I distinctly recall when that Cochrane review came out. I shared it on LinkedIn and got some flimsy pushback. Apparently the rule is "follow the science" except when it contradicts your cherished narrative. I also recall a paper in Science (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aao2998). It was an atrocious piece that suggested that mainstream news sources are less prone to fake news than alternative sources on the Internet. I read it and it sounded like a mis- or dis-information job in its own right. Something the legacy media would pay pay a bunch of scholars to write. I don't actually think that happened, but if it were uncovered through credible investigative journalism neither would I be surprised.
I feel like the terms misinformation & disinfo have no meaning now bc they've been so misused by people who want to control the narrative &, like you said, disregard any inconvenient science as "misinfo". These folks believe they are knowledge authorities who should direct how we think, but their campaigns don't change anything; we all know water is wet.
I distinctly recall when that Cochrane review came out. I shared it on LinkedIn and got some flimsy pushback. Apparently the rule is "follow the science" except when it contradicts your cherished narrative. I also recall a paper in Science (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aao2998). It was an atrocious piece that suggested that mainstream news sources are less prone to fake news than alternative sources on the Internet. I read it and it sounded like a mis- or dis-information job in its own right. Something the legacy media would pay pay a bunch of scholars to write. I don't actually think that happened, but if it were uncovered through credible investigative journalism neither would I be surprised.
I feel like the terms misinformation & disinfo have no meaning now bc they've been so misused by people who want to control the narrative &, like you said, disregard any inconvenient science as "misinfo". These folks believe they are knowledge authorities who should direct how we think, but their campaigns don't change anything; we all know water is wet.
>but their campaigns don't change anything; we all know water is wet.
If only that were so!