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

[KODIAK (TM)]

I really don't understand the shock and surprise.

So the media is not "independent"? Anyone here not know this already?

 

[JordanlovesMari]

That is courtesy.
Being polite and showing good manners are courtesy.
I expect and give courtesy because it is the right thing to do.
Understanding anothers point of view is the obviously the intelligent, courteous, and proper thing to do.
Thats not the same as respect.
The only way to get respect is to earn it.

You have a right to exect courtesy.
If you expect respect, you will never get it.



Now, that said, if everyone used good manners we wouldnt need laws, courts, governments, or police.

Good manners would save the entire human race.

The answers to the biggest problems are usually very simple.

Manners & sitting down to a good hot meal.

 

[Lessifer]

That is courtesy.
Being polite and showing good manners are courtesy.
I expect and give courtesy because it is the right thing to do.
Understanding anothers point of view is the obviously the intelligent, courteous, and proper thing to do.
Thats not the same as respect.
The only way to get respect is to earn it.

You have a right to exect courtesy.
If you expect respect, you will never get it.



Now, that said, if everyone used good manners we wouldnt need laws, courts, governments, or police.

Good manners would save the entire human race.

The answers to the biggest problems are usually very simple.

This might be a semantics thing, but I believe you can be courteous without actually listening to a word the other person is saying. Respect goes further than that, and I believe in giving respect until someone loses it.

 

[rudedog]

Scientific American has today published a major piece on the FDA's behavior in the run up to the release of its first draft of the deeming regulations.

In a clear violation of its own ethics policy, FDA briefed a select group of reporters on the content of the regulations, but forbad them from seeking third parties for comment, using a so-called "close-hold embargo".

The net result? The only voice represented was those in favor of the regulations, and an American public deprived of hearing from those affected.

The article is a must read, with massive implications beyond this issue. I'll say no more, judge for yourself: How the FDA Manipulates the Media

See also Michael Siegel: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: FDA Violated Ethics Rules to Censor Dissenting Opinions about Its E-Cigarette Regulations

H/T @DrMA

not tryin to be a jerk...but....this isnt news,we all knew the fda are a bunch of scumbags,along with most of our govt.til we clean house we can only expect more of the same BS we have been getting for decaeds!! [removed]

 

[rudedog]

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.

you mean keep the populace MISINFORMED...lol

 

[Bad Ninja]

This might be a semantics thing, but I believe you can be courteous without actually listening to a word the other person is saying. Respect goes further than that, and I believe in giving respect until someone loses it.

Pretending to be courteous is dishonorable and bad manners.
That isnt showing courtesy. That's faking it.
It sacrifices one's own personal integrity for the sake of a false image.
That speaks to self respect.

I can dislike and disagree with someone and still respect them if they have earned it.

One of the reason the media is such a disaster is a lack of honor and ethics, which also speak to self respect.
Selling out their own integrity for a few pieces of silver.
It's rampant and global. The governments encourage it.
The masses accept it. Its conditioned weakening of the character of society.

 

[rudedog]

1. Dont confuse courtesy with respect.
Respect is earned, never expected.

There is only one way to get respect: earn it.

2. Courtesy and political correctness are not the same. I am courteous and professional, but I do not subscribe to political correctness. I call em like I see em.

3.The truth is rarely politically correct.

agreed Bad Ninja!!100%!!!!

 

[seminolewind]

I read thru all this writing , linked and not, and find there's one thing missing in all this about vaping being as harmful as smoking- Proof. So far we all know that anyone who actually tries to convince people that vaping is as harmful as cigarettes, that vaping is meant to attract kids, vaping is not a method of quitting smoking, etc. It's Lying. Pure and simple. Lying. As in made up. As in without proof.

I think we need to be demanding "facts" be backed up with legal professional proof. I think we need to collect our data all in tidy briefs with professional legal proof. This just seems to have become "they said", "we said".

I remember reading a Consumer Report article about "e-cigarettes" and like me, people rely on that magazine as fact and as an aid in buying products that are truly good. I was heart broken to read their article about vaping, finding it was all heresay (and we know what that is) passed off as God's truth. I wrote a letter to the editor and got a form "thankyou".

Corruption is everywhere. I'd like to see more documentation now. And demand it. The FDA should not get away with referring to e-liquid as "toxic" and "carcinogenic", especially in court! And we not having any recourse to it. I'd love to demand proof. And watch them scamper to put something together.

 

[VHRB2014]

Typical of this administration. Whatever grows government larger and more oppressive.

 

[Katdarling]

Vote wisely.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

It's called "Churnalism". In the UK, the science editor of one of the country's most prestigious "broadsheets" (the Tory/right-leaning, Telegraph) is a lady called Sarah Knapton.

You can read about her behavior on Clive Bates' blog here. It's pretty funny, if you've got a strong stomach: Telegraph science editor Sarah Knapton puts the record straight. Not really.

My bad, I snickered. (Okay, I .) What Knapton did was pathetic--she ought to be fired--but I loved the way he shut her down, succinctly and with evidence. Go Clive!

Do like the two quotes he put in, they are number two and three at the bottom of the article:

You come across a number in a story or press release. Buyer beware. Before making it your own, ask who cooked it up. What are their credentials? What is their pitch? Do we have alternative evidence; what numbers are they not showing us; why this number, now? If the number comes from a study or research, has anyone reputable said the work is any good?


However, critically appraising research is not just “common sense”. And not knowing the right questions to ask means that anything that sounds “sciencey” can hold the same sway, regardless of its scientific merit. While many health and science journalists do great work filtering out flawed and poor quality evidence, unfortunately plenty of bad health reporting is out there, and it can cause real damage.

Relived to see the BBC still in good standing though I miss their headlines of not too long ago with things such as village firefighters spending a decent chunk of their day trying to capture someone’s escaped hamster hiding under the floorboards. (Y’all will be thrilled to know that when the hamster’s tummy growled, it went back to its cage to eat and the door was safely slammed shut behind it.) Yearn for the good old days when I wasn’t terrified to bring up the daily news.

There may be hope for some research being done as far as trying to dig down to the facts, or even getting some of the old bs studies removed. HHS Issues New Rules To Open Up Data From Clinical Trials

Vote wisely.

Excellent reply, wish I’d thought of it. Kudos, Kat!

 

[Katdarling]

Thank you, Tutu sweetie.

 

[choochoogranny]

When the word "gravitas" sprung up during all kinds of news media reporting (papers, magazines, radio, TV), it brought home to me that there was definitely an unseen force directing supposedly independent news reporting agencies into reporting......... the exact same news slant!

It really did confirm to me my suspicions of many years before that most reporters are merely "talking heads" (actors if you will) and are obviously controlled by their unseen editors who in turn are controlled by the politics of the owners of the various news outlets.

...........All of them are taught in pretty much the same institutions in the same studies.

 

[retired1]

I think we need to be demanding "facts" be backed up with legal professional proof. I think we need to collect our data all in tidy briefs with professional legal proof. This just seems to have become "they said", "we said".

I remember reading a Consumer Report article about "e-cigarettes" and like me, people rely on that magazine as fact and as an aid in buying products that are truly good. I was heart broken to read their article about vaping, finding it was all heresay (and we know what that is) passed off as God's truth. I wrote a letter to the editor and got a form "thankyou".

Corruption is everywhere. I'd like to see more documentation now. And demand it. The FDA should not get away with referring to e-liquid as "toxic" and "carcinogenic", especially in court! And we not having any recourse to it. I'd love to demand proof. And watch them scamper to put something together.

You forget. There ARE studies out there that meet your definition of "proof" that show possible harm. Granted, those studies were skewed in an attempt to come up with a preconceived result, but it still meets your demand of "legal proof". Combined with the studies that debunk the junk studies, you're now back to "Who do you believe?".

Governments, educational institutions, and even so called "scientists" have been lying with statistics for hundreds of years. Studies often reflect the bias of those who are performing them. Objectivity is rare, and critical thinking non-existent. And when it comes to reporting/journalism, dogma has become so entrenched within the ranks that it's virtually impossible to obtain just the facts on a story. The media slants the story (and this is true on both sides of the fence) to fit what it considers should be a societal norm, rather than forcing the public to think and come up with its own conclusions.

There are those in journalism now who feel objectivity is an anachronism and their primary function is to guide the public opinion towards what they feel should be a societal norm. Investigative journalism is pretty much a joke as they do the same thing that governments do. And that's twist things to their own agenda. This is why you see such a disparaging difference between different media outlets when it comes to e-cigarettes. And when it comes to public opinion, the vast majority of individuals out there can only go by what they read or hear from the media. So is it any wonder that there are those who believe that e-cigarettes are worse than cigarettes?

The media has long passed the age where objectivity and fact are the norm. And this is why they're so willing to go along with these closed embargoes. As long as the story fits into their narrow view of how things should be, why should they rock the boat and decry the practice as a 1st Amendment violation? After all, the press is who requested the practice of embargoes to begin with.

 

[Bad Ninja]

If you are basing decisions on "science" as presented by mainstream media, you are starting the trip with a hole in your canoe.

 

[MacTechVpr]

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.

You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)

 

[Bad Ninja]

I would remind Mr. Swinton that the task of a true Journalist is NOT to present opinion, but to present unbiased facts. Opinions are like...well...you know the rest.

I do however agree with his overall premise that the press is not free.

 

[Bad Ninja]

Its also not just the press.

Study warns that science as we know it is evolving into something shoddy and unreliable

Politics, dishonesty and low work ethic has permeated science as well.

The intentional dumbing down of the populace.

 

[Kent C]

(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)

Typical viewpoint of a certain political class... can't tell the people the truth of intentions or they'd never buy it.

Labor’s Untold Story in 1955. Co-written with freelance journalist and supposed Communist Richard O. Boyer, Labor’s Untold Story was billed as a story of adventure chronicling the battles, struggles, betrayals, and victories of America’s laborers.

The book was clearly written from a Marxist perspective in the way Morais and Boyer blended the economic factors of society with the plight of workers and the struggle that ensues between classes.

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1269010815/inline

 

[MacTechVpr]

Deleted (dup)