticized. So if the first statement was false, then both articles were false. If first statement is correct, then left is correct, but right has a chance to be wrong because it is making other statements in addition. Logically left one given the information is always more credible. Not to mention left is the literal source, while right is claiming that the source stated something. In any case left should be considered more reliable. If it was a statement on some achievements and not setting goals it would be different.
  - gabruoy 2y ago
    If there were any disagreement between the two articles at all then there could at least be some kind of conflict. The whole study rests on the idea that Reuters is a trusted investigative journalist, and if they said something like “coca-cola fails their pledge to do xyz” I would trust them over a company statement. Instead the options given are a primary source of information and a news article that repeats that information while giving some context and opinions of environmentalists regarding the statement. I don’t see anything special about Reuters being the one to write this article that somehow makes it a more trustworthy news source.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      Better examples would've been for example if Coca Cola had a title: "We reduced plastic waste by 75%". and then Reuters had another one "Coca Cola claims to have reduced plastic waste by 75%, but it's misleading and accurate only according to this single flawed metric". Then I would trust Reuters more, but headings and contents matter.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    I think the authors think that if the Coca Cola claim was totally bogus, that the Reuters article would take that up? I.e. what is not written also gives information?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> the claim being made is that Coca-Cola has a goal to use reusable packaging 25% of the time. Why is a third-party more reliable source of a companies's goals than the company? Parsed incredibly literally, sure. But at that point we're asking about reading comprehension and obviously dealing with someone working backwards from the answer they like. The context around the goal is whether it's actually being pursued and whether similar goals have been announced in the past and how those went. That's obviously not going to come reliably from the press release.

lesuorac 2y ago
And doesn't come from the reuter's article either. Reuter's comment about "In 2020, 16% of the company's packaging was reusable. That year, 90% of its refillable glass and plastic containers were collected, it said." is lifted straight from the press release.
mewpmewp2 2y ago
In addition: First article is claiming that Coca Cola is going to have a target of 25%. Second article is claiming also that (in a sense verifying that) and making an additional claim that Coca Cola is criticized. So if the first statement was false, then both articles were false. If first statement is correct, then left is correct, but right has a chance to be wrong because it is making other statements in addition. Logically left one given the information is always more credible. Not to mention left is the literal source, while right is claiming that the source stated something. In any case left should be considered more reliable. If it was a statement on some achievements and not setting goals it would be different.
- gabruoy 2y ago
  If there were any disagreement between the two articles at all then there could at least be some kind of conflict. The whole study rests on the idea that Reuters is a trusted investigative journalist, and if they said something like “coca-cola fails their pledge to do xyz” I would trust them over a company statement. Instead the options given are a primary source of information and a news article that repeats that information while giving some context and opinions of environmentalists regarding the statement. I don’t see anything special about Reuters being the one to write this article that somehow makes it a more trustworthy news source.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    Better examples would've been for example if Coca Cola had a title: "We reduced plastic waste by 75%". and then Reuters had another one "Coca Cola claims to have reduced plastic waste by 75%, but it's misleading and accurate only according to this single flawed metric". Then I would trust Reuters more, but headings and contents matter.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  I think the authors think that if the Coca Cola claim was totally bogus, that the Reuters article would take that up? I.e. what is not written also gives information?