Ronald Bailey

Ronald Bailey is a science correspondent for Reason and an author of several books on biotechnology and environmental issues. Bailey has a background in journalism and public television production. He has won awards for his writing and reporting on various topics related to science, technology, and society.

Biography:  https://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/

44%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermines the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
Analysis.OverallConflictOfInterestScore * 0.3F + Analysis.OverallBiasScore * 0.3F + Analysis.DeceptivenessScore * 0.3F + Analysis.ReadabilityScore * 0.1F

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The Daily's Verdict

This author has a poor reputation for journalistic standards and is not considered a reliable news source.

Bias

50%

Examples:

  • The author has a strong libertarian bias that influences his view on social and economic policies.
  • The author often uses anecdotal evidence and personal opinions instead of scientific facts.
  • The author tends to downplay the benefits of medical advancements and exaggerate the risks of environmental issues.

Conflicts of Interest

30%

Examples:

  • The author has written several books and articles promoting biotechnology and challenging mainstream environmentalism. This may create a conflict of interest with some of the topics he covers.
  • The author is a science correspondent for Reason, which is known for its libertarian and free-market views. This may influence his perspective on environmental issues.

Contradictions

75%

Examples:

  • The article cites a CDC study that resulted from a methodological error, but does not acknowledge this or provide any alternative explanation for the increase in maternal death rates.
  • The article contradicts itself by claiming that health care during pregnancy and after delivery has improved substantially in many areas, while also blaming it for the rise of maternal death rates.
  • The article repeats uncritically the claims of other media outlets without questioning their sources or motives.

Deceptions

40%

Examples:

  • The article does not provide any context or comparison for the maternal death rates in the US with other countries or historical trends. This makes it seem more alarmist and sensationalistic.
  • The article relies heavily on secondary sources, such as CNN and PBS, without citing any original research or data. This makes it seem less credible and authoritative.
  • The article uses misleading headlines and phrases like 'vastly overestimated' and 'doubling' to imply that there is a crisis in maternal health in the US. These are not supported by the evidence provided.

Recent Articles

Maternal Mortality Crisis in the US: A Closer Look at Data Classification Errors

Maternal Mortality Crisis in the US: A Closer Look at Data Classification Errors

Broke On: Wednesday, 13 March 2024 A new study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology challenges previous findings about high and rising rates of maternal mortality, suggesting that data classification errors have inflated these numbers. The study found that instead of the maternal death rate more than doubling since 2002, it has remained flat. Additionally, the number of women dying after giving birth in the U.S. has not increased significantly over time.