And now they're coming after drippers.......Monday morning junk science edition

[EddieAdams]

This is what I was trying to talk about earlier in this thread, I don't believe it's fair to label something like this "fake news." Think about it from the reporter's perspective, a non-vaper. You have the FDA and CDC broadcasting their stance about vaping, and how it's the new threat to teenagers. You get someone who does a survey that says not only are teens vaping, but they're doing it in this "new" way called "dripping." Then you find a study that shows that "dripping" can have higher levels of formaldehyde than "regular" vaping.

If you didn't know all the specifics and had a full understanding of what vaping is and how these studies are skewed, like some of our fellow vapers even in this thread, you might think this story was a public service.

Isn't that what a reporter's job is EXACTLY? To find the facts. If everyday people who have other jobs can find the facts in a 15 minute Google search shouldn't someone who's actual job is to report be able to do the same and then some unless they have an agenda of course. I don't understand why you keep giving such leeway?

Sensationalism is what these vessels of BS are going for.

FDA BOC

 

[Lessifer]

Isn't that what a reporter's job is EXACTLY? To find the facts. If everyday people who have other jobs can find the facts in a 15 minute Google search shouldn't someone who's actual job is to report be able to do the same and then some unless they have an agenda of course. I don't understand why you keep giving such leeway?

Sensationalism is what these vessels of BS are going for.

FDA BOC

I'm not giving leeway. I'm pointing out that they DID find facts. This story has a peer reviewed survey and a peer reviewed study, and fits well among what the FDA and CDC have been saying. That's my point.

Would I like the reporter to understand what we do? Absolutely. However, if you were completely new to the subject, and had no stake in the game, you might believe otherwise.

My broader point is that it might feel good, amongst fellow vapers to scream fake news and junk science, but that doesn't help our cause. We need to do better at getting the real science out there.

 

[EddieAdams]

Yes, and these reporters omit or just ignore those real science studies because why? I can find them and it's not my job to find the truth. You still don't see the problem do you? Nor where fault actually lies?

FDA BOC

 

[Lessifer]

Yes, and these reporters omit or just ignore those real science studies because why? I can find them and it's not my job to find the truth. You still don't see the problem do you? Nor where fault actually lies?

FDA BOC

I agree that what passes for reporting these days is seriously lacking in fact checking and balanced reporting, but that's across the board.

I think we as individuals can influence those around us, and movements like that can spread, it's happened before. However, I think the industry needs to fight back. Of course, it's not a very unified industry.

 

[Lessifer]

I sway this direction myself.

Notice I gave 3 categories for the reporter.

Ill-informed.
Bought.
Bending to the will of the network.

Problem is with all the paid for "science", you'd be hard pressed to prove the reporter doesn't believe this garbage.

Just like the poster I was responding to.

I can't blame the poster either.

All I can do is try to inform him/her.

Shrug.

Tapatyped

I know you get it, I was using your post as more a starting point. There is no concerted effort to get the real science out there.

 

[EddieAdams]

I agree that what passes for reporting these days is seriously lacking in fact checking and balanced reporting, but that's across the board.

I think we as individuals can influence those around us, and movements like that can spread, it's happened before. However, I think the industry needs to fight back. Of course, it's not a very unified industry.

Again, the only reason to be so utterly incompetent at one's job of collecting facts and reporting them objectively is only if the truth in its entirety doesn't support the agenda you've laid out before gathering the facts. They've made the sensational headline and story before finding out the whole story and cherry picking facts that support that story.

It's NOT because they're actually that lazy and that incompetent.It's because they have a narrative. So excusing them like they're just not doing their job well isn't acceptable. They are doing their actual job of selling the public false narratives by representing part of the story as the whole story just fine.

FDA BOC

 

[Lessifer]

Let's say someone comes out with a new energy drink, Spazztastic, and spazztastic contains this supplement Absurdium. Someone releases a peer reviewed survey that says teens are drinking spazztastic, and a reporter sees this and starts writing a story, and they find a study that says absurdium when ingested at high levels can cause hair loss. Why would the reporter think they need to look further?

Not everything is a conspiracy. The deck is stacked against us, and only we(the vapers) are trying to get it shuffled. Or at least that's how it feels.

 

[DC2]

Not everything is a conspiracy. The deck is stacked against us, and only we(the vapers) are trying to get it shuffled. Or at least that's how it feels.

You know who SHOULD be trying to get that deck shuffled and that hand dealt?
The "non-profit" alphabet "health" groups and the anti-smoking wackos.

Why are they not doing so?
Mostly because of conspiracy.

 

[EddieAdams]

Let's say someone comes out with a new energy drink, Spazztastic, and spazztastic contains this supplement Absurdium. Someone releases a peer reviewed survey that says teens are drinking spazztastic, and a reporter sees this and starts writing a story, and they find a study that says absurdium when ingested at high levels can cause hair loss. Why would the reporter think they need to look further?

Not everything is a conspiracy. The deck is stacked against us, and only we(the vapers) are trying to get it shuffled. Or at least that's how it feels.

Because they're a reporter/journalist, that's why. There's responsibility with delivering news to larger public platforms to get the whole story. Not just copy, paste, and link.

What is absurdium? Do other energy drinks contain absurdium? Does absurdium really cause hair loss? Are there other studies besides this ONE study before I run this article condemning Spazztastic?

It's simple and really no excuse otherwise not to do the homework especially if it's your job. And when you choose not to do those basic things as a reporter you either have an agenda or somehow magically despite total incompetence landed a job at large news agency.

FDA BOC

 

[Ragnar94]

Oh ...., better list my VT Inbox and RDA's up....

 

[DC2]

It's simple and really no excuse otherwise not to do the homework especially if it's your job. And when you choose not to do those basic things as a reporter you either have an agenda or somehow magically despite total incompetence landed a job at large news agency.

It's very hard to deny the basic truth of this comment.

 

[zoiDman]

...

What is absurdium?

Absurdium is an Element with similar Chemical properties as Baloneium. In it's Elemental Form, it is consider Non-Toxic to Primates. Perhaps even Beneficial at trace amount. But it can bond with Dihydrogen Monoxide. Which should be Highly Avoided.

BTW - When you said "the only reason to be so utterly incompetent at one's job of collecting facts and reporting them objectively is only if the truth in its entirety doesn't support the agenda", this is Not entirely true.

Unless you include Making Money by publishing Hype, FUD, and Sensationalized Stores as part of an Agenda.

Most in the Media see this more as a Business Model than an Agenda. But I won't argue over Semantics

 

[beckdg]

It's very hard to deny the basic truth of this comment.

Until you look at journalism in it's current state.

For example;

One might say ... and likely be correct ... that Rip Trippers has more journalistic integrity than the whole of the New York Times.

He reports what he knows about what he knows.

And aside from every atty putting out more flavor and vapor than the last, he's mostly honest. And he does his homework.

Tapatyped

 

[beckdg]

It's simple and really no excuse otherwise not to do the homework especially if it's your job.

Except a journalists job has nothing to do with integrity of information anymore.

A journalists job has always been to report about stories that sell their brand.

Just now they're on the chopping block in favor of new forms of media, information overload and the shock factor.

A new shocking story takes precedent over truth, sleuth and integrity by a far stretch.

Jay Jonah Jameson has actually taken over the news media and similar outlets.

Tapatyped

 

[Eskie]

Except a journalists job has nothing to do with integrity of information anymore.

A journalists job has always been to report about stories that sell their brand.

Just now they're on the chopping block in favor of new forms of media, information overload and the shock factor.

A new shocking story takes precedent over truth, sleuth and integrity by a far stretch.

Jay Jonah Jameson has actually taken over the news media and similar outlets.

Tapatyped

We live in a world where Google will make anyone an expert in a field in 15 minutes, and instant communications for no production cost of whatever idea strikes you in the moment which can be disseminated far and wide. We are used to getting important policy decisions in 140 characters or less, and expect to find some video on YouTube which clearly supports our preexisting natural bias.

Traditional journalism has adapted to this environment to avoid extinction. Sadly the current state of world affairs is probably leading us all to extinction anyway.

 

[tj99959]

Haven't any of you taken a stat class??
If you have, you should already know how to make any survey or study express whatever viewpoint you wish.
You should also know how to look for the questions that were not asked/reported on.

 

[beckdg]

We live in a world where Google will make anyone an expert in a field in 15 minutes

And by example we have members here that utilize the misunderstood words of Mooch to dispel the words of Mooch...

And by example, according to WebMD, we're all going to die soon of every ailment known to man... because we're all suffering from everything if you go by the symptoms.

[emoji38]



Tapatyped

 

[beckdg]

<---- Grammer nazi

Absurdium is an Element with similar Chemical properties as Baloneium. In it's Elemental Form, it is consider Non-Toxic to Primates. Perhaps even Beneficial at trace amount. But it can bond with Dihydrogen Monoxide. Which should be Highly Avoided.

BTW - When you said "the only reason to be so utterly incompetent at one's job of collecting facts and reporting them objectively is only if the truth in its entirety doesn't support the agenda", this is Not entirely true.

Unless you include Making Money by publishing Hype, FUD, and Sensationalized Stores as part of an Agenda.

Most in the Media see this more as a Business Model more than an Agenda. But I won't argue over Semantics

EHEM

*Bolognaum

[emoji14]

Tapatyped

 

[Eskie]

And by example, according to WebMD, we're all going to die soon of every ailment known to man... because we're all suffering from everything if you go by the symptoms.

Let's face it. There is only one certainty in this world, so WebMD isn't so far off base. Even taxes aren't as sure a thing.

 

[Lessifer]

Is it possible that the reporter and/or their editor is intentionally painting vaping in a negative light? Sure. At the same time, I believe it's entirely possible that this reporter thought they did their due diligence. How many peer reviewed studies are there that detail how dripping is not a higher risk than regular vaping?

How much of the evidence in favor of vaping exists on blogs or other mediums that most people wouldn't consider to be credible sources?