How to Spot Media BS: A Crash Course in Media Literacy

Separating facts from bias in the news is harder than ever, so this week's episode is all about media literacy.

I break down a Stuff article on “the healthiest type of milk” as an example of just how subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) media bias can be. Spoiler: It’s not about which milk is best. It’s about how language, framing, and missing context can manipulate your perception without you even realising it.

We can’t rely on many places to report actual facts anymore, so now we need to get better at spotting nonsense ourselves.

Find us online:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nowthatswhaticallgreen/
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/now-that-s-what-i-call-podcasts
‍
Follow me on social media:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/briannemwest/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@briannemwest
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/briannemwest/

‍Wanna know more about Incrediballs?
‍‍www.incrediballs.com‍
‍https://www.instagram.com/incrediballsdrinks/
‍‍https://www.tiktok.com/@incrediballsdrinks

Transcript

Kia ora, kaitiaki, and welcome to Now That's What I Call Green. I'm your host, Brianne West, an environmentalist and entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I am. I'm all about taking a scientific approach to making the world a better place without the judgment, and making it fun. And, of course, we'll be chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our planet with. So, if you're looking to navigate through everything green — or not so green — you've come to the right place.

Kia ora and welcome back. Today you're in for an education. Now, we all have a healthy-ish distrust for the media, right? But not many people actually know how to spot bias in articles or separate scientific fact from mythical headline nonsense. And this episode was sparked, in particular, by an article posted on Stuff just a couple of days ago with the headline: Which is the healthiest type of milk for you? Now, that's fabulous — great, love that. Let's have more science-based education out there. But, disappointingly, this was not that. This was one of the most blatant examples of bias in an article I've seen in a long time, other than anything I've ever seen on Fox, of course.

Now, I want to show you how to spot it. So welcome to Media Literacy 101.

Now, obviously, you can't see the article in front of you, so I'll read quotes from it to you, and then we'll discuss. We start off really strong with the idea of nostalgia and, aw, framing. This starts the article off in a way that we mean to go on. The author has written:
"Go back a few decades, and it was only cartons of green, blue or red-top milk that you would find lining fridge doors in Britain. It was a simpler time."

This is very intentionally worded, right? It's designed to make you feel good about the old days — that they were better, safer, just better times, right? Because, I mean, it's a dumpster fire we live in right now.

But now there are so many choices of milk — and choices are the bane of everyone's existence, surely. It uses that nostalgia and that almost universal preconceived notion that way back when was better to frame the article as though today's options are worse.

And then we hit some more provocative wording. The sentence goes:
"The humble cow's milk is passed over by one in three Britons who favour trendier soya, almond, oat or coconut options, presumably due to the belief that it is better for their health or the planet."

There's a lot to unpack here. Firstly, the author has labelled cow's milk as humble. This invokes the image of the underdog — the unpretentious, trustworthy, reliable one. That's why everyone writes humble in their LinkedIn bios, right? It's a good thing to be.

Whereas plant milk? Trendy. It's fleeting, superficial — a passing fad that people haven't really thought about and that will hopefully disappear if we all just stop looking at it. And you might be thinking, "Actually, Brianne, these two words don't have that impact on me at all." But you'd actually be surprised how this seemingly subtle language shapes your perception.

The sentence ends with:
"Presumably due to the belief that it is better for their health or the planet."

This rubs me up the wrong way for two reasons.

1. It insinuates that this belief is wrong when it's an inarguable truth that plant milks have a significantly lower environmental impact than cow's milk. And naturally, the rest of the article doesn't mention environmental impacts at all, which are, funnily enough, linked to health impacts.
2. It infantilises people who choose plant milk. Oh, they have this little belief that they're doing something good for themselves and the planet.

Now, I'm not saying the author is doing this on purpose — we all have biases, and they naturally come out when we write or talk. I absolutely have biases. I think it's fairly obvious that I'm biased toward the planet and fairness for people and animals. I try to be conscious of it, and I'm sure I fail sometimes. But I try to stay balanced. This article? Not balanced.

The paragraph then finishes with:
"With it costing double the price, it's certainly not for the benefit of their wallet."

And here we go — the first of many nonsense claims. Plant milk is not double the price of cow's milk. It's definitely more expensive, but a quick supermarket search will tell you that cow's milk is about $2.82 per litre, while oat milk is roughly $4 per litre. That's not double. Soya milk is about the same. Almond milk is more expensive — because, frankly, it's a ridiculous choice for milk, for many reasons, but I digress. So yes, it's pricier, but not double. If you're writing a supposedly scientific article, your claims should be correct.

We carry on with the nonsense:

"With sales in decline and some brands discontinuing their dairy-free milk ranges, the category may have passed its heyday. The spotlight is firmly on ultra-processed food, and the realisation that dairy-free milks are often full of oil, flavourings and stabilisers seems to be shifting the health halo back to the minimally processed cow's milk."

Right. Let's fact-check that. Sales of plant-based milk are not in decline. This media narrative is just wrong. Sure, growth has slowed compared to the initial boom — because nothing maintains its initial growth phase forever. Just look at plant-based meats or electric vehicles. But sales aren't declining. The global market for plant-based milk is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.2% until 2030. It's currently worth about USD 19.8 billion, and by 2031, it's expected to reach around USD 32 billion. That is not a decline.

Are forecasts sometimes off? Of course. But they rely on historical data and industry trends. So this sentence is misleading from the get-go. And the whole thing is dripping with biased language.

Let's talk about processed.

Processed doesn’t automatically mean bad. We’ve been conditioned to think processed equals unhealthy, but that's not really how it works. I wouldn’t recommend a diet of Twinkies or Frosted Flakes — they're foul — but some processed foods are incredibly beneficial, like fortified breads or milks. Fortified just means vitamins and minerals have been added back in after processing.

Processed is a term that’s about as useful as natural. It doesn't mean much unless you understand the context. If you look at the processing steps for cow's milk and a generic plant milk, there are only a couple of differences.

So, cow's milk:

• Cows are milked.
• The milk is filtered to remove dirt and debris (and if you've ever met a cow, you know they're not clean).
• It's pasteurised, which is crucial, despite what the raw milk crowd says — especially now, with bird flu continuing to spread.
• It’s homogenised — breaking down fat molecules so the fat doesn't rise to the surface, which, for some reason, I find utterly abhorrent.
• And sometimes it's fortified with vitamins like D or A.

Plant milk goes through very similar steps:

• The plant, like oats, is harvested and cleaned.
• It's soaked, ground into a slurry, then water is added and filtered.
• It undergoes fortification, with vitamins and minerals added.
• Then stabilisers like emulsifiers might be added for texture (since plant milk tends to separate).
• It's heat-treated to improve safety and shelf life.

See? Not a vast difference. Yes, plant milks are technically more processed because they don’t resemble their raw form anymore — but that's hardly worth the scaremongering.

And yes, oat milk often contains oil — usually rapeseed oil — for texture. It brings the fat content to about 2.5–5%, while cow's milk ranges from 0.3% to 4%, depending on the type. So is it full of oil? Hardly.

Now, a quick tangent on vegetable oils. Because, apparently, seed oils are the villain of the week. Let me say this:

They will not kill you.

They won't cause rampant inflammation.

And honestly, a good rule of thumb is if Joe Rogan says it, you should probably question it.

There's no credible science showing vegetable oils cause harm. In fact, a meta-analysis of over 250,000 people showed that vegetable oils can protect against 19 cancers, reduce diabetes risk, and have no link to heart disease. The issue lies in how much you're consuming. Overconsumption of any fat is unhealthy — but that’s a consumption issue, not a vegetable oil issue.

Another concern raised is hexane — a chemical sometimes used to extract oils. While it sounds scary, it's tightly regulated. Plus, plenty of oils are cold-pressed, meaning they're just squeezed until the oil comes out.

The last point is about free radicals. Yes, oils can create free radicals if they're overheated or stored poorly. Free radicals are unstable molecules missing an electron — remember high school science? They're linked to cell damage, but your body has defences, like antioxidants from fruit, veg, and sunscreen. So if you're worried, cook with olive or avocado oil instead of sunflower. Easy.

So, after that particularly inflammatory intro, we get to the meat of the article.

Here's the thing: 80% of this piece is dedicated to cow's milk. This is supposed to be a comparison of the healthiest types of milk, yet it focuses almost exclusively on one. And it does so in a strikingly positive light.

When the article mentions the cons of cow's milk — like saturated fat content — it immediately softens the blow with reassuring commentary. It completely ignores other issues, like links to certain cancers or lactose intolerance.

Speaking of cancer, the article confidently claims:
"Cow's milk helps lower your bowel cancer risk."

That's not true. There is no science showing milk itself does this. Calcium does, yes. But calcium can come from many sources — not just cow's milk. The article implies that milk has some magical cancer-fighting ability, which is misleading. It's calcium that's beneficial, not the milk itself.

Let's go through a few more claims:

The article states that cow's milk is full of protein, calcium, B12, and vitamin D. Now, let's break that down:

1. Vitamin D:
   Cow's milk is actually a poor natural source of vitamin D unless it's fortified. Plant milks are typically fortified with vitamin D and often provide more than standard cow's milk.
2. B12:
   Cow's milk is naturally higher in B12, sure. But most plant milks are fortified, so they provide a similar amount.
3. Protein:
   Cow's milk has more protein than plant milk — about double — but even then, it's only 3.5%. That's not considered a high-protein food.
4. Calcium:
   The article claims: "Scientists found that getting an extra 300mg of calcium per day — equivalent to a large glass of milk — was needed to see the effect."
5. That's misleading. A 250ml glass of milk contains around 314mg of calcium, but your body only absorbs about 30% of it. So you're not getting 300mg from one glass. And calcium from fortified plant milks is just as bioavailable as that from cow's milk.

Also, side note: the best source of calcium is actually kale. I know. Gross. But kale provides five times more calcium per serving with the same bioavailability. So the article's claim that milk is the best source of calcium is just factually incorrect.

The article also asserts that plant-based milks are often lacking in nutrients. But almost all commercially available plant milks are fortified — often beyond the levels found in cow's milk. So, again, misleading.

And then there's this absolute gem:

"Coconut milk has the lowest amount of protein at just 0.2g per serving, which makes it the least healthy option."

Excuse me? Protein content does not define whether a food is healthy. This is nonsense. Coconut milk is great for people with lactose intolerance or those needing a lower-fat option. The absence of protein doesn't make it unhealthy — it just makes it low in protein.

Then we reach the article's most absurd statement:

"It boosts serotonin."

This claim is based on a single study of 350,000 people that found people who drank full-fat cow's milk were less likely to be depressed or anxious. But correlation does not equal causation — even the study's authors said so. There is no evidence that milk boosts serotonin production.

Here's my alternative hypothesis: maybe people who drink plant milk are more anxious because they tend to be more environmentally aware, and climate breakdown is, frankly, terrifying.

See how easy it is to make sweeping claims without scientific backing? That's exactly what the article is doing.

Now let's talk about the experts quoted in the article. There are two:

1. Rob Hobson — a UK nutritionist with a Master's in Public Health Nutrition. Solid qualifications, sure. Although he did co-author The Detox Kitchen Bible, which, to me, is a bit of a red flag because scientists tend to avoid meaningless buzzwords like detox. Still, his quotes are reasonable and evidence-based.
2. Professor Ian Givens — a food chain nutrition expert focusing on animal-derived foods. Great fit for a discussion about cow's milk — but, notably, no expertise in plant-based nutrition.

What's interesting is that neither of them actually backs up the article's key claims.

Hobson, for instance, confirms that cow's milk is a high-quality protein source and a beneficial part of a balanced diet. All true. But he never says it boosts serotonin, and he explicitly notes the mental health findings show correlation, not causation.

Meanwhile, Givens' contributions are largely irrelevant. He comments that:

• Semi-skimmed milk is the most popular milk in the UK.
• Pasteurisation is important.
• Organic milk doesn't have more nutrients than standard milk.

All true — but none of this supports the article's anti-plant milk narrative.

The only negative mention of plant milk is a vague comment about how added vitamins and minerals "are not absorbed in the same way as if they were naturally occurring."

That sounds alarming, right? But not absorbed in the same way doesn't mean not absorbed at all. In fact, B12 from fortified foods is often more bioavailable than from animal sources. This statement is deliberately vague and doesn't actually tell us anything meaningful.

So, while these experts are credible, their quotes have been cherry-picked to create a misleading narrative.

Which brings us to the why.

If you're genuinely trying to help people understand different types of milk, you'd include experts in plant-based nutrition or environmental science — you know, to present both sides. But this article doesn't do that. It presents cow's milk as the superior choice while patronising people who choose plant-based alternatives.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying you should drink oat milk or cow's milk. That's up to you. I'm saying that this article is a textbook case of bias masquerading as analysis.

And what really winds me up is that I spend hours researching before I record an episode like this. I fact-check, cross-reference, and share my sources in the show notes. I take that responsibility seriously because when you're speaking from a place of authority — like being behind a podcast mic — you have an obligation to avoid misinformation.

Sadly, it seems that these days, fact-checking is considered optional.

So how can you spot media bias or misinformation?

Here are a few handy tips:

1. Look for evidence-backed claims.
   Be sceptical of phrases like "experts suggest" or "a study may have shown" if there's no link to the research.
2. Watch for emotionally charged language.
   Words like humble or trendy — designed to shape your perception without you realising. If an article makes you feel something strongly, take a step back and reassess.
3. Spot insinuations and empty statements.
   For example, "the belief that plant milks are better for your health and the planet" subtly casts doubt without providing any counter-evidence.
4. Fact-check suspicious claims.
   If something sounds off, do a quick Google search. And if an article provides no sources? Treat it with caution.
5. Notice what's left out.
   This article ignored lactose intolerance, environmental impacts, and the nutrient fortification of plant milks — all crucial context.
6. Identify uneven framing.
   If one side of an argument is explored in detail while the other is brushed over, that's a red flag.
7. Consider the source.
   Look for affiliations or potential agendas. If an article about plant-based diets is sponsored by a dairy company, or if a study about oat milk is funded by Oatly, read with extra scepticism.

This article annoyed me more than it probably should have. But we live in a time when misinformation spreads like wildfire — and it's essential we learn how to critically assess what we read.

So, there you have it: Media Analysis 101.

And if you'd like me to do a deep dive on the environmental impact of different types of milk, let me know — though I’ll focus on environmental factors, not health, because I'm not a dietitian and definitely not your go-to source for health advice.

Kia ora, have a wonderful week, and I'll see you next time.

And there you go. I hope you learned something and realised that being green isn't about having a pantry that perfectly matches those silly glass jars or living in a commune. If that's your jam, fabulous — but sustainability, at its core, is just about using what you need.

If you enjoyed this episode, please don't keep it to yourself. Feel free to drop me a rating and hit the subscribe button.

Kia ora, and I'll see you next week.