[coin]

> The Poison Papers is a project of The Bioscience Resource Project and The Center for Media and Democracy.

Center for Media and Democracy has a bias against pesticides and conventional agriculture. CMD runs Sourcewatch.org, which has no problem attacking scientists (like Kevin Folta) that speak favorably of biotech (GMOs), but conveniently has no entry USRTK, an organic funded advocacy group. This is is because CMD's executive director Lisa Graves sits on the board of USRTK.

I don't trust CMD to present a balanced, evidence based view of things.

[culi]

I don't see what your point is with bringing up Kevin Folta... He's also been criticized by the New York Times[0] and articles published in Nature[1]. I feel like criticizing his industry connections is pretty uncontroversial

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted...

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18146

[coin]

My point is that CMD is quick to attack Kevin Folta (speaks favorably of conventional ag), but fail have same level of investigation of USRTK or Charles Benbrook[0] (university professor who sat the board of various organic organizations and takes money to write pro-organic studies). Why aren't then giving Benbrook the same coverage as Folta? My point is they pick who to watch based on their agenda.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Benbrook

[sammalloy]

Sourcewatch cites reliable sources alleging Folta has a conflict of interest as an industry spokesperson. How in the world does that make CMD biased?

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta

I don’t see how your position could possibly be tenable.

[coin]

Many of the sources have CMD ties (Carey Gillam who works for USRTK), are anti-GMO activist groups (GM Watch), have financial interests (Rachel Parent makes money from her anti-GMO views, her parents sell natural products), or law firms suing Monsanto.

[inter_netuser]

with this much money at stake, absolutely nothing, including courts, will present a balanced and evidence based view of things. EVER.

It's an unachievable idea.

Maybe, if someone is being viciously attacked by both sides, then maybe, just maybe ~10%, or so, of what they say is unbiased, but it's still hard to disentangle that apart from the wrong/incorrect/biased other things they said.

[Mathnerd314]

I'm optimistic about Wikipedia. The popularity means if an important fact is missing it will get added, and the entrenched interests mean the fact will get reverted if it isn't balanced. Hence an article presenting a balanced, complete viewpoint is the steady state. But of course the article isn't guaranteed to reach that state.

[culi]

I've spent hundreds of hours editing Wikipedia and have come out really pessimistic about the whole thing. In fact, I'd say that everyone I know who's actually pessimistic about Wikipedia also have tons of hours of experience editing

[inter_netuser]

Can confirm. It used to be much better in early days, but deteriorated over the years to the point where I have to be sceptical about it.

Editorial slant is very real.

[wolverine876]

> I'm optimistic about Wikipedia. The popularity means if an important fact is missing it will get added, and the entrenched interests mean the fact will get reverted if it isn't balanced.

That was the hope for Wikipedia, but my experience editing it is the opposite: Editing disagreements are interminable, enormously time-consuming, legalistic free-for-alls, and whoever is most willing and able to spend their days fighting them, wins. That is usually the more radical or politically motivated person or party, some of them clearly acting for outside interested parties. The editors often participate and support such people.

You can find many descriptions of the same thing. Just search around.

[wolverine876]

> with this much money at stake, absolutely nothing, including courts, will present a balanced and evidence based view of things. EVER.

Sorry you feel that way but what basis is there for believing it? What does it mean? Nothing is perfect, of course, but there are enormous differences between, e.g., an honest person (everyone lies) and a sociopathic fraud.

And certainly we always need to read critically and think for ourselves - it's our duty as citizens, IMHO - again that doesn't mean everything is so biased.

In the past I would have just smiled at it and moved on, but now, with baseless despair engulfing our society, I am going to challenge it. The only thing we have to despair about is despair itself!

[inter_netuser]

My basis is simple. Very unfortunately, I've spent a lifetime working for people in the highest echelons of power, and for some captains of industry. I've watched C-level of some corps you all know simply lie outright to their own legal counsel on quite literally daily basis.

You won't find honest men there at high noon with a flashlight.

Sure, honest men exist, but they don't have any real power or influence, and the congress doesn't care about their opinion: https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congr...

Assuming everything is biased isn't despair. That's just the natural state of the world, and an axiom that has served me well.

Semper bonus homo tiro est.

[wolverine876]

> I've spent a lifetime working for people in the highest echelons of power, and for some captains of industry. I've watched C-level of some corps you all know simply lie outright to their own legal counsel on quite literally daily basis.

That isn't more meaningful than saying all people are biased. In both cases, there are vast differences in degree, and those differences contain all the meaning and significance. Some people and some information are vastly more biased than others. Sean Hannity is not the same as PBS News Hour. Elon Musk is not the same as Tim Cook. Marjorie Taylor Green is not the same as Mitt Romney.

Life is about deciding who to trust and thinking critically. 'Everybody lies' is the claim of liars, who not only want to normalize their abnormal behavior but also bring down honest people.

Hyperbole may be satisfying, but it tells us nothing but the emotion of the speaker. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding - they don't know anything more than a vastly overgeneralized claim (though maybe the speaker is just not expressing what they know).

(Also, most information in the world doesn't come from C-level corporate executives.)