Great segment! The analysis was really perceptive on many points, including:
1. Jos’s criticism of the suicide hotline ad appearing at the end of the PBS segment is well taken. I saw this segment and my eyes rolled when it ended with that ad. The Cass review found no evidence of reduction in suicides after implementing puberty blockers. Rolling that ad after the segment falsely implies that blockers are effective in reducing suicides. By putting up the ad, PBS perpetuates a claim for which there is no evidence without admitting that’s what they’re doing. If PBS had stated outright in the segment that puberty blockers reduce suicides, they would make themselves accountable and would have to defend the claim by proffering evidence. The burden of proof is on those who claim blockers reduce suicides, not on the skeptics who would be given the impossible task of proving a negative.
2. The “multiple attestations” issue in media reporting is important to point out. It feels very much like the phenomenon of gender medicine researchers cross referencing each others’ work to support their own work. The cross referencing gives a false impression of evidence being greater than it actually is.
Love your breakdown on these issues especially your catch that PBS rolling the ad allows them to perpetuate the claim without having to back it up since there's zero evidence to use to back it up.
Great segment! The analysis was really perceptive on many points, including:
1. Jos’s criticism of the suicide hotline ad appearing at the end of the PBS segment is well taken. I saw this segment and my eyes rolled when it ended with that ad. The Cass review found no evidence of reduction in suicides after implementing puberty blockers. Rolling that ad after the segment falsely implies that blockers are effective in reducing suicides. By putting up the ad, PBS perpetuates a claim for which there is no evidence without admitting that’s what they’re doing. If PBS had stated outright in the segment that puberty blockers reduce suicides, they would make themselves accountable and would have to defend the claim by proffering evidence. The burden of proof is on those who claim blockers reduce suicides, not on the skeptics who would be given the impossible task of proving a negative.
2. The “multiple attestations” issue in media reporting is important to point out. It feels very much like the phenomenon of gender medicine researchers cross referencing each others’ work to support their own work. The cross referencing gives a false impression of evidence being greater than it actually is.
Love your breakdown on these issues especially your catch that PBS rolling the ad allows them to perpetuate the claim without having to back it up since there's zero evidence to use to back it up.