4 ms·
>The data collected here shows that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones In the same breath, he quotes an article abou
by exabrial 1y ago
>The data collected here shows that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones
In the same breath, he quotes an article about it dousing Newfoundland in microplastics; a broad sweeping conclusion from a laughably flawed study method for the given results. And to be fair, this isn't a diss on the student's effort: scientific study is the holy grail. However, that headline and what was actually done represent two incredibly different things.
So in actuality, perhaps he's just calling his own biases out: The Left leaning articles published in Ground News often attempt to invent consensus by quoting one-off studies. Perhaps his own desire "to be right" or social pressure "to be on the forefront of knowledge" fans the thirst for early conclusions.
- wredcoll 1y agoStarting with an actual study is a gigantic improvement compared to the "we quote a random person's conspiracy theory as fact" style of journalism.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoIs a dodgy study that "establishes" a preconceived idea really all that much better than a random person's conspiracy theory?
- wredcoll 1y agoLiterally yes, we can read the study's hypothesis, its experiments, the data it collects and then actually evaluate it on the merits. Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoFair enough. They're better in that way. But they are no better at actually supplying us with knowledge or evidence, though they claim to. So in that way, they might be worse.
- hitekker 1y agoIMO, a bad study requires a lot more effort and expertise to dismiss than a conspiracy theory. Most people, not even paid experts, don't have that time. They're more liable to accept a bad but fashionable study than an easily debunked fantasy like Pizzagate. Hidden poison is worse than obvious manure.
- hitekker 1y agoSimilarly, the author's "Truth" sections are rather glib and misleading. Each one could be its own article and analysis, i.e., a proper fact-check, but he seems to have rushed to the conclusions.