Anyone who has read my past posts knows I am at odds with the conventional views on fatness in this society. But even I was floored with how the media presented the "obesity is contagious" study this past weekend. The study was extremely limited - they did not ask people how many friends they had, how often they see them, how many are fat vs thin etc. Instead, they looked at the friends people put down as back up contacts in case researchers lost track of them. In some cases it was just one. (They were using data from a study designed for a completely different purpose!) Yet, it was uncritically hyped all over the media. The whole purpose of publishing in a journal is the peer review process. Studies need to be picked apart, then done over and over before we are comfortable with the findings. At least that is what I learned in my graduate methodology class. The media used to throw in an opposing point of view. No more. Even the MacNeil Leher Newshour played like a VNR. Not ONE criticism! They spun unlikely results like a fat friend far away one rarely sees has more influence than one's spouse or neighbor as brilliant instead of some statistical fluke. The media is even touting they proved CAUSATION. That causation can be proved from ONE study based on a computer model with such a limited, non representative sample of friends is mind boggling. Whether or not one agrees with the results of the study, the way it has been heralded in the media is downright scary. Those who don't care about stigma should be scared at the decline of scientific inquiry! Maybe not in the scientific community itself, but the way that community's results are being distorted to serve agendas.
I'm sure it's true that Sky Radio is "an effective medium for my company to get my word out to a captive business audience." Maybe it would be even more effective if you could strap people down, pry open their eyeballs with toothpicks, and force them to watch propaganda films while dosing them with drugs that make them more receptive to suggestion. Being "effective," however, doesn't make it right.
The fact that you are "able to spin the message I'd like to without the constraints of a traditional media outlet" is precisely why Sky Radio represents a corruption of journalism. Long-standing codes of journalistic ethics make it clear that journalists should avoid conflicts of interest with regard to the subjects they report about, and taking money to do an interview is as glaring a conflict of interest as can be imagined. The fact that news media earn revenues from advertising is not the same thing at all. My local newspaper runs advertisements, but it maintains a separation between advertising and reporting.
Anyone who has read my past posts knows I am at odds with the conventional views on fatness in this society. But even I was floored with how the media presented the "obesity is contagious" study this past weekend. The study was extremely limited - they did not ask people how many friends they had, how often they see them, how many are fat vs thin etc. Instead, they looked at the friends people put down as back up contacts in case researchers lost track of them. In some cases it was just one. (They were using data from a study designed for a completely different purpose!) Yet, it was uncritically hyped all over the media. The whole purpose of publishing in a journal is the peer review process. Studies need to be picked apart, then done over and over before we are comfortable with the findings. At least that is what I learned in my graduate methodology class. The media used to throw in an opposing point of view. No more. Even the MacNeil Leher Newshour played like a VNR. Not ONE criticism! They spun unlikely results like a fat friend far away one rarely sees has more influence than one's spouse or neighbor as brilliant instead of some statistical fluke. The media is even touting they proved CAUSATION. That causation can be proved from ONE study based on a computer model with such a limited, non representative sample of friends is mind boggling. Whether or not one agrees with the results of the study, the way it has been heralded in the media is downright scary. Those who don't care about stigma should be scared at the decline of scientific inquiry! Maybe not in the scientific community itself, but the way that community's results are being distorted to serve agendas.
Good for him! He He! I might buy it myself!!!!!
I wonder what she thinks of the treasonous act of sending soldiers to die under false pretenses?
This PR frenzy also reflects internal wars within islamist ranks.
A big chunk may abandon terror to focus on politics, surfing on demographics (the Bush-Bin Laden duet made fundamentalism mainstream).
Ayman al-Zawahiri is under pressure and losing ground, al Qaeda itself is torn between at least two currents.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT -
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com
______________________________________________________________________________________
I'm sure it's true that Sky Radio is "an effective medium for my company to get my word out to a captive business audience." Maybe it would be even more effective if you could strap people down, pry open their eyeballs with toothpicks, and force them to watch propaganda films while dosing them with drugs that make them more receptive to suggestion. Being "effective," however, doesn't make it right.
The fact that you are "able to spin the message I'd like to without the constraints of a traditional media outlet" is precisely why Sky Radio represents a corruption of journalism. Long-standing codes of journalistic ethics make it clear that journalists should avoid conflicts of interest with regard to the subjects they report about, and taking money to do an interview is as glaring a conflict of interest as can be imagined. The fact that news media earn revenues from advertising is not the same thing at all. My local newspaper runs advertisements, but it maintains a separation between advertising and reporting.
Pages