Deeming - An absolute must read. How the FDA gagged the press

[MoonLit_Water]

Don't we have freedom of speech?

You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
(The Clash)

 

[sonicdsl]

This article just confirms my fears.

That's the way I'd lean too. Then I have thoughts of masses only reading headlines(if that) and only getting news from FB click bait sites, and I want to crawl into a hole.

I've been in that hole. It's peaceful.

 

[mostlyclassics]

This sort of press censorship by the alphabet-science agencies has been going on for a long time.

Several years ago I canceled my subscription to Scientific American, after yet another one-sided supposed "article" about the horrors of vaping. Over the years I had seen quite a few other misleading alphabet-agency press releases, not just from the FDA, masquerading as reporting of scientific information in that magazine. I had been reading Scientific American for over fifty years and had been a subscriber for many of those.

After publication of this article, will I now resubscribe to Scientific American? No. The FDA's and other alphabet agencies' use of close-hold embargoes is just too pervasive. Since so much of Scientific American's content is regurgitation of government handouts, I cannot believe any of what appears on their pages.

Sorry, Scientific American. Too little, too late.

 

[retired1]

I find it ironic that Scientific American is whining about this. Obviously, they weren't "invited" along with the preferred stooges that the government uses to further its agenda.

But before everyone points at the FDA and blames them for something that they didn't start, read the following very closely.

Embargoes were first embraced by science reporters in the 1920s, in part because they take the pressure off. After all, when everybody agrees to publish their stories simultaneously, a reporter can spend extra time researching and writing a story without fear of being scooped. “[Embargoes] were created at the behest of journalists,” says Kiernan, who has written a book, Embargoed Science, about scientific embargoes. “Scientists had to be convinced to go along.” But scientific institutions soon realized that embargoes could be used to manipulate the timing and, to a lesser extent, the nature of press coverage. The result is a system whereby scientific institutions increasingly control the press corps. “They've gotten the upper hand in this relationship, and journalists have never taken it back,” Kiernan says.

Emphasis mine.

It's the media that requested this. Not the government. All the government did was try to twist it to their advantage. The howls of outrage towards the FDA are sorely misplaced. It's the media that's at fault here for starting something nearly 100 years ago so they'd have an advantage on releasing a story.

The whole concept of "embargoes" is an underhanded, cheap method. Considering the misrepresentation of facts that occur commonly these days, I'd expect nothing less out of an institution that's supposed to keep a populace informed.

 

[clay369]

And what will be done about this breach of ethics by the dreaded FDA?

The answer to that question is the same answer to "How does one win against the $". The vested interests in corporate tobacco is a multi-Biliion $ industry.. it's tenacles are interwined into every avenue before vaping arrived. Dem's da facts.

 

[WillyZee]

A lot of this gagging the press thing going on lately.

We still win this battle ... shortest prohibition ever.

Edit to add ... the only way we don't win?

for some crazy thing to happen, where Vaping is truly worse than smoking.

Doctors will have to speak up ... they must already see dramatic improvement in smoking patients.

stock up


Sent via iPhone

 

[retired1]

And from what I'm seeing from the responses, the press will get another pass on something that should never have been permitted to start with. Already people are howling in outrage, pointing their fingers at the FDA when it's the press themselves that should shoulder full responsibility for this.

PT Barnum was right. And the press is counting on that fact.

 

[Lessifer]

And from what I'm seeing from the responses, the press will get another pass on something that should never have been permitted to start with. Already people are howling in outrage, pointing their fingers at the FDA when it's the press themselves that should shoulder full responsibility for this.

PT Barnum was right. And the press is counting on that fact.

Well, not that I'm for embargoes, but there is a difference between holding a story until a certain time, and not being allowed to contact outside sources for comment.

Of course, there's nothing to stop the journalists from contacting those sources AFTER the embargo is lifted, but then your article isn't first. As most "articles" these days are reprints from the AP newswire, or other such regurgitation, the first article is usually THE article.

 

[retired1]

Well, not that I'm for embargoes, but there is a difference between holding a story until a certain time, and not being allowed to contact outside sources for comment.

Of course, there's nothing to stop the journalists from contacting those sources AFTER the embargo is lifted, but then your article isn't first. As most "articles" these days are reprints from the AP newswire, or other such regurgitation, the first article is usually THE article.

And all it would take to stop this in its tracks is for the press to print what's going on. But no, they continue to let things be all because it's now a ratings game.

The press could easily stop this in its tracks. They could tell any agency to go pound sand if they try to limit who the press can contact. But as the press DID start this whole practice to begin with, they find it much better to just roll with the punches. I find that totally unacceptable.

The only reason Scientific American reported on this shameful practice is they're still mad at not being part of the FDA's chosen few. If they had been part of that group, do you honestly think they'd have written that article?

Nope. Neither do I.

 

[Hitmetwice]

Journalists or Stenographers? (sorta liked that)

Journalism takes another step lower.
But how low CAN they go?
Are they all trash rags?
I'm sure there are many in the ranks with integrity but this
crap makes 'em all smell like poo. Cheers.

 

[Lessifer]

And all it would take to stop this in its tracks is for the press to print what's going on. But no, they continue to let things be all because it's now a ratings game.

The press could easily stop this in its tracks. They could tell any agency to go pound sand if they try to limit who the press can contact. But as the press DID start this whole practice to begin with, they find it much better to just roll with the punches. I find that totally unacceptable.

The only reason Scientific American reported on this shameful practice is they're still mad at not being part of the FDA's chosen few. If they had been part of that group, do you honestly think they'd have written that article?

Nope. Neither do I.

Again, not defending the journalists, but think about society today, especially American society. How many people are going to read this article and raise any kind of stink about it? How many will even read this article? How many will go right back to clicking the first article they see and "knowing" that to be the truth, or just go back to reading headlines?

 

[DaveP]

This kind of explains why these days there's suddenly a plethora of articles in a Google search , most with the same or very similar headline, appearing on the same day with the same set of quotes.

I always thought that to be odd. Now it makes more sense.

 

[Kittyariel]

PT Barnum was right. And the press is counting on that fact.

How sad

 

[Katdarling]

Again, not defending the journalists, but think about society today, especially American society. How many people are going to read this article and raise any kind of stink about it? How many will even read this article? How many will go right back to clicking the first article they see and "knowing" that to be the truth, or just go back to reading headlines?

Sadly, at least 99% of the sheeple.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

The only thing that surprises me is that I’m not surprised about it at all. A lot of news happenings make perfect sense now.

Not to mention news feeds. I thought it was odd anti-vaping “research” articles showed up on google news on Fridays and “stuck” there for the entire weekend.

From the mouths of babes:

"It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion," Stanton Glantz.

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

Yeah, that Glantz.

I find it ironic that Scientific American is whining about this. Obviously, they weren't "invited" along with the preferred stooges that the government uses to further its agenda.

But before everyone points at the FDA and blames them for something that they didn't start, read the following very closely.

Emphasis mine.

It's the media that requested this. Not the government. All the government did was try to twist it to their advantage. The howls of outrage towards the FDA are sorely misplaced. It's the media that's at fault here for starting something nearly 100 years ago so they'd have an advantage on releasing a story.

The whole concept of "embargoes" is an underhanded, cheap method. Considering the misrepresentation of facts that occur commonly these days, I'd expect nothing less out of an institution that's supposed to keep a populace informed.

Sorry Retired, didn’t see the article as “whining” about it as much as an expose on the FDA’s illegal practices. I applaud them for doing so, it’s a solid piece of evidence we and others fighting the FDA can point to.

Blaming a profession for what happened 120 years ago, in a vastly different era of “mass media,” is irrelevant today. There are benefits to briefing the press ahead of time for a news event so they can prepare their stories to intelligently inform the public on the pros and cons, the problem comes with the “close-hold embargo.” It’s illegal for the FDA to impose it and they need to be held accountable for every infraction to the highest extent of the law.

All news organizations should band together to oppose such restrictions for any briefing or quit using “news” to describe themselves. The press got themselves into it, they need to get themselves out of it. What’s the FDA, or any other organization, going to do about it when all they have to look at during a briefing is the National Enquirer and their ilk? Not only do news organizations need to be held accountable for reporting lopsided news, commonly known as an opinion, but also the individual news reporters and their respective editors.

And now, while the younger half of ECF is out doing their patriotic duty of shutting down their local bars, I’m too tired to do my usual ECF rounds.

 

[retired1]

Sorry Retired, didn’t see the article as “whining” about it as much as an expose on the FDA’s illegal practices. I applaud them for doing so, it’s a solid piece of evidence we and others fighting the FDA can point to.

Blaming a profession for what happened 120 years ago, in a vastly different era of “mass media,” is irrelevant today. There are benefits to briefing the press ahead of time for a news event so they can prepare their stories to intelligently inform the public on the pros and cons, the problem comes with the “close-hold embargo.” It’s illegal for the FDA to impose it and they need to be held accountable for every infraction to the highest extent of the law.

Sure it was whining. Scientific American is all hurt about not being included in the FDAs inner circle of lackeys. Do you honestly think they'd have published that article if they had been part of that group? And it's most definitely relevant as it was the media that instituted the practice to begin with. And they're more than willing to continue, as evidenced by their complicity in agreeing to the terms of embargoes today.

 

[Bea-FL]

Unfortunately I'm not surprised. I grew up in a country where freedom of the press was tightly controlled by the government. When I moved to the US I was told that in this country everyone is free to say whatever they want without fear of prosecution. What they forgot to tell me was that it is controlled by the powerful and the rich. In my book that is called censorship.

As far as this article is concerned, IMO its most important aspect is that the general public who reads it now knows what's going on. I am one of those. I had no idea that this was as pervasive as it is. I was also told when I was new here which newspapers and journalists I should trust to give me the whole story - both sides of it - so I could make an informed opinion.

If this gag order, euphemistically called a close-hold embargo, is truly against the law rather than unethical then agencies that practice it should be procecuted. Otherwise there is no freedom of the press.

 

[Kent C]

Scientific American hasn't always been that 'kind' to ecigarettes. Early articles featuring Stan Glantz were not that good:

Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in - vaping.com

"Speaking of anti-vaping enthusiasts, the SA article now brings in the one expert quoted in the article, and it is Stanton Glantz, “a self-described e-cigarette pessimist” whose data and interpretations of data are widely viewed, even by his supporters, as exaggerated anti-vaping campaigns.

The SA article concludes with a question about whether “e-cigs are genuinely safe”, meaning: are they safer than swimming in the ocean, flying in a plane, or using a food processor. If they're not safer than all those everyday things and more, then smokers should just keep on smoking and dying, according to the Scientific American."

How Safe Are Electronic Cigarettes? Not Everyone Agrees


Also, both Popular Science and Scientific American shut down their 'comments sections' because of various 'deniers'.

Russell Smith: Say bye to the online comment section as you know it

 

[Hysteria]

It's not just the FDA. The press has been complicit in this as well, and has been for decades.

The press could have caused enough stink to where this practice would never be considered. But, as they want to be first to getting a story out, they agree to these conditions all in the name of "ratings".

Both the feds AND the press should be hauled before the court of public opinion and trounced soundly.

My exact thoughts.

 

[Bad Ninja]

There are no more journalists employed by the media.
They have bloggers instead churning out product to entice advertising traffic.
Most articles in all mainstream media channels havent even been proofread.
Simple spelling and grammer mistakes abound.
These are professional writers that dont bother to even read their own work. Do you think they actually fact check?
And people today accept and defend it.
Its rediculous.
And we are supposed to swallow that crap like its gospel.