Media for example. Media people may be very careful, or believe they are careful, about how they separate opinions and editorials. But that doesn’t mean much to the public. 2016 showed that the media is not trusted by large portions of the public, and their own biases cloud their reporting.
Looking at academic publishers. They control the dissemination of information without adding value. There’s no reason for them to exist with the internet. They exist only because of their name. Academics publish there for their careers. But the publishers are one scandal away from being irrelevant.
The public is already distrustful of institutions, distrust of finance drove crypto, distrust of medicine drove the anti-vax movement. Distrust of the national security apparatus drives encryption. Distrust of big tech drives right-to-repair, and decentralized social networks.
Institutions fail. But we don’t see them face consequences. They are being used by people to hide behind them to absolve themselves of responsibility. No one likes there being a group of untouchables and being outside of that group. Therefore, people are turning their backs, and seeking out solutions to problems these institutions used to satisfy.
Same with academic articles. Different journals have different standards, they each have their own biases, and that is different than some professor's Twitter account.
I think it is hilarious that the author calls models from the social sciences "nonsense," which cannot possibly have the validity of the disciplines they revere like the natural sciences.... and economics.