Skip to navigationSkip to content

Gwyneth Paltrow split with Condé Nast because they wanted her to use a fact-checker

By Vox

"We’re never making statements," Paltrow told the New York TimesRead full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • New media and old media are so far removed from one another that Paltrow didn’t anticipate fact-checking rules and Condé Nast couldn’t imagine a world in which they weren’t taken for granted. It’s like a comedy sketch. Honestly, a fact checker digging into an article about vaginal steaming would be a sketch in and of itself.

  • In an era where the president lies as easily as he breathes, climate change deniers get government positions with the EPA and NASA, and flat earthers and anti-vaxxers are allowed free rein on social media, of course we will have 21st Century snake oil salesmen like Paltrow. This has been the Internet's

    In an era where the president lies as easily as he breathes, climate change deniers get government positions with the EPA and NASA, and flat earthers and anti-vaxxers are allowed free rein on social media, of course we will have 21st Century snake oil salesmen like Paltrow. This has been the Internet's biggest calamity; the ignorant, bedazzled by the magic computer box, view everything that's on it as true and valid because it's "on the Internet". The technology itself legitimizes whatever spews forth because the tech in and of itself is still largely unexplainable to many.

  • One has to appreciate Condé Nast’s move to stand up to celebrity and not compromise on what is essentially honest journalistic principles. Even review sites need rigor to earn people’s trust.

  • Be careful who you single out a “liar”. I totally agree with scientific back-up to statements, but sometimes even the truth of science has been poorly communicated. There were a lot of climate change scientists who took gov’t grants and got money based on politically motivated points of view. Scientists

    Be careful who you single out a “liar”. I totally agree with scientific back-up to statements, but sometimes even the truth of science has been poorly communicated. There were a lot of climate change scientists who took gov’t grants and got money based on politically motivated points of view. Scientists who held opposing viewpoints didn’t get a dime to do any independent research. Then those gov’t gifted “scientists” totally shut down anyone & everyone in the field who contradicted their “accepted” science. Remember Al Gore saying “the science of climate change is now over” - really? Over? Tell me any subject in history where scientific research and study is “over”. Kinda sounds like the caves of Altamira in the 21st century!

    And if you think Pres. Trump is today’s liar, then let me introduce you to a few more: EX president Obama, madame HRC, EX leader Pelosi. I.E. : Fast & Furious - our gov’t running guns from the US to Mexican gangs; Obamacare - gotta pass it b/4 you read it & you’ll save $2,500 per family per year ; Benghazi - where is that film maker, where is that controversial anti Muslim film? ; the IRS vs Conservative non profits - anyone remember what happened to Nixon & his cronies for just threatening to use the IRS on his political enemies? ; and now this Russia collusion mess - seems to me more of our own gov’t officials had hands in trying to persuade public opinion in the 2016 election than did any Russian bad guy. Me thinks the real rats of this case are still to be found escaping the sinking ship!!

    The problem with communicating “truth” and “facts” to the public is having faith in the independence and integrity of the source(s). Who checks the fact checkers? That’s a problem in a politically divided culture on every topic and from every person in public life.

    Everyone should agree with scientific corroborated results - one would think this should be easier for an issue of science than politics, but often times not - unfortunately, you often have to follow the money to find where the truth lies.

  • This is a short, well-written read using Paltrow to illustrate how important science still is and how close-minded its many enemies often are. The untouched next question is: how do we punish her? When Paltrow knowingly makes untested claims that cause people serious harm, how do we hold her responsible

    This is a short, well-written read using Paltrow to illustrate how important science still is and how close-minded its many enemies often are. The untouched next question is: how do we punish her? When Paltrow knowingly makes untested claims that cause people serious harm, how do we hold her responsible? Because while making science attractive is half the battle, the other half is making non-science exactly as risky as it actually is.

  • she and goop are ridiculous. it’s all rosy in her fake manufactured world.

  • Old news, this same issue came out a few years ago. I’ve never followed her social media lines BECAUSE she refuses facts. Love her movies though.....

  • Forget light-hearted dichotomies like “toilet paper over the top or under” or “boxers or briefs” or even cosmic debates involving an expanding universe or static .... there is but one ultimate question; Do you believe in objective truth or not?

  • I do find that science and facts are contraindicated with celebrity nutrition advice.

  • Don’t you hate when people try and make you do their job for them!.

    Fact-Checking was always the role of the publisher, out of self preservation, as they are liable in the eyes of the law for what they publish.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.