> This all changed recently when both video and audio tapes were deposited in Zimbardo’s online archive at Stanford University. It includes 994 items of which 49 are videos and 54 are sound recordings.

From my experience the issues with this study have been well known for a long time. A first year Psychology paper I took over 10 years ago was at pains to point out the flaws in the study - not that this was unusual, a good lecturer will critically analyse any scientific study they present. Perhaps it has more to do with the increasing popular appeal of the study?

Similarly, I was told very early on in my studies that Maslow's hierarchy of needs isn't actually supported by much evidence. And yet I still find it referenced everywhere.

Why do you ask? Do you think it's unusual to question something when new evidence comes to light? Seems entirely reasonable to share updated information on a very well known study.

Why was the evidence covered up for so long? What changed to have it come to the light? It's reasonable to reevaluate with new information, it's also worth questioning why there's new information

Agreed, but that wasn't what OP asked. It just seemed like an odd question given the headline explains that the reason this is being discussed is because there is new evidence available.

New evidence doesn't answer their question, why is their new evidence coming out to discredit this study now?

Q. "Why is there a push to discredit this study, seemingly all of a sudden?"

A. New evidence is available as stated clearly in the headline.

New evidence is the way the study is suddenly being discredited, it is not an answer to why it is happening.

Little more, we're basically disagreeing on what the question asked was. How cynical do you have to be to assume the question asker didn't even read the headline?

The article explains that. Previously it was hearsay, now raw audio and video evidence is available.

That isn't an explanation. It's not like the video and audio evidence was just recently made, why was it withheld and what changed?

That "new evidence" came to light in 2017. An entire book has been written and published since then. So why now?

Are you suggesting some conspiracy? 2018 comes after 2017. This is not a long gap in time for academic research.

Maybe because it was successfully silenced the first time?

This is huge IMO and I haven't heard about it until now so I think it is good that is being pushed again.

Why? Why not? Why? Why not?... It's interesting.

The author wanted to reach a new lucky 10,000. https://xkcd.com/1053/

Recent release of the tapes and Video? Possibly to validate violence and authority, or the questioning of them?

I believe it’s a controversial topic seeing regular discussion. It’s in vogue to discuss it. I mean, name a freshman psych lecture that doesn’t mention it.

New information has surfaced, so people are going to have new material to add to the conversation.

I can't recall any of my intro psych lectures mentioning it. It definitely wasn't mentioned during every hour of class time.

I think the "push" just comes and goes in waves as far as group consciousness goes.

When I was in college decades ago... same thing, lots of talk about that study and how silly it was / warning to think critically about things.

All of a sudden? Where have you been for the last thirty years?

There's been pushback to this study for over a decade, this isn't some new thing.