Another hypothetical. 2 scientists: Scientist A overstates the harm of restrictions. Media reports claim. No backlash Scientist B claims restrictions are less harmful. There's backlash. Media reports backlash People may be misled to think Scientist A is right and B is wronghttps://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1397994219114008582 …
-
-
More outlandish = more coverage
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Some type of collective action bias? People want something to change in some way and don't like the people who point out that we don't really know what changes to do if we want things to get better?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yup, it can certainly work both ways. The nuances often get drowned out in favor of catchy headlines. Regardless, this stresses the importance of remaining unbiased and apolitical.
-
It stresses the importance of being transparent with bias and politics. Anyone who claims to be unbiased and apolitical is either pulling a fast one on you, or themselves.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There appears to be only one correct narrative but it’s much more nuanced than that. By taking such black and white positions I fear we will miss the optimal position.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.