Do you have examples of stories where the facts were "exceedingly, horrendously, tragically bad" and were published without any retraction?

Here’s an example: https://twitter.com/Kellen_Browning/status/14298996527452201...

Despite being called out that the data was being misrepresented, they never updated the article.

The idea that Russia and a Ukraine supply 25% of the wheat in the world and they don’t correct that is egregious.

The Chicago bureau chief being off by 6% in a tweet is an example of "exceedingly, horrendously, tragically bad?" The story clearly says "because of Covid."

The tweet's claim is "...the statistic is misrepresented. The 13% number only captures people who worked from home BECAUSE OF CORONAVIRUS." That's exactly what it says in the story.

> Do you have examples of stories

The writer of the story said only 13% of people worked from home. The real number is 32%.

Yes I do.

And the weasel words don’t help here. Once the damage is done, a retraction cannot undo it.

Wen Ho Lee was in solitary confinement for nine months under threat of possible execution for things he did not do based in large part on drama whipped up (and never fully retracted imho, not that that matters one fucking bit for the nine months and other impacts on him and his family) by the early NYT reporting on his case.

The NYT has an agenda to under-report the number of COVID infections?

I'm not speaking specifically about the examples the author provided, just the fact that the author actually lends any credibility to the NYT as being honest with any of their reporting in general. Maybe 10 years ago. Not today. The NYT of today is not the same that it used to be.

Agreed, this example goes against your narrative.

That's a huge claim to make without any evidence at all, interesting opinion I guess.

They are definitely not "it's [sic] most prestigious" market, but they inspire admiration among other devs

What? Do you mean SSRIs specifically? Or are you including SNRIs, α2 blockers, MAO inhibitors etc? Do you have any evidence to support this or just anecdotes?

The parent comment draws an important difference between the use of psychedelic therapy and, say, ECT. I support this research but "Big Psychiatry just wants the cash!" is a reddit-level of nuance we can do without please.

This is too broad a statement to support with evidence. This study was specifically about treatment-resistant chronic depression and the measured effects on the brain.

What's being described in the study is not self-reflection but serotonergic psychedelics' effects on the 5-HT2A receptors in the brain. For example, escitalopram (Lexapro) may help with self-reflection as well but this study was specifically studying patients with treatment-resistant depression.

The study doesn't describe self-reflection, but that doesn't mean that the subjects of the study didn't engage in it.

I'd be very surprised if they didn't.