Special Report - Online activists are silencing us, scientists say Reuters March 2019

That seems a rather trivial correction to make to a one-sided hit-piece. What are they up to?

It could be best to use an up-to-date archive link, and remove the direct link?

http://archive.fo/0zuZm

For some reason this page has not been updated: http://archive.fo/V9WTA

 

This update just came up in a Google alert I have. It looks like the article may get another round of coverage.

 

I have no idea if it was linked there before , but now, dated April 18th and headed with the addendum "(Adds David Tuller's academic position at Berkeley)," a link to it has been posted as if it were new at "The Drudge Report."

http://news.trust.org/item/20190418094429-rl1l2


ETA: It looks like it may have been part of a "theme" of links about "silencing," as it appears in this order:

"Hatred of journalists turning to violence, watchdog warns."

"Americas saw greatest deterioration of press freedom."

"Online activists silencing us, scientists say"

 

And it looks like that led to it spreading more on social media too.

 

About six or seven hours after it was linked on The Drudge Report, the Reuters story was removed (unlinked). Interestingly the two seemingly related "silencing" stories remain.

All the links on that site are ephemeral; it's just interesting that the Reuters story was removed relatively quickly and was replaced by a story about... Clint Eastwood.

 

I probably should have said that the link to the Reuters story was removed. "The Drudge Report" is, for the most part, an aggregation of links to news stories at other sites. It is U.S. centric, but covers global stories as well. To quote Wikipedia...

Despite its rightward tilt and tendency toward sensationalism, it is widely "read" (there's not much to read on the site itself) among the political class because it aggregates breaking political stories and it has an out-sized influence based upon which stories it links to.

This is why I posted about it linking to the "updated" Reuters story, i.e. because it is widely "read," even though a good portion of its readers won't admit to doing so.

 

Kate Kelland
@kkelland
Award-winning Health and Science Correspondent for Reuters. Also mother of two and aspiring triathlete. Likes: hard work; asking questions; learning new things.

yeah right.

 

Haven't got the time or energy to search for this, but:

Yesterday, the New York Times published the March 13 Reuters report.

See,
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/201...uters-science-social-media-specialreport.html
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/science-socialmedia/

 

'Bumped' it in effect.

 

Could this be a blessing in disguise?. Can people respond in comments to new York Times. David Tuller gets a chance to get into the main media . If a few people in high places were to respond it might make an impression on some of the journalists in the UK and go someway to discredit the article, its author and the bad science with it. There might well be an opportunity somewhere in here. I've no doubt that better minds than mine will find it if it is there. This is one to think carefully about.

 

I keep thinking of the analogy between [current political situation involving alleged alternative facts]. It's all a hoax. The calumny is laid out in lurid detail but it is still just a hoax.

 

I have certainly thought of the link in terms of "alternative facts"--like the alternative fact that I am a "former journalist."

 

There never was any intention to investigate or understand. It was about collecting bits to support the narrative of irrational death-threat making patients while stubbornly ignoring any information that contradicts it. Much like PACE was never about testing the treatments, but about convincing the world that CBT/GET work.

 

This whole tactic of accusing "campaigners" of "silencing" scientists reminded me of this photo... (quote mine).


"My friends, I tell you I am being SILENCED!!!"




[This is Douglas Fairbanks Sr. at a 1918 war bond rally in New York City.]

 

Hey @TiredSam , not cool. I'm a guy who likes some irony, sure, a little nibble here, a small morsel there. I was, you know, going to try to find a bit to snack on this weekend in a nice, measured manner - probably over several prudent courses - because, as they say, everything in moderation.

But no, you come here, post this, and blast the irony firehose directly into my face, and now I'm so overfull I don't think I'll ever enjoy irony again. Even sarcasm seems unpalatable.

I feel empty. I feel hurt. I feel harmed and oppressed.

You ruined my weekend, bro.