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.
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.