Arg! Et tu, National Geographic

[Spazmelda]

http://news.nationalgeographic.
com/news/2013/09/130915-electronic-cigarettes-smoking-nicotine/

Really? Really? I'm so disgusted. No attempt at all to get info from a non-ANTZ.

 

[Petrodus]

Are E-Cigarettes a Boon, a Menace or Both? ...
articles are being reprinted around the Net.

 

[AgentAnia]

Okay, so maybe I'm a bit behind the times here, but.... National Geographic? National Geographic chiming in on ecigs??? Wonder how much the ANTZ had to pay to plant this "article"? Makes me long for the days of good old-fashioned bare-breasted ethnicity.

I wonder if any NG editor will have the good sense to be embarrassed? Un effing believable.

 

[Petrodus]

I was also surprised to see National Geographic "Sell Out" !!

 

[ClippinWings]

Good god.... this is getting ridiculous...

NG might not pull the Megalodon crap that Discovery did... but they'll take He Who Must Not Be Named's statements as fact when it comes to eCigs?

I don't get it.

I thought they were true, unbiased, scientific reporting.

 

[Petrodus]

We should "hammer" National Geographic for publishing
this garbage ... in the comments section

 

[Uma]

Their ratings went down this season because they changed Doomsday Preppers into Castle Preppers .

 

[Uma]

I tried to sign up but It says USA is not a valid country

 

[Petrodus]

There was a time BEFORE "Reality TV" when National Geographic
produced high quality programs. Now its hard to find any program
on Cable TV which is not a "Reality TV" show.

 

[Ranic85]

TV? What's that? I haven't had cable service in about 5 years now. Too much propaganda and stupid shows, not to mention more commercials than actual content. I am not surprised NG posted propaganda about vaping. Our enemies are everywhere.

 

[Elnroth]

We should "hammer" National Geographic for publishing
this garbage ... in the comments section

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[DrMA]

Quite surprising indeed that NG would get involved in this...

 

[Petrodus]

Tried to view the article and comments
and got a pop-up
Please register or sign in to continue

Edit
I clicked on "Register Later"
then could see the article

 

[Uma]

It still won't let me sign up, says my location is invalid. I even tried bigger well known towns, same thing.

 

[Spazmelda]

It still won't let me sign up, says my location is invalid. I even tried bigger well known towns, same thing.

I think you have to say, city, state, United States. Or maybe it was United States of America. I only know because helpful suggestions popped up for me. It was kind of a pain to register, and by the time I successfully did it I was too frustrated to post. I'll post a comment later.

 

[Uma]

Thanks, I tried that, and still no go, but now that its rested, I'll try that again.

Still no go. Maybe it's the iPad, because whenever I add a letter, I have to bring the keyboard back up. It's so aggravating to go through all this, only to be told my location doesn't exist.
I give up.

 

[Berylanna]

I found it accepted my location if I:

1. Used a bigger nearby city AND
2. CLICKED on the resulting pop-up suggestion instead of filling it out by typing

Sent this to the newsdesk in addition to commenting:

to newsdesk of National Geographic:

Re: hxxp:// new s.nationalgeographic.com /news/2013/09/130915-electronic-cigarettes-smoking-nicotine/

By
Diane Cole
for National Geographic
Published September 15, 2013

Ms. Cole's article interviewed two 'experts' both on the same side of the e-cig debate, one of which is a well-known extreme nicotine prohibitionist.

Other studies just out have much better data, much more honest interpretations of their data, and include scientists who are not funded by pharmaceutical companies. Obviously Ms. Cole was not interested in the "other side" or the other scientific data.

This article is a travesty coming from a magazine with your reputation and I urge you to be more careful in editing the articles submitted for your site.


I'm an e-cig user ("vaper") who has cut down from 24 combustible cigarettes a day to 4, using e-cigs, and hope to keep that number going down.

If Mr. Glantz believes I'd be better-off switching back to add another 20 cigarettes a day, I welcome him to join me in such a change.

I have been made aware of a web site that has multiple links to honest, peer-reviewed, science on the matter,
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association I urge you to have an unbiased writer or editor review that site and then review Ms. Cole's journalism quality.

Thank you

 

[Uma]

Excellent letter!!
I so admire all you calm, cool, collected, factual based, fighters out here. I really do. Thanks for all you do!!!

 

[Galactic Stone]

I didn't see this thread (or forum for that matter!), but I posted something very similar in one of the general forums. I just noticed the article today while having lunch and browsing through my news feed. I posted in comments section and most of the comments seemed positive and informed about vaporizers. Overall, it's a terrible article. One has to recognize that the major brand names with associate with integrity are not the same entities our parents remember, or we remember. These are corporate concerns whose sole driving interest is profiteering while maintaining a facade of morality and legality. Unfortunately, National Geographic is no different now. The Smithsonian Channel and magazine is another example of bad science masquerading as pop culture-grade "scientific" publications. Nat Geo still has pretty pictures, that's about it. Go to your favorite search engine and do a query for who owns National Geographic now. It's just one holding in a vast media empire that several competing magnates are vying for control of.

In most other venues, I would have ignored an article like this. I wouldn't have commented on it and I wouldn't be talking about it right now. But, media entities like Nat Geo, Smithsonian, and many others are passing off bad science onto the public - and the science-challenged public eats it up because it's flashy, loud, attractive, and most of all, easy to understand. It's junk-food science. Popular Science and Popular Mechanics are another example - once great publications that had integrity, which are now little more than advertising vehicles struggling to transition into the internet medium.

A few well-informed and diplomatic comments from the pro-vaporizer crowd can clear up some of the misconceptions.

The same thing happens on a regular basis with meteorites - the media always gets the science wrong with meteorites. And us old-school meteorite people have to scramble around and clean up the mess. LOL.

 

[Uma]

Whatever article gets the highest views and comments wins.
We really need to comment our gratitude in good articles, instead of just rushing on to put straight a bad one, but we need to do both.