There is effectively no substantive evidence offered to date in support of the ray-gun hypothesis for Havana Syndrome. Consequently, we need to recognize how harmful credulous media reporting on this has likely been for these patients. nytimes.com/2021/12/02/us/…
@awgaffney I keep saying/thinking that the way evidence appraisal and reporting in J school is done clearly lacks rigor bc the last 2 years have been a WILD ride in terms of how much reputable outlets have spread misinfo
@MaxJordan_N I think that's fair, but I also think what happened in this case is somewhat a unique situation. They mostly had natsec people on this story, not healthcare/medicine reporters, and I think a lot was missed as a result of that ... Honestly these are really complicated med issues
@awgaffney Sure but they all should apply a healthy dose of skepticism to their reporting! Like drug & reporters just regurgitate police talking points (lies!) and it’s so so bad
@MaxJordan_N @awgaffney Both issues are true: which reporters are on the beat and how they weigh evidence in situations of uncertainty. Both breathe life into journalistic coverage of contested illnesses, like the credible coverage when a celebrity announces they have Lyme dz. cjr.org/analysis/lyme-…
@MaxJordan_N @awgaffney If not careful, journalists will reify Havana Syndrome through false balance. Here’s what doctors say. Here’s what the suffering patients say. You decide what is true. Journalism needs a better MO in situations of scientific uncertainty.
@MaxJordan_N @awgaffney While journalists tend to want to highlight the controversy and tend to side with the perceived underdog, a more helpful approach is to emphasize the consensus and carefully define the areas of uncertainty: journalistsresource.org/media/scientif…