In a clear criminal act against constitutional freedom of press, FDA cut off reporters who dared investigate "unapproved" opinions
How the FDA Manipulates the Media
How the FDA Manipulates the Media
FDA gagged media on "deeming" press release
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Years ago - we looked up to the media. We counted on them to provide unbiased reports. Now the media is absolutely controlled from politics to e-cigs. Sad.
Now I know why certain news agencies didn't cover the story. The more I read the more disgusted I become. I will now read articles with great skepticism.
“I think embargoes that attempt to control sourcing are dangerous because they limit the role of the reporter whose job it is to do a full look at a subject,” says New York Times former public editor Margaret Sullivan. “It's really inappropriate for a source to be telling a journalist whom he or she can and can't talk to.”
Yet.............
"Later that day in April 2014, Stein—along with reporters from more than a dozen other top-tier media organizations, including CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times—showed up at a federal building to get his reward. Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead."
Yet.............
"Later that day in April 2014, Stein—along with reporters from more than a dozen other top-tier media organizations, including CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times—showed up at a federal building to get his reward. Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead."
“It's really inappropriate for a source to be telling a journalist whom he or she can and can't talk to” [says New York Times former public editor Margaret Sullivan.]
Snort. Wisconsin Public Radio asked anti-smoker Ira Sharenow if HE would allow me to be on a program with him. Of course the answer was no! And they handed Sharenow and other anti-smokers many forums to spew their vicious lies multiple times per year for decades, while I never got an equivalent chance once.
This has been going on for decades, since long before e-cigs were even a gleam in anyone's eye. Will people ever stop being so gullible as to believe the mass media tell the whole story?
Snort. Wisconsin Public Radio asked anti-smoker Ira Sharenow if HE would allow me to be on a program with him. Of course the answer was no! And they handed Sharenow and other anti-smokers many forums to spew their vicious lies multiple times per year for decades, while I never got an equivalent chance once.
This has been going on for decades, since long before e-cigs were even a gleam in anyone's eye. Will people ever stop being so gullible as to believe the mass media tell the whole story?
What's criminal is the entire concept of "embargoes" was created by the media to start with. All the government did was try to take advantage of something that the press started.
A top journalist is suing the FDA over its alleged use of a banned and secretive practice to manipulate the news
A top journalist is suing the FDA over its alleged use of a banned and secretive practice to manipulate the news
A top journalist is suing the FDA over its alleged use of a banned and secretive practice to manipulate the news
Katya, our "journalist" schools are teaching differently now. There has to be a reason why a very large majority of journalists/reporters vote one party. There has to be a reason why most major news networks lean one way. There has to be a reason why they don't even pretend to be balanced anymore. 
I don't think a political bias explains this particular phenomenon. The media is agreeing to these terms because they are denied access if they don't. Sure, the media started the "embargo" practice in the 1920's but that was not the "close hold embargo" we are seeing today with the FDA. The original idea was just a ban on reporting a story until a date certain. This benefited the media because it gave them time to work up their stories without fear of being scooped by other outlets. But it didn't really harm the public much because it only affected the timing of the stories, not the content.
However, this new policy of not permitting the media to access outside sources until after the embargo expires - which is a form of de facto censorship - is a creation of the FDA and other agencies. The real culprit here is the FDA.
I agree that there tends to be an "anti" spin on media coverage of e-cigs in general, but this has to do with the media's true bias - sensationalism. The media is corporate owned and accountable all the way up the food chain to a board of directors and ultimately to shareholders. Its interest is in profits.
If e-cigs are just "pretty much safe" as the research so far suggests, there is no controversy at all. It makes for much better print to sensationalize a single anomalous study, then quote people on "both sides" to turn it into a giant controversy. Otherwise, the coverage would read like this: "today, the 9,763rd toxicology study came out saying that they found pretty much nothing to be concerned about in e-cig vapor." Doesn't make for much of a headline, does it?
So yeah, the media is a serious problem here, but there's nothing we can do to change the media's bent toward playing up e-cigs as a "health controversy." IMO the only way to turn this around with the media is to somehow make the dishonesty of those who are exaggerating the health risks of e-cigs into the story itself. Because that IS a true controversy. And with the FDA's draconian regulations which are predicated on this dishonest propaganda, it's now more like a bona fide public health scandal that few members of the general public are aware of.
The media will eventually figure this out. But it's going to be later rather than sooner because we don't have strong enough or powerful enough voices yet to counter this propaganda.
However, this new policy of not permitting the media to access outside sources until after the embargo expires - which is a form of de facto censorship - is a creation of the FDA and other agencies. The real culprit here is the FDA.
I agree that there tends to be an "anti" spin on media coverage of e-cigs in general, but this has to do with the media's true bias - sensationalism. The media is corporate owned and accountable all the way up the food chain to a board of directors and ultimately to shareholders. Its interest is in profits.
If e-cigs are just "pretty much safe" as the research so far suggests, there is no controversy at all. It makes for much better print to sensationalize a single anomalous study, then quote people on "both sides" to turn it into a giant controversy. Otherwise, the coverage would read like this: "today, the 9,763rd toxicology study came out saying that they found pretty much nothing to be concerned about in e-cig vapor." Doesn't make for much of a headline, does it?
So yeah, the media is a serious problem here, but there's nothing we can do to change the media's bent toward playing up e-cigs as a "health controversy." IMO the only way to turn this around with the media is to somehow make the dishonesty of those who are exaggerating the health risks of e-cigs into the story itself. Because that IS a true controversy. And with the FDA's draconian regulations which are predicated on this dishonest propaganda, it's now more like a bona fide public health scandal that few members of the general public are aware of.
The media will eventually figure this out. But it's going to be later rather than sooner because we don't have strong enough or powerful enough voices yet to counter this propaganda.
Last edited:
Our "Free Press"? Ha ha. Our press is also heavily manipulated by corporate interests using fake "academic" institutions, planted stories, astroturfing, etc. The latest gambit? Publish planted stories at sites that do not allow reader feedback/comments (or require faceplant authentication so they can identify their critics).
This is not a conspiracy theory -- this is fact.
This is not a conspiracy theory -- this is fact.
Every published article with falsehoods should be met with blunt and direct feedback pointing out the falsehood. Many, and maybe even most, people read comments (when comments are still allowed...)
While I TOTALLY agree with you, I do believe you make it sound a bit too simple.
And it certainly should be simple, if the media was willing and able to run such a story.
But I suspect the media is not willing and able to run such a story.
And for reasons other than those you suggest.
Thoughts?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
