🐱 Trolling Is Taking a Toll on Science Journalism

CatParty


  • Like journalists who cover other polarising beats, science journalists say they are being targeted with digital provocations and hate and report their newsrooms are doing little to protect them.
  • One reporter said in an interview that she has become less inclined to cover topics that she feels are likely to draw the ire of online trolls: “To be very honest, the harassment works to a degree.”
  • Journalists are particularly exposed on social media, where they may not have the formal backing of their news organisation, and could be subjected to pile-on harassment.
  • There are insufficient resources to assist journalists with legal and security issues, especially for freelancers, reporters working remotely and those working for organisations with limited resources.

For the past several years, we’ve watched with rising concern as journalists in the United States and abroad have been increasingly subjected to online harassment. As journalism professors specialising in science reporting and violence against the press at George Washington University, we have researched, observed, and written about the rising trend in anti-press attacks through email, instant messages, social media, and other digital channels. Sadly, online attacks and threats have become the new normal in many newsrooms, with the result being that journalists are subject to a form of mob censorship.

Late last year, we began conducting a series of in-depth interviews – 10 in total – to learn specifically how online harassment is affecting journalists who cover science. We spoke with science journalists and editors, asking them about the types of digital attacks they have received, as well as the content of those attacks, among other questions. Because these interviews were done as part of a research study, we’ve kept the names confidential in accordance with rules governing research with human subjects.

In aggregate, the story they told was disheartening: Like journalists who cover politics and other polarising beats, science journalists say they are being targeted with digital provocations and hate, and report their newsrooms are doing little, if anything, to protect them.

We spoke with reporters who said they repeatedly received harassing phone calls from readers. In some cases, scary, accusatory messages would arrive by the hundreds on Twitter, Instagram and by email. Women appeared to bear the brunt of these attacks.

What’s especially discouraging is that science journalists can be subjected to messages that show little, if any, regard for facts. Journalists we spoke to said they had been targeted by people who deny the existence of COVID-19 or climate change, or who otherwise uphold anti-science views or believe in conspiracies. One person we spoke with described being messaged in an accusatory tone, “like, I’m just pushing the, the liberal narrative. And that I’m part of the conspiracy about climate change.”

These barrages of digital harassment have toxic consequences. The journalists we’ve talked to say it has made them feel unsafe. For some science journalists, it has contributed to a sense of burnout that may make them consider leaving the profession altogether – or moving to other beats. And for those who stay, it can alter the way they cover the beat.

“To be very honest, the harassment works to a degree,” said one reporter, who added that she has become less inclined to cover topics that she feels are likely to draw the ire of online trolls. “To the degree where it silences me on Twitter and limits the number of stories I want to write on these topics – it works.”

Journalists are particularly exposed on social media, where they may not have the formal backing of their news organisation, and could be subjected to pile-on harassment. Social media has become a key way that journalists cultivate their professional credentials and reputation, and that reputation can suffer an undeserved hit if someone hurls baseless accusations, tries to turn scientific consensus into false controversies, or disparages a journalist because of their gender, ethnicity, religion, race, or other aspect of social identity.

What is being done about this disturbing online harassment of science journalists? Not enough.

The reporters we interviewed say that most employers are woefully unprepared. News outlets might respond to harassment with knee-jerk reactions, like disabling comments on stories or taking down the emails of reporters from their website, but overall, their support remains limited, say the journalists we talked with. “I think a lot of journalistic outlets right now don’t know how to handle this sort of level of harassment,” said one person we interviewed.

Some newsrooms offer general digital safety training, but those may address topics – like how to avoid scams and how to protect personal identity – that aren’t directly geared toward confronting online abuses and attacks.

As a result, reporters can be left to wrestle with the consequences of online harassment by themselves. While there are some resources to assist journalists with legal and security issues, they are not enough. This is especially true for freelancers, reporters who work remotely and journalists who work for organisations with limited resources. Freelancers and journalists who work remotely, in particular, lack physical and institutional spaces like newsrooms where they can discuss and come up with ways to address instances of online harassment. Gig journalism, as it were, has deepened many reporters’ sense of disconnection and aloneness.

Even when these journalists are lucky enough to get limited counsel and support, it can come down to them to make excruciatingly difficult choices about how to respond: Dial back social media presence? Avoid science stories that will be sucked into the vortex of ideological battles? Refrain from quoting scientific institutions and experts at the center of current cultural wars?


It would be misguided to treat these questions as a matter of individual choices made by science reporters. This is a collective problem that requires collective solutions, especially given the current climate of polarisation around science issues. As heated debates over masking, vaccines, and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated, science does not occupy a pristine space above politics; rather, it is often drawn into the mucky battlefields of cultural wars.

It is up to news organisations to own the problem of online harassment in science journalism. For starters, they need to recognise the scope of the problem and its consequences, listen to reporters’ concerns, and document attacks. It will also be important for them to collaborate with social media platforms to discuss ways to protect journalists, and to develop and fund support networks that can assist journalists who are dealing with harassment.

This problem affects all of us. The public’s right to know suffers when reporters avoid covering scientific topics out of fear. And science journalists bear a heavy burden when they are subjected to a barrage of insults and hate simply for doing their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Something tells me those whining the loudest are doing the poorest work.

I also suspect many of the scientific journalists spoken to are neither scientific nor are they journalists in the true sense of the word.

It was probably a mistake to weaponize your industry. I am pretty sure you were warned about doing it but went ahead anyway.
 
People with bully pulpit annoyed that the little people can now bully them back; more at 11.

Everytime I read one of these "woe is me" articles from a journoroach, I get a couple weeks younger. It's the most "they cry out as they strike you" thing ever. Their anguish sustains me.
Even when these journalists are lucky enough to get limited counsel and support, it can come down to them to make excruciatingly difficult choices about how to respond: Dial back social media presence?
Lel, "excruciatingly difficult"... the only social media I have is kiwi farms and LinkedIn. Have you tried just not being terminally online faggots?
 
It’s really simple to stop the ‘trolls’.

Stop lying.​

To be fair, there's some scientific reporting which will always get you death threats and crazies trying to destroy your life, no matter how meticulous your work is in reporting only on the truth.

But I suspect none of ten journalists interviewed, or the article itself, is intended to be about the instant troon hysteria that occurs if a reporter dares to mildly disagree, let alone the ones who have tried to report accurately on the issue - such as that you can't change your biological sex but troons honestly believe you can.
 
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.- Thomas Jefferson

“The lowest depth to which people can sink before God is defined by the word “Journalist”. If I were a father and had a daughter who was seduced, I should not despair over her; I would hope for her salvation. But if I had a son who became a journalist and continued to be one for five years, I would give him up" - Kirkregaard

And these two quotes are just off the top of my head any thinker of note since 1650 or so has expressed similiar views on the press.
I'm obsessive with anything 18th Century. It's such a fun period of time to learn about because the leaders and men who changed the world had their histories mostly well documented.

So I had to find that quote from Jefferson and with Google and a helpful redditor found it here. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.
And there's truth to this. The news is made to entertain, only a fraction ever actually educates.

And laugh at me all you want I madly appreciate a decent youtube documentarian like Cold Fusion over 99% of Journalists. Journalists don't bother to tell you that Telegram is in fucking Russia so why the hell would you believe a "security" app like that is worth your trust?
 
Well maybe if you limp wristed faggots reported on legit scientific findings, instead of clickbait "science" or propagandist (((science))), I wouldn't feel so compelled to drop a fat shit in your comment sections.
 
Good, now if only trolls could get other journalists like this,. Science journalism should be objective almost like stating the weather, but instead of stating the current happenings and maybe including some background on the subject, these mongs have to include their room temperature IQ opinions or they're whores who can be bought for next to nothing, so they polish the pole of whoever paid them in the article. Now if only trolls fucked with publishing companies, I'd love to see the end of that racket, the "publish or perish" mind set is totally artificial and only exists so those greedy fucks can make money off the backs of others.
 
So let me get this straight, you're intimidated by people who let's be honest probably don't know what the fuck they're talking about? These trolls are just repeating the talking points from some other douche on the internet who may or may not be educated in the subject argued.

Did you fancypants Science Journalists never hear of Galileo? You know the guy who said the Earth revolves around the sun? That was so controversial that the Church "trolled" him and they knew how to fucking troll. For two decades they fucked with him and eventually ruined his career via trial, they banned his books and stopped him from teaching. They then made him live the last 9 years of his life in House Arrest.

So are we saying that people are so weak today that they can't deal with mean randos on Twitter? When there have been men who will fight bitterly for the truth? Or perhaps the science "news" is such fradulent shit that deep down you're scared of facing ridicule for promoting garbage?

I know that I would be highly embarrassed if I masqueraded as a journalist and helped legitimize scams like Theranos or Elon Musk's stupid Hyperloop. Which they've done.
Galileo was a retard who refused to produce evidence supporting his theory when asked and did the equivalent of a Gawker Reporter at his trial. He provoked one pope by calling him a retard when the guy was a asking for evidence of heliocentric solar system, the next one didn’t want to deal with him, and the last was his friend who allowed him to teach and leave the house.

In short Galileo was like a modern journalist in that he didn’t offer any proof of shit and only was vindicated by chance.
 
Galileo was a retard who refused to produce evidence supporting his theory when asked and did the equivalent of a Gawker Reporter at his trial. He provoked one pope by calling him a retard when the guy was a asking for evidence of heliocentric solar system, the next one didn’t want to deal with him, and the last was his friend who allowed him to teach and leave the house.

In short Galileo was like a modern journalist in that he didn’t offer any proof of shit and only was vindicated by chance.
As always when Galileo is mentioned I highly encourage people to read The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown a very well written account of the whole autistic slap fight, tl;dr no one comes out looking well.
 
Turns out it was another grossly exaggerated fatality modelling from one Neil Ferguson; the same arch-cunt who predicted catastrophic levels of COVID-19 deaths which were of course out by orders of fucking magnitude.

Neil Ferguson was also behind the Swine flu panic and the resultant vaccine, Pandemrix, that gave children and NHS nurses an autoimmune form of narcolepsy and cataplexy. They were assured that the vaccine was safe. He should have been hung in 2011, definitely should have been hung in 2021.
Ferguson is a tad suspect. He’s been behind some of the events which now look suspiciously like test runs for locking people down and destroying livelihoods. For those who don’t know, there were out breaks of foot and mouth in livestock and he destroyed MILLIONS of animals and prevented travel and access to areas - you literally couldn’t access half the countryside for months.
But there’s more. He seems to have some links to far left globalist lobby groups. His married lover, whom he was caught visiting during covid when he’d locked the whole country down is Antonia Staats. https://archive.ph/QY4oU
Antonia is a left wing activist who works in a key role for the lobbying group Avaaz. Who are avaaz? Well, they ARE interesting. Fingers in all sorts of pies. Not just climate change but spin around various regional wars. They are, in short, exactly the kind of body who enact the globalist narrative and ruin lives. Read this
It seems likely to me that he is linked to a radicalised group who drive political change through lobbying and are obsessed with climate change. So why was no due diligence done about who was sat in the SAGE committee?
Anyway, there are no scientific journalists left in the wild. They are all extinct and what passes as science journalism these days is politics.
 
Ferguson is a tad suspect. He’s been behind some of the events which now look suspiciously like test runs for locking people down and destroying livelihoods. For those who don’t know, there were out breaks of foot and mouth in livestock and he destroyed MILLIONS of animals and prevented travel and access to areas - you literally couldn’t access half the countryside for months.
But there’s more. He seems to have some links to far left globalist lobby groups. His married lover, whom he was caught visiting during covid when he’d locked the whole country down is Antonia Staats. https://archive.ph/QY4oU
Antonia is a left wing activist who works in a key role for the lobbying group Avaaz. Who are avaaz? Well, they ARE interesting. Fingers in all sorts of pies. Not just climate change but spin around various regional wars. They are, in short, exactly the kind of body who enact the globalist narrative and ruin lives. Read this
It seems likely to me that he is linked to a radicalised group who drive political change through lobbying and are obsessed with climate change. So why was no due diligence done about who was sat in the SAGE committee?
Anyway, there are no scientific journalists left in the wild. They are all extinct and what passes as science journalism these days is politics.
Oh yes, he has been crying wolf for a while. What gets me is his mathematical model was complete garbage that was obviously designed to output the result he wanted. He tried to hide it and spent several weeks having his grad students try to clean it up and make it look like less of a Rube Goldberg machine and even then it was still obvious.

Here is an interesting article connecting Fauci, Gates, and Ferguson to WEF and intelligence agencies.
 
we've come a long way, fellas

troll.png
 
Oh yes, he has been crying wolf for a while. What gets me is his mathematical model was complete garbage that was obviously designed to output the result he wanted. He tried to hide it and spent several weeks having his grad students try to clean it up and make it look like less of a Rube Goldberg machine and even then it was still obvious.

Here is an interesting article connecting Fauci, Gates, and Ferguson to WEF and intelligence agencies.
Interesting. Mentions metabiota - weren’t they in the hunter Biden emails as well? Tangled web, eh?
 
Interesting. Mentions metabiota - weren’t they in the hunter Biden emails as well? Tangled web, eh?
Yes, they were. I have a copy of those and I need to sit down and go through them when I get done with posting about my new cow. But metabiota might also have ties to WEF, the Ukraine biolabs, In-Q-Tel, World Bank, the 2014 WHO Ebola fuckup, Pentagon, & EcoHealth Alliance. This is just a quick search & I haven't had time to dig into these articles, so take with a grain of salt. But I bet @Drain Todger has a full writeup somewhere.
 
You know what's also an important part of scientific research?

Observation.

As in, I don't need to prove that a bird can fly when I'm seeing it doing it. You can stand in front of an auditorium full of nerds and say "I observed 100 birds and 99 of them can fly" and people would accept that.

You know who can observe things? People. Normal people can see what a woman is, and you journo scam insist on saying a man with a dick, balls, and beard is a woman... and then have the nerve to complain that you're trolled?
 
You cannot be anti-science by questioning scientific conclusions. There is almost no such thing as 'settled science' because we can definitively prove almost nothing. Despite what people believe we actually cannot even prove that gravity is what we think it is (we can prove that things fall to the ground when released in mid-air, we cannot prove why they do) or that germs cause sickness (we can prove that certain kinds of bacteria are present with certain kinds of infections and when they aren't present the infection goes away, but we cannot prove they are causing the infection). And these are some of the most well accepted things that people would assume are actually proven. We don't actually understand atoms and molecules, let alone electrons and their bretheren - and we can barely even photograph any of them. People would, actually, probably be a bit freaked out of they realized how much of what they simply accept as proven and known fact is just scientists shrugging and saying 'well we can't come up with a better answer and this seems right, so sure, that's how it works'

To pretend that somehow far less well explored scientific subjects like covid-19, climate change, or whatever else they're pushing at the time is somehow 'settled science' and questioning their findings is inherently anti-science is itself absolutely anti-science. Science is about questioning the world around us, challenging assumptions and unfounded conclusions, and then continuing to re-examine and question even the most well-established things until there's absolutely no way it can be anything other than what we've determined.

And then doing it again when our technology improves and we can see what's inside a neutron or a quark or actually explore deep space or dig into the core of the planet to see what's actually inside it.
 
Speaking as a man of science, I have more vitriol for scientific journalism than your average punter.

I have to listen to these hacks and agenda-driven propagandist tools bend fundamental, irrevocable truths - increasingly shamelessly - and then watch them stand there trying to redefine the concept of a ‘vaccination’; persuade us that men without full female reproductive organs can get pregnant & maintain full gestation, and predicting another date in the seemingly endlessly postponement of fuel depletion/climate disaster.

The big swing for me came with the Foot and Mouth outbreak debacle in the UK during the 2000s, which saw scores of livestock destroyed thanks to dreadfully inaccurate scientific information - journalism driven, natch. Turns out it was another grossly exaggerated fatality modelling from one Neil Ferguson; the same arch-cunt who predicted catastrophic levels of COVID-19 deaths which were of course out by orders of fucking magnitude. Since then, whenever I’ve been skeptical about ‘the science’ in any major event, I have without fail been proven correct.
Welcome to the Farms. You beautiful niggerfaggot.
 
"Anti-press" attacks lmfao, they want to be victims so badly, fucking propagandists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otterly
Back