Meteorologist Calls out Media’s Effort Against ‘Misinformation’ for Lacking Transparency – Opinion

If they resort to the exact same techniques they criticize, it must be declared false information.

To start, some backstory. Social media has a different standard for our work than conservative outlets, such as this one. When reporting about stories concerning COVID and the climate, this is something we are well aware of. We know that our work will be automatically audited so it is important that we ensure everything we do is referenced. And even then, a fully accurate piece can be flagged as ‘’misinformation,’, because the provable facts divert from an approved narrative.

However, fact-checkers and verifiers who are asked to point out problems don’t have to adhere to the same strict rules of factual presentation. The reality of this has been addressed. meteorologist and PhD recipient, Ryan Maue. A recent Twitter thread by him points out an egregious violation of the misinformation system in which platforms and news media outlets fight messaging using the exact same tactic that they hate. They claim they are fighting misinformation through misinformation.

Maue mentions a USA Today article that stated that there was still misinformation about climate on social media despite claims that the biggest platforms have made efforts to stop the spread of inaccurate or dangerous content. First, this article shows a flaw in its approach. It states that misinformation is the reason many attempts to make climate policy more effective. This is an assertion supported by Michael Mann. Mann is a well-known name in the climate movement that has given blatantly false climate information.

This article is about a research done by Advance Democracy (AD) that found large amounts of incorrect information on social media. This trend was first noticed last summer, and it has been ongoing throughout the year.

Advance Democracy says the number of posts with climate change denial terms such as “climate fraud,” “climate change hoax,” or “climate cult” increased after the climate topic was introduced and averaged 679 a day in the second half of 2021. Advance Democracy has found that climate denial has risen during the U.N. Climate Change Summit 26.

A number of outlets have picked up the USA Today article. Maue mentions that Jessica Guynn wrote the identical article six months ago. It contained almost all of the same declarations, however, it was written in 2020. Again, Maue cites Advance Democracy findings. The information provided to the paper stated the various issues detected on social media, but here is where things get revealing — or, more accurately, get obfuscated. Guynn states that only the report received from the outfit was shared, however there’s no direct link or indication to the actual report.

Maue displays that Guynn articles share the same storyline as Guynn and includes AD’s findings. The Advance Democracy website also shows this to be true. The outfit appears to be coy about their data, studies and methodology, despite making many similar declarations.

Advance Democracy, Inc.

Daniel Jones, president of Advance Democracy, says climate misinformation that obfuscates or downplays the threat to human life is delaying “necessary policy reforms worldwide.”

This website is missing content. https://t.co/CPtprFZ7iY

— Ryan | Forecast (@RyanMaue) January 22, 2022

Look at the current situation. One small group has made bold claims that they are the cause of all the action over many years. The report has been picked up by all media outlets and seems to have an influence on the social media platform decisions. But the study itself is never made public. The actual study may exist, however, the report is not provided after many years. Why don’t the methods and metrics of the study be provided?

When this is an environment where particular news sites have to be extremely diligent in reporting and fact delivery – and can still be flagged as misinformation – it is remarkably revealing that on the other side, there is no such insistence on veracity. Simply making statements is not enough, so long as they support the narrative.