Stories that lead with 'Experts:' often rely on a narrow slice of authority to sell a counterintuitive take, flattening uncertainty into a confident claim. Singal’s 2016 pieces used a contrarian source to declare sex addiction 'not real,' a framing he now flags as overreach.
— It gives readers and editors a practical heuristic to spot epistemically weak science coverage that shapes public beliefs.
Cremieux
2025.10.09
68% relevant
The article spotlights repeated cases where oenophile experts and prestige labels were contradicted by blind evaluations (1976 Paris tasting and later replications), echoing the caution that confident expert framings often rest on narrow authority and can mask bias.
David Josef Volodzko
2025.09.03
90% relevant
The article shows headlines like 'scholars say genocide' flatten uncertainty by presenting an 86% approval without revealing only 28% of members voted, exemplifying how 'experts say' framing oversells authority.
Chris Bray
2025.09.01
70% relevant
Like Singal’s critique of overconfident 'Experts:' framings, Bray shows a New York Times columnist confidently misdescribes the Cracker Barrel story by omitting the company’s stated $700M 'strategic transformation' and founder/investor backlash, illustrating how authoritative tone can mask weak evidentiary grounding.
Scott Mourtgos
2025.08.25
72% relevant
Both pieces emphasize that headline framing steers public judgments; here, four short race/protest headlines cut support for legal police force, echoing concerns that headline-driven cues can override nuance and reshape opinion.
Nate Silver
2025.08.20
60% relevant
Silver accuses political scientists Adam Bonica and Jake Grumbach of rhetorical manipulation and weak methodology in their critique of Split Ticket’s WAR metric, urging skepticism of authority-driven rebuttals that aren’t matched by transparent evidence or calibration.
D. Paul Sullins
2025.08.20
40% relevant
It implies prior media narratives about the Regnerus study overstated certainty and selected extreme estimates, echoing the heuristic to scrutinize how 'expert' claims are framed when underlying analyses are sensitive to analytic choices.
José Duarte
2025.08.05
82% relevant
The Daily Beast’s 'Science Says “Maybe”' framing is a textbook case of selling a counterintuitive take via selective 'expert' claims; Duarte shows the article asserted associations not in the paper and omitted negative correlations, mirroring the warning that such headlines flatten uncertainty into confidence.
Jesse Singal
2025.07.22
100% relevant
The New York magazine Science of Us headline 'Experts: Sex and Porn Addiction Probably Aren’t Real Mental Disorders' anchored on David Ley’s stance.
Cremieux
2025.07.22
70% relevant
The article explains why claims like 'Experts: X causes Y after controlling for Z' can be false—controls can open collider paths or block mediators—offering a practical check on headline-driven causal overreach.