I never comment on the disputed death toll of civilians in Gaza. It’s exceptionally dehumanising.
As an academic, I do feel compelled to speak out about the widespread unethical reporting that ‘The Lancet estimates’ that there could be 186,000+ future indirect deaths in Gaza.
As an academic, I do feel compelled to speak out about the widespread unethical reporting that ‘The Lancet estimates’ that there could be 186,000+ future indirect deaths in Gaza.
https://twitter.com/RachelMoiselle/status/1717154883336315019
I see a lot of people referring to the established biases of the authors, but that’s not uncommon regarding I/P and is of less significance to me.
What concerns me is that the ‘article’ being cited is a 1-page letter from the correspondence section, not a peer-reviewed article.
What concerns me is that the ‘article’ being cited is a 1-page letter from the correspondence section, not a peer-reviewed article.
Every academic knows it’s wrong and irresponsible for reporters to claim that this is ‘according to the Lancet’: a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal.
This positions it as an authoritative, peer-reviewed piece of work rather than what it is: a 1-page correspondence letter.
This positions it as an authoritative, peer-reviewed piece of work rather than what it is: a 1-page correspondence letter.
I will reiterate that the death toll in Gaza is an atrocity and I despise the commentary disputing the exact numbers.
On this specific instance I just had to make a comment. This particular example of media bias is an affront to the academic integrity that is core to my work.
On this specific instance I just had to make a comment. This particular example of media bias is an affront to the academic integrity that is core to my work.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
