I remember when it seemed that Snopes.com and similar sites were beyond discernible political bias, before the time that Wikipedia was involved in concerted efforts to damage the reputation of well-regarded scientists.
Now we’ve moved into a new era it seems. Wikipedia recently edited Andrew Huberman’s Wikipedia page to say that he “appeared on programs that frequently platform health misinformation.” Huberman is a brilliant and research-centered Stanford neurobiology professor who produces a podcast looking through research for answers to common health and lifestyle concerns. Anyone who’s listened to his show knows that it is incredibly data-driven, fair, and apolitical. Huberman is careful to cite and represent the studies he references fairly and accurately. His crime might have been his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience.
Despite his regular statements that he supports civil rights and compassion and medical support for trans people, and his MANY politically liberal stances, Joe has fallen afoul of modern totalitarians by criticizing sex modifications for minors and trans women in women’s sports. On these issues, however, he is in good company with most Americans. These guest selections and statements put him in the crosshairs of political ideologues so self-certain and hungry for power that the objectivity of science or Wikipedia are simply tools to use (in this case to suppress or besmirch opposition, or even guests of opposition).
Fact checking features began as an interesting and usually objective news accessory but they are only as reliable as the people writing them and there’s probably not enough ethical and competent people in all of legacy media to staff all of the fact-checking features that exist today, even if they only employed the BEST journalists (which they don’t).
In the Huberman libel we see two strategies already:
(1) unclear and biased characterizations-programs that frequently platform health misinformation could now describe (especially in the wake of COVID-19) any show on CNN or MSNBC, or any podcast platforming Dr. Peter Hotez… but those examples are legacy media so they avoid any scrutiny.
(2) guilt by association- this is how reputations can be unfairly and inaccurately implied to be flawed, simply because (in this case) Huberman appeared on the most prolific podcast in history which has (in the past, on completely separate occasions) welcomed people with controversial medical ideas. What does that have to do with Dr. Huberman? Absolutely nothing. It’s unfortunate but anytime you read that someone has “been linked to…” or “…appeared with… “ or “…supported by…” [insert unpalatable element: mysoginists/white supremacists/etc.] it’s best to dismiss these kinds of indefinite associations altogether. Reading the news shouldn’t require constant self-edits by the reader but it now does.
Another strategy is the:
(3) “3rd person suspicion” strategy- in which subjects (targets, really) are ‘suspected of’ or ‘criticized for’ or ‘questioned because…’ by some indeterminate accuser. “Critics have alleged… “ is irrelevant if the critics are a few nuts of Twitter or (as is often the case) the very journalists writing the articles.
Share this post
Anatomy of a false fact-check (part 1)
Share this post
I remember when it seemed that Snopes.com and similar sites were beyond discernible political bias, before the time that Wikipedia was involved in concerted efforts to damage the reputation of well-regarded scientists.
Now we’ve moved into a new era it seems. Wikipedia recently edited Andrew Huberman’s Wikipedia page to say that he “appeared on programs that frequently platform health misinformation.” Huberman is a brilliant and research-centered Stanford neurobiology professor who produces a podcast looking through research for answers to common health and lifestyle concerns. Anyone who’s listened to his show knows that it is incredibly data-driven, fair, and apolitical. Huberman is careful to cite and represent the studies he references fairly and accurately. His crime might have been his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience.
Despite his regular statements that he supports civil rights and compassion and medical support for trans people, and his MANY politically liberal stances, Joe has fallen afoul of modern totalitarians by criticizing sex modifications for minors and trans women in women’s sports. On these issues, however, he is in good company with most Americans. These guest selections and statements put him in the crosshairs of political ideologues so self-certain and hungry for power that the objectivity of science or Wikipedia are simply tools to use (in this case to suppress or besmirch opposition, or even guests of opposition).
Fact checking features began as an interesting and usually objective news accessory but they are only as reliable as the people writing them and there’s probably not enough ethical and competent people in all of legacy media to staff all of the fact-checking features that exist today, even if they only employed the BEST journalists (which they don’t).
In the Huberman libel we see two strategies already:
(1) unclear and biased characterizations-programs that frequently platform health misinformation could now describe (especially in the wake of COVID-19) any show on CNN or MSNBC, or any podcast platforming Dr. Peter Hotez… but those examples are legacy media so they avoid any scrutiny.
(2) guilt by association- this is how reputations can be unfairly and inaccurately implied to be flawed, simply because (in this case) Huberman appeared on the most prolific podcast in history which has (in the past, on completely separate occasions) welcomed people with controversial medical ideas. What does that have to do with Dr. Huberman? Absolutely nothing. It’s unfortunate but anytime you read that someone has “been linked to…” or “…appeared with… “ or “…supported by…” [insert unpalatable element: mysoginists/white supremacists/etc.] it’s best to dismiss these kinds of indefinite associations altogether. Reading the news shouldn’t require constant self-edits by the reader but it now does.
Another strategy is the:
(3) “3rd person suspicion” strategy- in which subjects (targets, really) are ‘suspected of’ or ‘criticized for’ or ‘questioned because…’ by some indeterminate accuser. “Critics have alleged… “ is irrelevant if the critics are a few nuts of Twitter or (as is often the case) the very journalists writing the articles.
(Part 1 of 2)