This article reads like a complete fabrication, full of misinformation. I’ve read half a dozen other accounts of his testimony, and not one of them mentions anything in this specific version, which they would have.

[–] athos77@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Media bias / fact check for Hindustan Times:

Overall, we rate the Hindustan Times Left-Center Biased and questionable due to poor sourcing, numerous failed fact checks, and the promotion of propaganda.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Media bias fact check has no credibility; it's literally just the personal website of a random guy who doesn't even have any background in journalism or academic research; he's a healthcare worker.

[–] athos77@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

it’s literally just the personal website of a random guy who doesn’t even have any background in journalism or academic research;

Really? Cause this sure sounds like you're wrong:

Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences.

he’s a healthcare worker.

The majority of college graduates eventually end up with a career that wasn't their original field of study. And lots of people have hobbies; quite a few are really good at it, particularly when they studied it for four years.

Media bias fact check has no credibility

Hunh. You might read the "reception" section of their Wikipedia article, which basically boils down to "it's not perfect but it's pretty darn good, and when they compare it to academic research on the sites in question, it's pretty accurate".

[–] pelikan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You might read the “reception” section of their Wikipedia article

The same link literally says:

Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as "generally unreliable", recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view

[–] athos77@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I like how you gloss over the six paragraphs that say "academics and researchers generally agree that it's pretty good and reliable" and focus on the single sentence that says "Wikipedia people don't use it on Wikipedia".

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

As you glossed over the bits that said it was unreliable to focus on the ones that said it was reliable.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Really? Cause this sure sounds like you’re wrong:

Are you really trying to argue that an undergraduate degree in communication before going into a different field constitutes a serious background in journalism and academic research? That's ludicrous.

The majority of college graduates eventually end up with a career that wasn’t their original field of study.

And that's fine, I did it myself.

But I would never try to pass myself off as an expert in a different field to the one I'm in. Especially a field that wasn't my undergraduate degree either.

Hunh. You might read the “reception” section of their Wikipedia article

Are you doing a bit right now?

[–] athos77@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You said, and I quote, that this was someone who

doesn’t even have any background in journalism or academic research;

And I point out that he has a degree in Communications, and you say that's not valid?

Communications includes Journalism and, depending on the university, you might be given a degree in Communications even though your field was journalism. Hell, my dad studied Computer Science for five years but his degree is labeled "Mathematics" because CS was part of the Math department at the time. My cousin studied Archeology but his degree is technically in Anthropology for the same reason. It's entirely possible to study Journalism and end up with a degree in Communications.

And considering that he spent four years of his life studying it, and another twenty working on it as his full-time 'hobby', and that the majority of people who study these things find his results to be valid, should speak to the overall quality of the site. But not everyone finds something in life that they can be this passionate about, to work at it unpaid for a quarter-century, so I can understand if you find it hard to believe.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago

An undergraduate degree in communications is not a background in journalism or academic research mate. Journalism is it's own degree, usually.

It certainly doesn't mean anyone should treat your personal opinions on what media outlets are credible with any more weight than any other rando.

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

And let’s not miss the fact that Wenstrup, who is a podiatrist, didn’t publish transcripts from the hearings. Only his own personal musings, which I’ll mention again, as a podiatrist. If I have bunions on my feet, I’d (likely not) consider calling him. But not about epidemiology.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This article is literally quoting the official press release of the committee's chairman:

https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-releases-statement-following-dr-faucis-two-day-testimony/

Dr. Fauci claimed that the “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation promoted by federal health officials was likely not based on any data. He characterized the development of the guidance by stating “it sort of just appeared.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory.

Dr. Fauci admitted that America’s vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic could increase vaccine hesitancy in the future.

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The main problem I have is that they didn’t link to any official statements. There was no way to independently verify that anything that they said was true. I’m not an expert on research at all, and there was no easy way for me to verify anything that the article said.

They only linked to their own previous posts that didn’t even clearly prove the point they were trying to make. After clicking on a couple links and seeing that they were unrelated to the point they were trying to push on the reader, am I supposed to keep clicking?

Fuck no, I’m not giving them clicks for that. So while Fauci may or may not have said the things that they accuse him of saying in the hearings, they clickbaited me enough to give up on it and just call them full of shit. Especially since I couldn’t find any corroboration from other media sites.

Anyways, as it turns out, it was proven to be airborne and staying away from people was a solid way to inhibit transmission. Imagine that, an educated guess from highly educated people. But I digress.

I hope I got my point across here.

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago

And on top that that, Wenstrup is a fucking podiatrist from the state that I’m unlucky enough to inhabit. His personal “takeaways” from a hearing with a real doctor who spent his entire career studying epidemiology, really brings pause to accept his “personal takeaways” of the hearing, instead of just publishing the transcripts of the entire hearing.

Cherry-picking quotes and publishing a Dr Seuss like summary isn’t the same thing.