Very funny and insightful video:
The cool thing I find about that guy in my opinion is how he manages to compress to less than half an hour a lengthy subject (of anything he talks about) and still make it precise, accurate, informational, and attractive to hear.
I say "he manages to compress", but there's probably a whole team working on and stuff (perhaps helping with editing and such).
His criticism of how the media sensationalizes 'new' studies, or any study, or otherwise portrays science or scientists, is warranted.
And then there is the pressure on the part of many to publish. I often see the same paper published in different journals without much new information, and sometimes, the same work is published at multiple conferences.
I know of some cases were reviewers rejected papers that were subsequently published, and so, sometimes, garbage gets published.
Just because a reviewer rejects a paper, that doesn't mean it shouldn't get published. It's a big red flag though.
Two reviewers rejected the paper, and there was some problems with the work, not to mention that the paper failed to address something that in the paper was claimed would be addressed. One of the authors was a former student of the editor of the prestigious international journal. But I digress.
Three of Oliver's criticisms are how the media portrays science, or scientific studies, how popsci trivializes science, and in some cases, how some institutions or individuals misrepresent scientific matters or mislead the public.
Separate names with a comma.