Topics:
Latest in
Epoca
“Estudo publicado no último dia 28 pelo site Health Feedback, que reúne uma rede de cientistas dispostos a combater a desinformação digital em suas respectivas áreas de conhecimento, concluiu que, dos dez artigos de saúde que mais viralizaram em inglês no ano passado, quatro tinham “credibilidade baixa” ou “nenhuma credibilidade”.”
yle.fi
“Such a good appreciation of expertise is a bit forgotten today,” says Ohukainen.
– I do not defend any blind authority, but it is worth remembering that some people produce or process health information for their work. For the most part, they are well-meaning people without secret motives or conspiracies.”
translated from Finnish: “– Sellainen terve asiantuntijuuden arvostus on vähän ehkä unohtunut nykypäivänä, Ohukainen sanoo.
– En puolusta mitään sokeaa auktoriteettiuskoa, mutta kannattaa muistaa, että jotkut tuottavat tai käsittelevät terveystietoa työkseen. Suurimmaksi osaksi he ovat hyvää tarkoittavia ihmisiä vailla salaisia motiiveja tai salaliittoja.”
Fast Company
“Health Feedback, a bipartisan network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of health media coverage, worked together with the Credibility Coalition to examine the 100 most popular health articles of 2018–specifically, those with the highest number of social media engagements. They studied stories from numerous well-known websites, such as Time, NPR, the Huffington Post, Daily Mail, New Scientist, CNN, and more.”
Deutsche Welle
“More and more, what becomes influential online is not always written by journalists. This opening of the world of journalism to many more people, like PR people and bloggers, is bringing a lot of inaccurate information online” Vincent told DW.
And journalists get it wrong too, misinterpreting or cherry-picking the data, or taking conclusions out of context. In cases like this, articles can be misleading even if they aren’t deliberately manipulative.
Axios
“Climate Feedback is a voluntary initiative of well-known and respected scientists reviewing climate change articles for accuracy, whose first work came in 2015.
Among the articles reviewed: The Wall Street Journal op-ed on rising sea levels, which was described as “grossly” misleading to readers; and, on the other side, a highly cited New York Magazine article that the reviewing scientists said exaggerated how bad climate change could get.”
Science Alert
“For years, the WSJ has run opinion piece after opinion piece, questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Too often, these “opinions” are written by authors with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry…
Science doesn’t care about your opinion.”
The Conversation
“La communauté scientifique a un rôle à jouer pour mieux informer ses concitoyens face à la montée en puissance des campagnes organisées de désinformation. Climate Feedback propose un modèle qui pourrait être adapté à d’autres domaines touchés par ce phénomène, comme l’énergie ou la santé.”