🐱 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
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.

The stuff I dug up on these people has shocked me to the core. It reads like a bad spy thriller.
  • EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, and Labyrinth Global Health are all joined at the hip. They're all linked together by USAID's Emerging Pandemic Threats program and UC Davis's PREDICT program (which was part of USAID's EPT program and also known as EPT-PREDICT). They're also linked together by the Global Virome Project.
  • When COVID-19 became a pandemic, Peter Daszak was emailing Tammie O'Rourke at Metabiota about blocking disclosure of certain gene sequences that would bring "very unwelcome attention to UC Davis, PREDICT and USAID".
  • Peter Daszak is a CIA asset, according to Andrew Huff, the former VP of EcoHealth Alliance.
  • Andrew Huff has been harassed in his own home by drones scouring his property after he blew the whistle.
  • Nathan Wolfe, the head of Metabiota, was part of EcoHealth Alliance's editorial board, DARPA's now-defunct Defense Science Research Council, and was an associate of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and Boris Nikolic, and was a member of Ghislaine Maxwell's fake ocean charity, TerraMar.
  • Karen Saylors, the CEO of Labyrinth Global Health, has done field work alongside Nathan Wolfe.
  • All of these NGOs appear to be used as money-laundering fronts to allow DTRA and USAID to pour money into foreign biolabs connected to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and conduct gain-of-function/DURC work with minimal oversight.
  • DTRA and their contractors are moving pathogens from lab to lab under a diplomatic cover.







Meanwhile, bioethicists and techies are casually discussing the militarization of biotechnology at West Point's Modern War Institute:



Science journalists are whining because they've been subjected to "harassment" from people who've been placed under forced lockdowns, suffered from loss of employment, travel restrictions, et cetera, without even understanding why.

Imagine how angry the public would be if they knew the full extent of all of this shit in detail.
 
The stuff I dug up on these people has shocked me to the core. It reads like a bad spy thriller.
  • EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, and Labyrinth Global Health are all joined at the hip. They're all linked together by USAID's Emerging Pandemic Threats program and UC Davis's PREDICT program (which was part of USAID's EPT program and also known as EPT-PREDICT). They're also linked together by the Global Virome Project.
  • When COVID-19 became a pandemic, Peter Daszak was emailing Tammie O'Rourke at Metabiota about blocking disclosure of certain gene sequences that would bring "very unwelcome attention to UC Davis, PREDICT and USAID".
  • Peter Daszak is a CIA asset, according to Andrew Huff, the former VP of EcoHealth Alliance.
  • Andrew Huff has been harassed in his own home by drones scouring his property after he blew the whistle.
  • Nathan Wolfe, the head of Metabiota, was part of EcoHealth Alliance's editorial board, DARPA's now-defunct Defense Science Research Council, and was an associate of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and Boris Nikolic, and was a member of Ghislaine Maxwell's fake ocean charity, TerraMar.
  • Karen Saylors, the CEO of Labyrinth Global Health, has done field work alongside Nathan Wolfe.
  • All of these NGOs appear to be used as money-laundering fronts to allow DTRA and USAID to pour money into foreign biolabs connected to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and conduct gain-of-function/DURC work with minimal oversight.
  • DTRA and their contractors are moving pathogens from lab to lab under a diplomatic cover.







Meanwhile, bioethicists and techies are casually discussing the militarization of biotechnology at West Point's Modern War Institute:



Science journalists are whining because they've been subjected to "harassment" from people who've been placed under forced lockdowns, suffered from loss of employment, travel restrictions, et cetera, without even understanding why.

Imagine how angry the public would be if they knew the full extent of all of this shit in detail.
Thanks for the write up. I've been looking into TerraMar and it's got some interesting connections. I'll have to make a post about it soon.

As far as the public, most are so demoralized that no amount of information would change their minds. I've shown this info to others and most just become angry with me for exposing them to it. A few have even admitted it's probably true, but it's better to just go with the "experts" even if they are wrong. To think I used to make fun of my professor who wouldn't shut up about Bezmenov 25 years ago.

I've been lurking for a while now and your posts during 2020 were awesome and very helpful. Thanks for all your hard work and research!
 
Science journalists are the biggest hacks, faggots, boot-lickers and pharma-cocksuckers out there. They barely understand 1st grade biology, don't know what an experiment is, cannot fathom the scientific method and cannot read a scientific paper to save their fucking balls. They fuck up interpreting papers ALL the fucking time.

They take papers, many of which are pilots or preliminary studies not designed for final conclusions, and tout them as the cure for cancer. And then when they don't produce anything because, they're just the first step in a long fucking chain, the journalists blame scientists. Then you have these batshit insane claims of studies, and then when you read them, you have to walk them back.

For fucking YEARS they've been responsible for making scientists look like idiots by constantly reporting contradictory things by completely misunderstanding studies. They do not have the scientific knowledge, background or expertise to report on any of the topics that they are responsible for.

I highly, highly doubt they can accurately describe how to properly pipette, the most basic scientific skill. Let alone the theory and function of a basic instrument like an RT-PCR machine or even what a fucking centrifuge does.

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.
All scientists hate science journalists. Just like all scientists hate the humanities. But scientists hate science journalists more. They're faggots who are uneducated and are constantly responsible for fucking up science reporting so badly that modern day science might as well be black fucking magic. It doesn't help that science education doesn't get 'real' until graduate school or undergrad if you volunteer for a lab (and lol, I would NEVER take an undergraduate on a serious project I'm doing because they will vanish in seconds).

Science journalists are retarded mongoloids who prop up people like Elizabeth Holmes while anyone with half a fucking neuron could have told you her machine violated the basic laws of fucking physics. I hate all journalists, but science journalists are the lowest of the low.

Nowadays, scientists REALLY fucking hate science reporters, because every time there's 'scientist' in a headline, you have to look to see its social science. I mean, all troon research is bad, but I remember when science journalists were bragging tranny axewounds had the same micro-biome as cis women. Then I read the fucking study. The study (in order to basically be published) said the same thing...except they didn't find the one unique organism that makes the vaginal biome unique. Because it isn't present in men. They also found a metric fuckton of e. coli and had to brush off the constant infections. I was just laughing, because the paper, the scientists and anyone versed in science reading it would find the real conclusion, they had to basically word it the other way around or it would never get published. That's the status of troon research. But that's another topic entirely.

Most 'positive' troon research is out of the social 'sciences', which are largely a fucking joke. I've found entire articles published in so called 'prestigious' journals that had 2 references. TWO. That means it was a fucking blog post masquerading as a scientific article. And journalists will report on these as prestigious studies.

If a science journalist has highly accurate and technical information that's largely correct, someone paid that journalist and gave them that information. Its basically an ad from a pharma company. This age old meme describes accurately how science reporting works:

dc5020293d3a32024b5aa2b17a8e9322.gif
 
Last edited:
Science journalists are the biggest hacks, faggots, boot-lickers and pharma-cocksuckers out there. They barely understand 1st grade biology, don't know what an experiment is, cannot fathom the scientific method and cannot read a scientific paper to save their fucking balls. They fuck up interpreting papers ALL the fucking time.

They take papers, many of which are pilots or preliminary studies not designed for final conclusions, and tout them as the cure for cancer. And then when they don't produce anything because, they're just the first step in a long fucking chain, the journalists blame scientists. Then you have these batshit insane claims of studies, and then when you read them, you have to walk them back.

For fucking YEARS they've been responsible for making scientists look like idiots by constantly reporting contradictory things by completely misunderstanding studies. They do not have the scientific knowledge, background or expertise to report on any of the topics that they are responsible for.

I highly, highly doubt they can accurately describe how to properly pipette, the most basic scientific skill. Let alone the theory and function of a basic instrument like an RT-PCR machine or even what a fucking centrifuge does.


All scientists hate science journalists. Just like all scientists hate the humanities. But scientists hate science journalists more. They're faggots who are uneducated and are constantly responsible for fucking up science reporting so badly that modern day science might as well be black fucking magic. It doesn't help that science education doesn't get 'real' until graduate school or undergrad if you volunteer for a lab (and lol, I would NEVER take an undergraduate on a serious project I'm doing because they will vanish in seconds).

Science journalists are retarded mongoloids who prop up people like Elizabeth Holmes while anyone with half a fucking neuron could have told you her machine violated the basic laws of fucking physics. I hate all journalists, but science journalists are the lowest of the low.

Nowadays, scientists REALLY fucking hate science reporters, because every time there's 'scientist' in a headline, you have to look to see its social science. I mean, all troon research is bad, but I remember when science journalists were bragging tranny axewounds had the same micro-biome as cis women. Then I read the fucking study. The study (in order to basically be published) said the same thing...except they didn't find the one unique organism that makes the vaginal biome unique. Because it isn't present in men. They also found a metric fuckton of e. coli and had to brush off the constant infections. I was just laughing, because the paper, the scientists and anyone versed in science reading it would find the real conclusion, they had to basically word it the other way around or it would never get published. That's the status of troon research. But that's another topic entirely.

Most 'positive' troon research is out of the social 'sciences', which are largely a fucking joke. I've found entire articles published in so called 'prestigious' journals that had 2 references. TWO. That means it was a fucking blog post masquerading as a scientific article. And journalists will report on these as prestigious studies.

If a science journalist has highly accurate and technical information that's largely correct, someone paid that journalist and gave them that information. Its basically an ad from a pharma company. This age old meme describes accurately how science reporting works:

View attachment 3361017
To be fair, the profession of science journalism itself is kind of like a litmus test for stupidity. After all, if they knew science well enough to report on it accurately, then they would be gainfully employed as scientists, and not journalists, since it pays better.
 
Scientists and journalists should be fucking afraid.
That's what you get for treating the public like a petri dish or a toilet in which to discharge your unfiltered dogshit opinion.

Fucking cunts.
You have no idea about the climate in science. Science is now fiercely political and towing lines can find yourself defunded, isolated and without any opportunity for employment.

These sort of opinions make lots and lots of money for certain people. And it's not like the other side is rational. I got called out because I do COVID PCR and testing analytics for money and I was accused of 'profiting off tragedy' because they didn't think it was a big deal when it can be a debilitating illness to certain groups.

Then when I recommended vaccines when there was only anecdotal evidence at the time and the research seemed solid I got called out yet again. I never advocated for vaccines for adolescents and children, just people 20+.

When the Pfizer documents changes and I altered my opinion based on current, analytical data, people were shocked and made a pikachu face.

I hate to rain on your parade, but that's exactly what science is. And in this environment there is absolutely no room for actual scientific knowledge and method. People wonder why scientists just give up explaining things to the public and let retarded people do it. This is why.

I'd rather remain in lab and never interact with fucking mongoloids who don't understand one iota of science and are incapable of real analysis of scientific papers and think an abstract or paper title is enough.

I have read front to back over a thousand scientific papers. Just because you can pull up a database and smugly point to an abstract you clearly don't understand doesn't mean fucking shit. Let alone an abstract from journals where you have to pay to get published, which is the biggest red flag in the world.

EDIT:
Also realize 2 very important things: Nearly all scientific funding comes from government. There are very few truly independent private research groups and they are usually in highly specialized diseases. Other so called independent research is done by corporations and is almost always suspect.

The libtard ideal of 'charities' funding ideas is so naive it is like a proposition made by a child.

The vast majority of grants with any real money come from the government. Usually, if it's not a hot button topic, you can get lucky and have relative independence. But again, you are beholden to the government. True, unimpeded research is difficult to see. Because of money, because of the publish or perish mentality, and something not working or wrong or not significant doesn't get published.

The libertarian idea of wealthy people chipping in for the benefit of humanity is like a 5 year olds understanding of the wealthy and the way things are actually done.
 
Last edited:
I remember when journalists got shot at and had mortars going off next to them and they didn't whine about it. Someone disagrees with these pansy asses and they cry and quit.
Niggas out there thinking shit like this really believe themself not retarded
This isn't a thing (at least not how they make it out to be) and they need to to be called out for it. Outside of things like gravity existing, Earth being a spheroid, and that the humanities suck, scientists don't all agree on shit. What they really mean by scientific consensus is ideological consensus.
Vastly depends on the specifics, and this heavely read like a cope
 
The stuff I dug up on these people has shocked me to the core. It reads like a bad spy thriller.
  • EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, and Labyrinth Global Health are all joined at the hip. They're all linked together by USAID's Emerging Pandemic Threats program and UC Davis's PREDICT program (which was part of USAID's EPT program and also known as EPT-PREDICT). They're also linked together by the Global Virome Project.
  • When COVID-19 became a pandemic, Peter Daszak was emailing Tammie O'Rourke at Metabiota about blocking disclosure of certain gene sequences that would bring "very unwelcome attention to UC Davis, PREDICT and USAID".
  • Peter Daszak is a CIA asset, according to Andrew Huff, the former VP of EcoHealth Alliance.
  • Andrew Huff has been harassed in his own home by drones scouring his property after he blew the whistle.
  • Nathan Wolfe, the head of Metabiota, was part of EcoHealth Alliance's editorial board, DARPA's now-defunct Defense Science Research Council, and was an associate of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and Boris Nikolic, and was a member of Ghislaine Maxwell's fake ocean charity, TerraMar.
  • Karen Saylors, the CEO of Labyrinth Global Health, has done field work alongside Nathan Wolfe.
  • All of these NGOs appear to be used as money-laundering fronts to allow DTRA and USAID to pour money into foreign biolabs connected to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and conduct gain-of-function/DURC work with minimal oversight.
  • DTRA and their contractors are moving pathogens from lab to lab under a diplomatic cover.







Meanwhile, bioethicists and techies are casually discussing the militarization of biotechnology at West Point's Modern War Institute:



Science journalists are whining because they've been subjected to "harassment" from people who've been placed under forced lockdowns, suffered from loss of employment, travel restrictions, et cetera, without even understanding why.

Imagine how angry the public would be if they knew the full extent of all of this shit in detail.
This is the kind of quality autistic focus I come here for. And in one post you’ve done more science journalism than the press does in a year.
Science journalists are the biggest hacks, faggots, boot-lickers and pharma-cocksuckers out there. They barely understand 1st grade biology, don't know what an experiment is, cannot fathom the scientific method and cannot read a scientific paper to save their fucking balls. They fuck up interpreting papers ALL the fucking time.

They take papers, many of which are pilots or preliminary studies not designed for final conclusions, and tout them as the cure for cancer. And then when they don't produce anything because, they're just the first step in a long fucking chain, the journalists blame scientists. Then you have these batshit insane claims of studies, and then when you read them, you have to walk them back.

For fucking YEARS they've been responsible for making scientists look like idiots by constantly reporting contradictory things by completely misunderstanding studies. They do not have the scientific knowledge, background or expertise to report on any of the topics that they are responsible for.

I highly, highly doubt they can accurately describe how to properly pipette, the most basic scientific skill. Let alone the theory and function of a basic instrument like an RT-PCR machine or even what a fucking centrifuge does.


All scientists hate science journalists. Just like all scientists hate the humanities. But scientists hate science journalists more. They're faggots who are uneducated and are constantly responsible for fucking up science reporting so badly that modern day science might as well be black fucking magic. It doesn't help that science education doesn't get 'real' until graduate school or undergrad if you volunteer for a lab (and lol, I would NEVER take an undergraduate on a serious project I'm doing because they will vanish in seconds).

Science journalists are retarded mongoloids who prop up people like Elizabeth Holmes while anyone with half a fucking neuron could have told you her machine violated the basic laws of fucking physics. I hate all journalists, but science journalists are the lowest of the low.

Nowadays, scientists REALLY fucking hate science reporters, because every time there's 'scientist' in a headline, you have to look to see its social science. I mean, all troon research is bad, but I remember when science journalists were bragging tranny axewounds had the same micro-biome as cis women. Then I read the fucking study. The study (in order to basically be published) said the same thing...except they didn't find the one unique organism that makes the vaginal biome unique. Because it isn't present in men. They also found a metric fuckton of e. coli and had to brush off the constant infections. I was just laughing, because the paper, the scientists and anyone versed in science reading it would find the real conclusion, they had to basically word it the other way around or it would never get published. That's the status of troon research. But that's another topic entirely.

Most 'positive' troon research is out of the social 'sciences', which are largely a fucking joke. I've found entire articles published in so called 'prestigious' journals that had 2 references. TWO. That means it was a fucking blog post masquerading as a scientific article. And journalists will report on these as prestigious studies.

If a science journalist has highly accurate and technical information that's largely correct, someone paid that journalist and gave them that information. Its basically an ad from a pharma company. This age old meme describes accurately how science reporting works:

View attachment 3361017
Up to the last but one panel, I had this EXACT scenario happen in my old lab. To the point I’m going to look up who drew it.
 
Back