Media Bias and Accuracy

You’ll never read a positive story on business, entrepreneurship or wealth creation.

These topics are the foe of the Guardian's performative victimhood.

 

The past 2 weeks has really underlined the failure of the media and just how corrosive it is to the glue holding American society together. There's a mass illiteracy at play here, I now doubt a majority of protesters understand what they are or should be protesting about. This is understandable given the most proximate forms of media are too ideologically rigid to allow the space for substantive, honest debate or analysis.

For any meaningful discussion on the factor affecting America right now you need to delve into the 'intellectual dark web'. Sam Harris, Bret and Eric Weinstein, Coleman Hughes etc- these individuals are able to bring shape to the various shades of grey and aren't beholden to a business model that tags them to one side of the political spectrum from which a columnist can only stray so far (if you're trying to comprehend our messy reality through the prism of an ideological ism you're doing it wrong). As specific example listen to Bret Weinstein between 41.50 and 50.40 below.


Eric Weinstein (yes the surmising on the go looks tacky but it doesn't detract on what he has to say)


or Coleman Hughes, an African American writer and opinionated columnist


Unfortunately, as Bret Weinstein points out, the best and most fruitful voices are limited by their gig economy format (podcasts, youtube) but it's now more than ever that we need them on a mainstream interface.

 

I think there is debate to science because:
A/ It is formulated by humans
B/ The level of complexity of certain topics means that research is ongoing.
C/ Some domains of scientific research are corrupted by political and financial forces.
D/ Many scientific domains are hidden so as to not cause moral or societal outrage.
The other issue with science, is that while conclusions can indicate a particular outcome, those who wish to report can change contexts, omit or add narratives to suit an agenda.
An example of how science can be questionable is the CSIRO diet which advocates a high protein diet including red meat consumption. The study was financed by the meat and livestock corporation and while I’m sure you could lose weight following this diet there are other consequences. However according to many other researchers it is the Mediterranean and DASH diets that are considered healthier options with its high emphasis on carbohydrate consumption and low protein and fat consumption.

 

Dont have to look too far, who would have thought Lancet, elite medical journal????

Political.... what a disgrace

@shorty
Lancet, NEJM retract Covid-19 studies that sparked backlash

Ingraham Angle

 

very few major media are unbiased these days

factors of bias are ADVERTISERS , share-holders and the readership targeted .. these days i watch a lot of Russian TV and Sputnik , in a bizarre paradox BOTH try to present both sides of a story (and are directly funded by the Russian Government ) even our ABC doesn't try very hard

about all you can do is use multiple sources and THINK carefully about what you have absorbed

 

Yes agree, double check with other sources

 

I dont understand how this could have possibly been printed without the proper checks.

 

short-cuts get taken , sometimes knowingly and sometimes someone not pulling their weight

but 2 withdrawn articles in such a short time will stain their reputation for months maybe years

have seen it in mainstream media .. the race to headlines , print and be damned , sadly this has come to medical journals now as well

am very impressed by those raising questions after publication , nice work all you folks

 

Sorry but I'm not much on conspiracy theories - and if they're lurking on the "dark web" to air their views, strongly suggests that perhaps their views aren't something that should be aired anywhere. If what they say is plausible, then it would be available on the mainstream web

Charlie Pickering strikes again with her perfect explanation of conspiracy theories:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=3103568329666724

 

What refutes science?: Better science

What doesn't refute science?:
Your feelings
Your religion
Your favourite politician
Your halfbaked opinion after watching two youtube videos

Granted - one should always try and find the funding source if there appears to be a vested interest. The 1990's study that springs to mind is the study paid for by the sugar industry refuting that sugar caused health problems ... How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat.

 

Note 2007, but its relevant and sums it up and now I see how Lancet got caught with their pants down

and new english journal

Two elite medical journals retract coronavirus papers over data integrity questions

faith rather than facts.....

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

invalid science increasing
Invalid science - Wikipedia

 

Fake science
Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others

 

The system is flawed, but this article refers to more checks and balances prior to publishing

Let's stop pretending peer review works

 

... and they have no qualms about calling it out, when mistakes are found (instead of trying to cover up). This should add confidence