Google is not your doctor: Metafact Podcast Episode #0 Verified by Metafact

Hello Metafact members and subscribers!
I realise how busy you are and keeping up with all of the new material from us is hard (whether it’s the weekly consensus or monthly reviews) - so I’ve created a podcast called ‘Fact Check it!’ that translates the member content so you can listen when convenient. I probably should really call it ‘Google is not your doctor’!
In the launch episode, I explain the problem and the evolution of our new model to fact-check the internet. You can also read it below. I will start to share future episodes in this digest and will cover a single question or topic we’ve fact-checked with the world’s experts. You can listen and subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Anchor or Google.
Metafact is funded 100% by our members, who get to choose a topic we investigate in our Monthly Review. This month the vote is close between ‘Intermittent Fasting’ and ‘Sleep’ - so if you haven’t yet voted, please do so here as voting ends soon.
Thanks everyone & may the facts be with you!
Ben McNeil
Founder
From John Oliver on climate science to Dr Google - the evolution of Metafact…
My Story
As a career scientist, I’ve always been aware of the persistence of media misinformation, but I didn’t come to fully understand how it seeps into the public discourse until 2009. That year, I and 25 other climate scientists compiled a report called The Copenhagen Diagnosis; it was a summary of all the peer-reviewed research on the evidence of climate change and the causes behind it. We presented the report during a widely-covered climate meeting attended by President Barack Obama and several other world leaders.
After the event, I noticed a big uptick in the number of interview requests I received from journalists. And while some of these reporters presented the research responsibly, I quickly noticed a disturbing trend in which articles would place my quotes right next to those opposing claims the science of climate change. The problem was those opposing were never an actual climate scientist - they were often someone else. 
I remember having to debate the science with a Lord from the British Parliament, who ironically called into question my own scientific credentials.  As a scientist, I question everything, including the science of climate change  - that’s what I’m trained to do - look for holes and try and win the next Nobel Prize. 
Questioning is critical, debate is good - its healthy. But false debates just misinform people. You can always find someone to oppose your position - even someone who doesn’t believe in gravity. Debates makes for entertaining viewing. But it doesn’t help progress the hard facts that everyone should be working off. 
I found reporters would often present “both sides” to argument as if they had equal merit - in political or social debates that makes sense as we all have different ways at viewing the world.  In science there isn’t a left or right - it’s based around the universal laws of physics that dictate whether something is true. Your feelings or ideology means nothing to what the evidence says. 
Given advertising serves as the business model of media, it seemed that reporters and producers were looking for debates and shouting matches to keep the viewer entertained. This early experience for me was immensely disheartening.
Then in 2014 I watched a clip from John Oliver - and it was the most insightful segment I’ve seen on how the media can misrepresent scientific facts so easily. Here’s a clip of his segment called “A statistically representative debate on climate change”. 
Beyond the 97% consensus
But it’s not just the 97% of climate scientists that are getting misrepresented in the media. On any topic or question from health to technology, the media often misrepresent the facts either by presenting false debates or what is now more likely, publish click-bait headlines that cherrypick one study. How often have you heard o