888 Fined Over £7.8m

[wjb316]

Another example of this - there was a girl, body builder (I'm talking natural bikini category, not figure/body builder category), a week or two ago in Oz who died. Every article I see online says she died from drinking protein shakes, and everyone going on and on saying they're bad and they should be banned. Although she died drinking protein shakes, they were not the actual cause of death. She died because she had a disease where her body had an issue breaking down protein. So even if she ate too much meat the same thing would have happened. It makes me angry because misinformed people will take what they want from a story and preach it as truth. I've been body building for a few years, and I know a few people with the same disease. When they have too much protein, even just a bit, they get really sick. She should have seen the signs. Then there were 2 body builders who were CLEARLY roided up who died last week, probably as a direct result of actually injecting steroids and noone bats an eyelid. Again, W T F.
Anyway just another example to go with yours about misinformation and sensationalism. Drives me nuts.

Yup. Anything you read in a typical media source regarding fitness is bound to have you scratching your head wondering how in the hell someone so totally, completely ignorant and biased could have gotten the idea they were qualified to write on this topic. Then you remember how many "journalists" today are just 23-year-old recent graduate snowflakes brow-beaten to produce content that gets clicks. Journalism today has basically been reduced to content farming.

And of course, these idiots are the ones who designate themselves the sole authority on what is "fake news," which coincidentally just happens to leads to the conclusion that all other sources of information and opinions should be banned, except for their own dying organizations.

I also present the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect:

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward–reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story–and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.


But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."