Six ways to spot if anti-[anything] stories are trying to mislead you

[AgentAnia]

Pete Brown, a UK blogster, has posted an article entitled "Six ways to spot if anti-drink stories are trying to mislead you." http://petebrown.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/six-ways-to-spot-if-anti-drink-stories.html

He's writing specifically about the anti-alcohol puritans making lots of noise in the UK right now, but if you substitute "tobacco" for "alcohol," I think his analysis is spot on for the ecig issue and worth reading by everyone here. Comments in blue are mine.

Here's a summary of his six points:

1. Does the piece focus on specific examples rather than overall trends?
Using personal examples to bring a statistical story to life is good journalism. Using isolated examples to imply a trend when there is no data to suggest such a trend exists is not. [Exploding batteries, anyone?]

2. Has new research been published or is there any other genuine hook for the story?
New figures,.... are newsworthy because they are new. If there are none in the story, then its newsworthiness must be questioned. [Gateway blah blah Flavors blah blah For the Children blah blah We just don't know blah blah]

3. If there are numbers, what is their source and how recent are they?
....[C]heck also how recent the data is, and where it's from..... [T[here's an emerging trend to quote old data even when newer data shows the problem is in decline. [FDA 2009. Also worth mentioning: Are the numbers presented accurately or not? As in, CDC's "e-cig use doubles among youth."]

4. Who wrote the piece and what is their interest? [Journalist using press release verbatim? Rep of alphabet or Big Control? Vaping advocate?]

5. Are the 'experts' being quoted really experts in what they're talking about? [For instance, is "tobacco expert's" PhD in mechanical engineering?]

6. Are the claims being made by the protagonist countered or challenged in any way? [The usual: Lettered "expert" countered by man-on-the-street vaper or B&M owner.]
Use of language is an immediate giveaway as to whether the piece is impartial or not. [Use of "nicotine-laced" vs. "nicotine-infused"; "trying ecigs" vs. "using ecigs."]