Jay Kuo
A thought piece based on two items in the news, ones that don’t seem that connected at first but in fact track along the same vector of suspect data and misinformation. Vaccine skepticism and polling outfits, in today’s write-up. https://open.substack.com/pub/statuskuo/p/shady-data-and-misinformation?r=1zr8b&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Shady Data and Misinformation

My thoughts on how bad data and bad actors shape some bad public narratives

The Status Kuo
Apr 4, 2024 at 3:24pmWeb
Show threadPaul Wermer, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0Apr 4, 2024

@jaykuo
"Trusted sources like The Lancet and the New York Times ..."

The sad thing is that I trusted the #NYTimes for many years, but in 2003 that trust was broken. The NY Times did publish a later apology for blindly regurgitating the Bush administrations lies about Iraq, and I was impressed.

And was wrong to be impressed. Since then, their efforts to "prove" their integrity with a "both sides have valid points" approach has resulted in a complete lack of confidence in their analyses and interpretation. I still read the NY Times, but with a healthy dose of distrust (it's gone well beyond skepticism).

It's sad. As a refugee arriving at Ellis Island in 1939, my Grandfather's first purchase was the NY Times. My father had a subscription for most of his life, as have I (along with a sense of betrayal.)

Show threadMarthaApr 4, 2024
@jaykuo @Call_Me_Glitter
This exegesis from Jay on how polls can be manipulated and need to be looked at critically
Show threadzenkatApr 4, 2024
@jaykuo Have you read Naomi Klein's _Doppleganger_? Excellent book. It explores the connections between misinformation, anti-vax scares, social-media-driven anxiety, political radicalism and "diagonalism", and the global rise of the authoritarian populist right. Highly recommended.
Show threadJennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊Apr 5, 2024

@jaykuo

Thank you for another excellent piece!

I do take minor but not enormous exception to the notion that antivaxxers are skeptical -- solely as a matter of terminology. Skepticism as a notion is all well and good, a matter of 'I need more information before I proceed' (and, in context, sometimes that information is 'people are dying from this plague now'), but I have rarely if ever met an antivaxxer who would be persuaded by any body of information, no matter how well-researched, self-evident, or just plain large.

Skeptics can, in the end, change their mind -- but ideologues have no such requirement, and even though the Lancet article was and is useful to them still, many of them would have found some other reason by now even without it. Which, of course, heightens the duty of care by media outlets.

Though RFK has also never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. I'm quite certain he would be arguing about Apollo 11 save for image reasons.