This is going to be a thread on choosing media sources - especially when reading about research.
I started seeing versions of this in my timeline, so I commented on a few of the tweets.
Here is the original article, which appears in the Daily Mail.
The 1st thing I did was to search 'Boston University makes covid strain', I wanted to see what media outlets were amplifying the story.
Top 10 results were alt-right publications. Epoch Times, Sputnik (RU state linked) & Post Millennial.
Why is this troubling? Alt-right populist groups (anti-science, white nationalist & mysoginist) tend to have a support chain of media platforms.
When you see Sputnik & Infowars in the top results these sites are used to boost conspiracy theories as factial information.
Even legacy media platforms that seem not as alt-right, Fox News & CNN, are still apart of the populist support chain.
These sites amplify this same content because their audience is sympathetic to the core political ideologies shared with populists.
That is why you see Pro-Putin, Pro-Orban sentiments being broadcast by Fox News & other platforms.
Even 🇺🇸 House, Senate conservatives are sympathetic to the populist narrative that is parroted across their networks.
That is why the GOP has hosted Viktor Orban & vis versa.
How does this effect you?
The political landscape is changing.
How we, as a society get our information may feel the same, but the information landscape is rapidly changing.
When there is a large consciousness shift toward populist popularity, media shifts to suit the
growing sympathetic audience. Platforms which were once moderate embrace fringe tactics.
Pundits (useful idiots) that amplify pro-populist content, or bankrolled bad actors (trolls) become weaponized agents of disinformation - mostly unkown to the audience at large, who trust.
The lines become blurred between factual content & politically motivated propaganda.
Platforms amplifying paid content or conspiracy do not post a disclaimer. They are often willing participants - capitalising on clicks and ratings: Choas & Fear sells.
Which brings me back to the original source.
Why isn't the Daily Mail a trusted source?
It is a platform amplifying conspiracy theories & populist propaganda.
Part of the media support chain.
I noticed several Covid conspiracies interwoven throughout the article.
The best propaganda sounds plausible. It draws you in citing 'expert' testimony which plays to your reasoning skills.
It also exploits that primal fear that we all experience.
To populist groups, the Covid pandemic is recruiting gold.
A veritable hotbed of choas to sow fear & division, all the while sharing the gospel of their ideologies to encourage new members.
Conspiracies are the perfect methodology to do this.
Now not all propaganda is that blatant. It is subtle & insidious.
That is where the trouble starts - knowing how to spot red 🚩.
Most people's brains are prone to conspiratorial thinking, this is how we learn to adapt to major shifts in our lives.
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
One of the main conspiracies referenced in the original DM article is the 'Escaped Wuhan Lab Virus enters into Wild' origin theory.
This leads back to a rabithole of different tendrils of populist propaganda.
Science, however is catching up.
Will science be enough to quell the disinfo gone wild? Debunking conspiracies seems to be a race against time.
Here is a trusted source of medical related science helping to do just that: Med Page Today.
"Researchers conducted spatial, environmental, and molecular analyses that led them to their
conclusion, and the findings were the result of collaborative efforts from scientists across four
continents, including insights from researchers within China."
medpagetoday.com/special-report…
Evidence based reporting is key to legit sources.
Which brings me to my next point.
The whole preface of the original DM article was based off a "Non-Peer Reviewed Paper", Why is 'Non-Peer Reviewed' a problem?
Anyone can write a paper & submit it.
Without review, a research based paper lacks field credibility.
"Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Also, the research concepts mentioned in the article are not new.
Here is a screenshot of one of the source pages from the research paper.
There are plenty of past examples referenced here.
📄 PDF: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
In closing I will share the article denouncing the spin & sensationalism by the media support chain.
A good rule of thumb is that their reporting tends to be the opposite of the reality.
Reality: this research actually made covid less dangerous.
bu.edu/articles/2022/…
They took one line from the research paper. One line, and ran with it. 'Gain of Function' was NOT used.
Boston University followed all safety protocols.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.