Bacon Quality Control Specialist
Good thread -
I'm confused because I am a late entrant to this part of the discussion, and I'm not going to go back to work out what the kerfuffle is....I've made an effort to point out that Reason is Koch-$pon$ored, hoping to attract someone who might tell me why they are wrong about something. Hasn't worked.
The complaint about moderation was separate from the complaint about authorship, so I don't think they're related. I think the complaint about authorship was just baseless trash from non-readers. Hey, it happens.
I'll continue to think that until an example appears. We both know it won't.
I believe the study referred to is recognized as being fundamentally flawed because of the 18 databases referred to, 17 were studies of influenza virus transmission, and iirc correctly - I read about it 1-2 weeks ago - the 1 db/study which did include COVID data and influenza.. the authors heavily criticized the way the data was misused.
But the article is authored.
Am I supposed to be content with reason posting trash articles prominently with a banner, just because they have a link to the author?
It is clever how you've included a messenger attack and critique of why messenger attacks aren't helpful into one post. Well done.I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why the date Taibbi decided to write Elon’s press releases is important, or why we must get Taibbi to recognize what he is doing ain’t journalism.
This splitting hairs to own a fakebertarian ain’t worth it if it means real journalists have to give up their sources, too.
Journalists have special rights.It is clever how you've included a messenger attack and critique of why messenger attacks aren't helpful into one post. Well done.
So far, the only evidence I have for your claim is one anonymous guy on the internet saying it's "trash" with no evidence, which seems familiar somehow.
Maybe this time there will be evidence? Meaning, a non-anonymous source?
Tom Ray from Punta Gorda, FL
Excerpt from the statement..
"Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation".
You could have looked it up yourself, because this is actually been around for 4 weeks as a story.
And yet the reason article is still there, unchanged, promoted etc.
So again, you said reason has never failed a fact check. I look first time and immediately find a garbage article, that is pushing an idealogocially driven, factually incorrect article.
But that's ok because the article has an author?
It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive.
Well, he didn't specify which April.A blast from past! 3 yrs ago: View attachment 580267
Have any newspapers been banished for reporting the truth?Well, since he took over, the amount of shit shared has increased. Exponentially.
And, Dog likes that.