There's a marked difference between those statements
1) media agencies on all sides had the dossier and didn't publish it since t was unverifiable
2) when buzfeed or whomever linked the dossier, it forced other firms to do so as well or lose out on a critical story.
3) the adaptation to deal with this is to not report the dossier as fact, but as claims. And of course, it spiraled downhill from there,
In this scenario it's important to note that media firms avoided reporting on this issue because it was crap.
For global warming, ah man where do we start.
Firstly, it's unfair to lambast people for believing it's a hoax.
Since the 80s and before, a long, intelligent and concerted effort to spread FUD has been active in America. It is today successful enough to spread around the world.
If people were old enough, they would remember that initially scientists would not give the time of day to global warming conspiracist/deniers.
It was correctly believed that doing so actually gave cranks and loons the patina of credibility, when they should be allowed to die out.
Unfortunately, these cranks and loons were cultivated and nurtured, and given airtime. In particular there is one news network that I recall had a more active role in this and it was not CNN.
Eventually scientists were forced to engage, and by engaging they lost.
Scientists, (and people on HN) are constantly making the error that this is about facts.
It's about entertainment and playing with human emotions.
Scientists walked in expecting a debate, when it was about showmanship, with one side reporting things unevenly.
As a result there are people today who will be anti global warming because they are being manipulated.
Global warming wasn't part of my argument. That was just me quoting the parent who appears to believe only one side of the political spectrum is susceptible to fake news.
Personally I trust the science, and think that even if you don't there are enough other compelling reasons to move on to renewable energy sources that we'd be stupid not to anyway.
There was plenty of science going against 'smoking causes cancer'. Fake news has been around for quite some time, just not in its current more virulent form.
1) media agencies on all sides had the dossier and didn't publish it since t was unverifiable
2) when buzfeed or whomever linked the dossier, it forced other firms to do so as well or lose out on a critical story.
3) the adaptation to deal with this is to not report the dossier as fact, but as claims. And of course, it spiraled downhill from there,
In this scenario it's important to note that media firms avoided reporting on this issue because it was crap.
For global warming, ah man where do we start.
Firstly, it's unfair to lambast people for believing it's a hoax.
Since the 80s and before, a long, intelligent and concerted effort to spread FUD has been active in America. It is today successful enough to spread around the world.
If people were old enough, they would remember that initially scientists would not give the time of day to global warming conspiracist/deniers.
It was correctly believed that doing so actually gave cranks and loons the patina of credibility, when they should be allowed to die out.
Unfortunately, these cranks and loons were cultivated and nurtured, and given airtime. In particular there is one news network that I recall had a more active role in this and it was not CNN.
Eventually scientists were forced to engage, and by engaging they lost.
Scientists, (and people on HN) are constantly making the error that this is about facts.
It's about entertainment and playing with human emotions.
Scientists walked in expecting a debate, when it was about showmanship, with one side reporting things unevenly.
As a result there are people today who will be anti global warming because they are being manipulated.
Fake news is a new problem