This is what the original article said.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2022-01-07/ben-affleck-tender-bar-amazon" It was really “Justice League” that was the nadir for me. That was a bad experience because of a confluence of things: my own life, my divorce, being away too much, the competing agendas and then [director] Zack [Snyder]’s personal tragedy [Snyder’s daughter Autumn died by suicide in 2017] and the reshooting. It just was the worst experience. It was awful. It was everything that I didn’t like about this. That became the moment where I said, “I’m not doing this anymore.” It’s not even about, like, “Justice League” was so bad. Because it could have been anything. "
A number of people and websites are making is sound like Justice League and Zack Snyders vision is what made Ben leave. That is not true at all. he clearly states that it was multiple things (many being personal) and 2 of them being the "competing agendas" (WBs meddling that Zack Snyder mentioned how he kept getting notes) (this is my assumption from the quote) and the reshoots was the cherry on top, the final straw.
Any chance these clickbaity websites and non-snyder fans have a chance to blame Snyder, they do. I just don't get it, I got to learn to let this stuff stop triggering me. I know this is a safe space to vent.
Back in April, there was a thread suggesting that there should be a list of untrustworthy ADHD resources on the sub. A mod (nerdshark) commented a list of some pseudoscientific and unreliable resources, and listed ADDitude Magazine as one of them and linked the Auto Moderator's comment as to why (which I'm sure is going to pop up on this thread):
>Links to and mentions of ADDitude are not allowed on r/adhd because we feel they have demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy and that they, despite soliciting donations from people with ADHD to fund their operation, prioritize profit and advertising dollars over our best interests. Their website is full of articles promoting the use of homeopathy, reiki, and other unscientific quack practices. They also have had articles for Vayarin (a medical food that is now no longer sold in the US because its research was bunk) that suspiciously looked like stealth advertisements (which is highly unethical and illegal in the US).
>
>We also find it problematic that their medical review panel includes not only legitimate doctors and psychologists, but also (at the time of writing) one practitioner of integrative medicine, which combines legit medical practice with pseudoscience and alternative medicine. They have previously had other quacks on the panel as well.
(It also has relevant links if you want to check that out)
I was surprised by this because I thought they were a good source for information and ADHD tips, and I remember feeling betrayed when I found that out. What especially surprised me, though, was the fact that ADDitude had a pro-science rating on Media Bias Fact Check. This was concerning to me considering that it seems to have a lot of pseudoscientific content, and I trust Media Bias Fact Check a lot.
Cut to a few days ago when I was changing some of the passwords on my account, and decided to do it for ADDitude as well. While I was on the website, I got a bit curious about some of the articles and started looking through the site a bit. I did end up witnessing the pseudoscience first hand on their products page: https://imgur.com/a/H2WX72c
One of the products listed under "Products for Parents" is "Coromega O
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Far-left news magazines like Jacobin and Current Affairs get a "high" rating for factual reporting and MBFC claims they've found no errors in their reporting. Now I don't know whether that's true or not, I guess it could be technically true, but Jacobin misrepresents facts so often that I have skepticism in believing that they've never crossed the line into outright misreporting rather than simply editorial spin.
The Intercept got the rating "mostly factual," but its bias is rated as left rather than extreme left. Vice was listed as "center left." (?) I haven't found a left-wing source that has gotten lower than "mixed" on a reliability rating. (Daily Kos and Raw Story got mixed.) On the other hand, I have yet to find a right-wing source that has gotten a higher rating than "mostly factual," including Wall Street Journal and the National Review, which are probably the most reputed American right-wing media outlets—WSJ's editorials are terrible, but they don't spill over into the actual news from what I've seen. Do you think this is coincidental, evidence that MBFC has its own bias, or simply proof that the left is a lot better at news?
Full-text: journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578
Editors' Summary
Background
>In our daily lives, we frequently rely on the results of scientific research to make decisions about our health. If we are healthy, we may seek out scientific advice about how much exercise to do to reduce our risk of a heart attack, and we may follow dietary advice issued by public health bodies to help us maintain a healthy weight. If we are ill, we expect our treatment to be based on the results of clinical trials and other studies. We assume that the scientific research that underlies our decisions about health-related issues is unbiased and accurate. However, there is increasing evidence that the conclusions of industry-sponsored scientific research are sometimes biased. So, for example, reports of drug trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies sometimes emphasize the positive results of trials and “hide” unwanted side effects deep within the report or omit them altogether.
Why Was This Study Done?
>Although the effects of company sponsors on the conclusions of pharmaceutical research have been extensively examined, little is known about the effects of industry sponsorship on nutrition research, even though large commercial entities are increasingly involved in global food and drink production. It is important to know whether the scientific evidence about nutrition is free of bias because biased information might negatively affect the health of entire populations. Moreover, scientific evidence from nutrition research underlies the formulation of governmental dietary guidelines and food-related public health interventions. In this systematic review, the researchers investigate whether the disclosure of potential financial conflicts of interest (for example, research funding by a beverage company) has influenced the results of systematic reviews undertaken to examine the association between the consumption of highly lucrative sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and weight gain or obesity. Systematic reviews identify all the research on a given topic using predefined criteria. In an ideal world, systematic reviews provide access to all the available evidence on specific exposure–disease associations, but publication bias related to authors' conflicts of interest may affect the reliability of the conclusions of
... keep reading on reddit ➡
It should be illegal for news agencies to sow division amongst us and use scaremongering tactics to generate views of content. In fact it should be illegal to have advertising on a site or in a paper that leads to sensational headlines and poor reporting for the sole purpose of generating ad revenue. All news outlets, be they online, tv or physical papers must be bipartisan and report only the facts and be funded in a manor that doesn’t require private ads or to be beholden to the government. They should be highly regulated independent bodies.
EDIT: Ok, so in the real world, presenting unbiased bipartisan reporting is clearly impossible for a number of reasons. Who decides what is fact? The very nature of humans means we’re always biased and of course limitations on freedom of speech that no civilised democracy will tolerate. So instead, I propose that we eliminate Geography from the school syllabus and in its place teach lessons on critical thinking, fact checking and how news can be manipulated to serve an agenda be that liberal or conservative. People can learn about oxbow lakes and sedimentary rocks in their own time.
