False balance in news reports undermines faith in scientific consensus

phys.org

4 points·samizdis··3 comments

> What does media coverage of climate change have in common with coverage of COVID-19? Each has been an example of the media practice of "bothsidesism," whereby journalists strive to present both sides of an issue, even in cases where most credible sources fall on one side.

This guy must be living in a different planet. On planet Earth, what I remember about Covid coverage is unrelenting one-sided propaganda.

Also, if there's anything such as faith in science, it's due the perception that dissent can exist to some extent.

If you take that away, the legitimacy of scientific institutions will be questioned even more.

I guess our memories (and perhaps locations) differ. I remember The Economist championing Bjorn Lomborg. I remember the BBC getting Nigel Lawson on more than once to argue the anthropogenic climate change isn’t real. I’ve heard Irish parliamentarians tell us that only god controls the weather.

I suppose you can argue that much of our interaction with science is faith based. I’ve never seen an electron but I believe they exist etc. But I can’t shake the suspicion that if most of the world’s physical scientists think anthClCh is real, I should probably go along with them. Even if they do write awful code.

Darn tootin' both sidesing an issue sucks. Report the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com