Apr 13, 2021 05:56 PM
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/04/12/fol...2%A0-15467
INTRO: Mainstream news outlets have gone after COVID conspiracy theorists with a passion. But when it comes to equally important science topics, the media have no problem ignoring evidence and promoting conspiratorial nonsense. This blatant hypocrisy causes confusion and fuels the public's skepticism of science more broadly.
In recent months, the mainstream press has been on a crusade against COVID vaccine skepticism, tenaciously promoting science-based medicine and expressing little tolerance for anybody who holds a contrarian opinion. “Covid vaccine does not affect fertility but misinformation persists,” The Guardian announced in February, addressing a common concern about coronavirus immunizations. “A big reason we might never reach herd immunity,” an equally zealous CNN recently reported, “because not enough people are willing to get vaccinated.”
These claims are perfectly defensible. While there are some preliminary concerns in the EU about rare side effects associated with AstraZeneca's shot, the evidence so far shows that the authorized vaccines are safe and effective, even for pregnant women or those trying to get pregnant. [1] Yet, these same news outlets continue to show no interest in reporting all the facts when it comes to other critical science issues.
This is inexcusable for two reasons.
Since the press has made a habit of giving finger-wagging lectures about “following the science,” they need to consistently practice what they preach, especially when promoting calls to deplatform social media users who doubt the safety and efficacy of vaccines. More importantly, people tend to cherry-pick which science they embrace, usually along political lines. The media's double standard legitimizes this partisan approach to science, giving policymakers and the public an excuse to ignore evidence they deem inconvenient.
The always insightful website Debunking Denialism describes the media's fair-weather science advocacy as “selective skepticism”: “There is a tradition among journalists to stand up to the government, companies and other authorities they critically examine. However, this can sometimes lead to selective skepticism were claims that run counter to the beliefs of some science journalists are met with extreme skepticism, whereas information that appeals to the existing beliefs are accepted with much less skepticism.”
We see this all the time. The Washington Post only days ago published... (MORE - details
INTRO: Mainstream news outlets have gone after COVID conspiracy theorists with a passion. But when it comes to equally important science topics, the media have no problem ignoring evidence and promoting conspiratorial nonsense. This blatant hypocrisy causes confusion and fuels the public's skepticism of science more broadly.
In recent months, the mainstream press has been on a crusade against COVID vaccine skepticism, tenaciously promoting science-based medicine and expressing little tolerance for anybody who holds a contrarian opinion. “Covid vaccine does not affect fertility but misinformation persists,” The Guardian announced in February, addressing a common concern about coronavirus immunizations. “A big reason we might never reach herd immunity,” an equally zealous CNN recently reported, “because not enough people are willing to get vaccinated.”
These claims are perfectly defensible. While there are some preliminary concerns in the EU about rare side effects associated with AstraZeneca's shot, the evidence so far shows that the authorized vaccines are safe and effective, even for pregnant women or those trying to get pregnant. [1] Yet, these same news outlets continue to show no interest in reporting all the facts when it comes to other critical science issues.
This is inexcusable for two reasons.
Since the press has made a habit of giving finger-wagging lectures about “following the science,” they need to consistently practice what they preach, especially when promoting calls to deplatform social media users who doubt the safety and efficacy of vaccines. More importantly, people tend to cherry-pick which science they embrace, usually along political lines. The media's double standard legitimizes this partisan approach to science, giving policymakers and the public an excuse to ignore evidence they deem inconvenient.
The always insightful website Debunking Denialism describes the media's fair-weather science advocacy as “selective skepticism”: “There is a tradition among journalists to stand up to the government, companies and other authorities they critically examine. However, this can sometimes lead to selective skepticism were claims that run counter to the beliefs of some science journalists are met with extreme skepticism, whereas information that appeals to the existing beliefs are accepted with much less skepticism.”
We see this all the time. The Washington Post only days ago published... (MORE - details
