Quite frankly, whenever I hear so-called “news”-anchors yip-yapping about how “experts say” something-or-other, or how a “study shows” something-or-other — I know enough to disregard the preceding statement as utterly unsubstantiated.
- The “news”-outlets never provide backstory with regard to the methodology used in the specific “studies”, themselves. (Sample size, duration, whether or not the results of that particular “study” conflict with the results supposedly observed by other suich “studies”, etc.
- Same objection goes with regard to the assertion of “expertise”. I have absolutely way to confirm whether the (unnamed) sources/propagandists are “experts”, or not.
Almost nobody bothers to remember the “more doctors smoke Camels” bullshit:
Quite frankly, I’ve come to the (reasonable) conclusion that at least 90% of these putative “studies” released by “experts” are most likely thinly-disguised press releases, and/or a subspecies of Neo-Pavlovian conditioning.
For example, if our (Transnational) Corporate Overlords need to boost consumption of a specific food (say, eggs, or Flounder, or whatever), this can be readily accomplished by ensuring that “experts” release a “study” asserting some (deliberately nebulous and undefined) benefit correlates with consumption of said foodstuff.
Given that a mere 15% of the population is considered “proficient readers” (Ie: 85% of the population is either fully-, or semi-illiterate) and too credulous to actually bother to check up on the myriad of “studies” cranked out by so-called “experts”, it is pretty much guaranteed that at least a small subset of the target-demographic will uncritically begin consuming (or refraining from consuming) that specific item.
Or maybe I’m just paranoid. 🙂