E-cig reporting: What went wrong?

[NoFumus]

From the San Diego News Tribune:
E-cig reporting: What went wrong?

"Science journalism ended the year on a down note, with widespread misreporting of a study from San Diego researchers on the risk of electronic cigarettes.

Numerous stories breathlessly claimed e-cigarettes may be no better than smoking regular cigarettes. This, the stories inaccurately stated, was what the researchers from the VA San Diego Healthcare System and UC San Diego concluded in their study.

Looking at the factual wreckage spread by slipshod journalism, medical statistician Adam Jacobs picked a story from the Daily Telegraph as the “most dangerous, irresponsible, and ill-informed piece of health journalism of 2015."

...

"Everyone makes errors -- journalists and scientists alike. But failure to correct errors once pointed out, as happened here, is just wrong. And that so many reporters got it so wrong reflects a systemic problem. Copy and pasting press releases is more popular than actual thinking about the underlying claim."

 

[Painter_]

Thanks for posting this, I left a comment'

The problem is even if the "news" sources correct their misrepresentation of the study we will be seeing quotes from the misrepresentation of the study for months if not years to come. Articles like this one may help stem the tide but quite frankly it is mouse piss in the ocean. When it comes to vaper demonizing, the repeating of theses lies and misrepresentations are the norm.

 

[NoFumus]

Well put @Painter_.

 

[sofarsogood]

The woman who wrote the peice is naive. Government spends so much on science that it's bought and paid for. Science whores put out what ever result the government desires. The so-called journalists know that it's crap and repeat it because that's what it is. These days scientists and journalists are just as consumed by their desires as everybody else, no honor, no integrity no professional standards. The people who dispute global warming have a strong argument because government pays for the science. Dr. F doesn't get any money from the US government. Name a tax supported iinstitution in the US that loves ecigs.

 

[WattWick]

There seems to be two schools of Science. One striving for certainty and another striving for uncertainty.

 

[pennysmalls]

Maybe these shark journalists will start feeding off each other now. What bettter way to discredit the competition than by pointing out shoddy reporting and make your own self look legit in the process. It's to much to hope for i know, but it would be awesome to see them destroy each other.

 

[retired1]

This will shed some light on how some view science and how they're doing their best to put social norms in front of facts.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html

 

[redddog]

It could be that they're just being lazy.

The same old facts are regurgitated (that have long since been debunked) in a way that makes me think that some editor says to some low level writer "go find me something on E-cigs." The writer googles it and writes the first thing he sees.

 

[edyle]

after the reporting that lead up to the iraq war more than a decade ago, it's no surprise .
if they can't get it right on a serious issue like war, how could they possibly get it right for a more mundane issue like ecigs.