> The "Missing Context" label applies to content that (while true or real) might still be misleading because crucial information is missing. Given the enormous engagement the article received and the kinds of reactions it elicited that certainly seems to have been the case here.
“Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial”
> The BMJ.com headline, shown above, fails to make two important distinctions:
> The allegation concerns just three of the 153 sites at which the vaccine was tested on 44,000 participants. It would have been less misleading to say "data integrity issues at 3 of 153 Pfizer trial sites."
Given how many of the social media audience would read just the title, perhaps the missing context label is accurate.
I agree with you, but if that is their standard, I’m expecting to see "Missing context" labels on almost every news article being shared on facebook, as headlines are almost exclusively clickbait to some degree.
I'm coming to the same conclusion. Judging by just how far down I had to come to find this comment even on a site like HN, it's pretty clear people are uninterested or unable to read, put things into context, and think critically.
I'm surprised people can't even recognize the smell of something wrong, even when it's out in the open:
> The BMJ has locked horns with Facebook and the gatekeepers of international fact checking after one of its investigations was wrongly labelled with “missing context” and censored on the world’s largest social network.
The tone of the very first sentence is off. This is the publication describing itself.
I didn't walk away with a clear picture: Was it "data integrity issues at 3 out of 153 sites [no idea about the remaining 150]" or was it "... [the others were fine]"?
The FDA audits were at some other sites of those 153 and reportedly did not find any incongruences. Which need not mean there were no issues, but it's certainly a prior.
> The "Missing Context" label applies to content that (while true or real) might still be misleading because crucial information is missing. Given the enormous engagement the article received and the kinds of reactions it elicited that certainly seems to have been the case here.
“Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial”
> The BMJ.com headline, shown above, fails to make two important distinctions:
> The allegation concerns just three of the 153 sites at which the vaccine was tested on 44,000 participants. It would have been less misleading to say "data integrity issues at 3 of 153 Pfizer trial sites."
Given how many of the social media audience would read just the title, perhaps the missing context label is accurate.
[1] https://leadstories.com/analysis/2021/12/lead-stories-respon...