> If one person is criticizing Big Pharma because they use shoddy trial methodology when they can get away with it and heavily market minor variations on existing drugs, and another person is criticizing Big Pharma because they're poisoning our blood with fluoride in service to the Illuminati, it's not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the right."
But it's also not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the wrong."
> Also, I think the idea that they deliberately adopted a weak version of the criticism to argue against is rather conspiratorial - dumb unfounded nonsense gets very popular on the internet all the time!
It's hardly a conspiracy to suppose that media outlets choose which claims to fact check based on how they want to influence readers.
But it's also not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the wrong."
> Also, I think the idea that they deliberately adopted a weak version of the criticism to argue against is rather conspiratorial - dumb unfounded nonsense gets very popular on the internet all the time!
It's hardly a conspiracy to suppose that media outlets choose which claims to fact check based on how they want to influence readers.