Explaining the chasm between reality and public perception is the actual job. It is time we started doing it again.

You state what the experts conclude. Then, you do the actual reporting to explain why a portion of the public disagrees and what is driving that gap.
False balance is the lazy way out.

That is a sociological observation, not an editorial standard. You cannot treat a lab result like a straw poll and call it "objective." The honest move is harder, but it is the only way forward.

They are trying to mirror the social split of their audience. They figure if 60% of the country believes X and 40% believes Y, they should give them equal weight.

It is journalism obscuring reality.
time we started doing it again. I think publications get defensive here because they have quietly swapped their metrics. They aren't trying to represent expert consensus anymore.

If 90% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic warming, giving the 10% equal airtime isn't balance. It is distortion. Whether it is vaccine efficacy or election security, presenting a 50/50 split on a factual substrate is a lie. It isn't journalism serving democracy.

Puppers! Happy holidays!

Coins, cultural centers, and now battleships.

Tycho Monolith vibes

They're switching to selling the ev batteries to AI data centers

All of the above?

It's unfortunate that he's got buy-in already from a lot of other hacks.

Converse if Hanlon's razor.

Too real lol.

Ugh and sorry but AI is not a major it's a focus or specialty in a traditional computer science program.

Is that Russ Voght in the background?

Too true.