Anything has a range of interpretations or "partial representation of the facts" that can be used to provide spin to a story.

Narratives are powerful, and "independent research groups" can provide that (purposeful) narrative for their backers' gain.

Depends what one calls BS. Quick look at GTP-generated news gives impression that all covered topics are quite legal, but presentation looks FUDish. Like: “Google employees have enjoyed revolving door during Obama administration” [1]

[1]: http://watchdog.org/265844/google-obama-revolving-door/

I think the obvious question is how much research is it and how much is it just Oracle trying to give Google a hard time. A lot of people and/or press probably have a hard time distinguishing.

At least, a watchdog that talks about accountability and transparency should be accountable and transparent and it seems that they are not. That casts a doubt about the intention and the results

who decides what to publish and what to shut down?

hint: it's the people funding the research

> Research is either legit or BS. That's all that matters, doesn't it?

Yes but:

1. It's non-trivial to distinguish between the two

2. It's not a binary distinction. It could be 1%/99%, 99%/1% or anything inbetween.

So - a useful heuristic for those of us who can't take a few months off to reproduce the study is to 'follow the money'.