
Science journalism can be evidence-based, compelling – and wrong - discombobulate
http://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-evidence-based-compelling-and-wrong-1.21591?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
======
magic_owl
The problem here is the business model, Nature and The Economist don't need
clickbait to make money, the NYT and Daily Mail do. Short of censuring "false
information", how can you regulate the truth online keeping in mind that it's
globally connected and there is a massive financial incentive to distribute
fake news? It's a dilemma where regulators have no good options, but the
relative laissez-faire attitude democratic governments​ have led to everyone
living in echo chambers on Facebook and having half the population on any
given issue disagree on measurable facts.

