In high‑salience identity conflicts, some journalists lean on 'consensus' and 'believe‑X' formulations instead of demonstrating proof and keeping the burden of evidence on claimants. The Kamloops case shows a reporter invoking government statements and social consensus despite a lack of confirmed remains.
— If consensus talk routinely substitutes for proof in atrocity claims, public trust and policy choices will track status and identity rather than verifiable facts.
Jerusalem Demsas
2026.01.15
75% relevant
The article highlights how provisional scientific consensus-language and media repetition shaped policy perceptions despite caveats — echoing the existing idea that consensus statements and high‑profile coverage need transparent provenance (Delphi materials, robustness notes) to be trustworthy.
Steve Sailer
2026.01.13
92% relevant
The article documents the NYT's tendency to treat contested claims as a 'belief' or 'delusion' rather than present the underlying empirical tradeoffs; this directly matches the existing idea that journalists often substitute appeals to 'consensus' or moral framing for transparent evidentiary accounting in high‑salience identity conflicts.
Sam Kahn
2026.01.08
88% relevant
The article documents how federal and local officials (DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, President Trump versus Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey) drew opposite conclusions from the same video footage; this is a direct example of the existing idea that journalistic and institutional appeals to 'consensus' or rapid framing can substitute for transparent evidentiary adjudication.
msmash
2026.01.06
62% relevant
The NY law depends on contested public‑health claims about 'addiction' despite an unsettled evidence base; this echoes the broader problem of using shaky consensus or headline‑friendly science to justify blunt regulation and fuels the need for transparency about evidentiary provenance before sweeping mandates.
2026.01.05
85% relevant
The article criticises reliance on institutional consensus and rhetorical cover (e.g., intelligence community WMD claims, medical leadership statements) rather than transparent evidence—matching the existing idea that journalists/institutions often substitute 'consensus' for reproducible proof.
Steve Sailer
2025.10.13
73% relevant
The NYT frames rising Black unemployment as caused by DEI cuts and federal layoffs ('economists said') without quantifying the historical magnitude of affirmative‑action preferences; the article argues this reflects consensus‑style attribution absent solid causal baselines.
2025.10.07
100% relevant
CBC interview clip where the reporter says 'we can just believe indigenous people, and move on,' after being asked whether there is evidence of 215 buried children at Kamloops.
2023.06.23
92% relevant
The article argues journalists and officials framed Kamloops as settled fact without transparent evidence, noting the unreleased GPR report, anonymous peer reviewers, choreographed press access, and the likelihood that GPR 'graves' were septic trenches and prior shovel test pits—an archetypal case of consensus rhetoric displacing proof.