4 ms·

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 m

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?

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?