Why even bother anymore?

[TNT]

Yet another "news" article that says absolutely nothing new... but repeats everythng old, from WTAE.com, in Pittsburgh: E-Cigarettes Touted As Safer Smoking Alternative - Health News Story - WTAE Pittsburgh

Despite e-cigarettes' clean claims, the FDA said they contain carcinogens and
toxic chemicals like diethylene glycol -- an ingredient found in antifreeze that
creates the vaporizing agent behind the so-called smoke.

That nicotine is what federal regulators take umbrage with -- as well
as the host of e-cigarette flavors that reportedly draw children in --
as the FDA says it is "concerned about the safety of these products and how they
are marketed to the public."

Well, after re-reading it, there is some news... according to the article, diethylene glycol is the sole reason for vapor... but allows the maker of White Clouds to say their e-cigs use a different ingredident: "Bartolotta said her White Cloud e-cigarettes are different because the vaporizing agent, propylene glycol, is FDA-approved."

 

[James]

Incredible the number of stories published with almost zero research. There was one the other day going on about the court case against the FDA - without mentioning that the FDA had lost the case. Twice.

 

[TNT]

I think my discouragement really comes from this: if these articles not only don't get better, but instead become increasingly clueless -- can we believe anything they say?

In my younger days, I briefly worked as a newspaper reporter... it doesn't have to be this way. Really, it doesn't.

 

[Zal42]

I think my discouragement really comes from this: if these articles not only don't get better, but instead become increasingly clueless -- can we believe anything they say?

No.

I've been on the "inside" of a few major newspaper stories, none of which were politically or socially loaded. All of which got the story wrong in some pretty fundamental ways, to the point that the story the paper told was pretty much a work of fiction "based on a true story."

From these experiences, I started paying attention to things that newspapers (and broadcast news) state as fact and, lo and behold, at least as often as not the "facts" turned out to be incorrect, as revealed in the fullness of time.

The news cannot be trusted for accuracy. It's a simple fact. Not that it's always wrong, but a large percentage of the time it is -- and it's hard to tell the fact from fiction except in hindsight, if even then.

What gets me is that most people have, at one time or another, read a news story about something that they have some expertise in and complained about how wrong it was. And yet it rarely occurs to them that the news is likely to be equally wrong about everything else, too.

I thing it's actually antinews and even more dangerous for it. It gives you the illusion of being well informed while actually leaving you less informed than you were before you were exposed to it. Thinking that you know when you don't is much, much worse than not knowing but knowing that you don't know.

 

[Demarko]

I've a few friends who are Japanese, and are stunned by the terrible reporting in the US about the situation over there. As the "situation changes" (from our understanding) really it's just that they're getting their "facts" different. "According to a homeless man under an overpass on I-5, there was an increase of..."

 

[Who_Wants_To_Know]

This is why the Daily Show is so popular. It's meant to be funny but it's about as true as CNN except they at least tell you they are bsing you.

 

[hairball]

Good grief...not another story! I wish the news would search it some before printing crap like that. I normally don't pay attention to the news as it is generally all lies but hubby does. He drives me crazy with some of the crap they say about stuff...anyone want a hard-headed man?....well? anyone?....darn...I guess I'm stuck with him...LOL. I just want to break the TV and radio that he listens/watches all the time.

 

[Audio Weasel]

This is why the Daily Show is so popular. It's meant to be funny but it's about as true as CNN except they at least tell you they are bsing you.

I think The Onion's about as accurate as any of the rest of them.

 

[Tom09]

There is possibly something newsworthy in this “article” (link in OP):

... Pennsylvania is considering legislation that would prohibit selling them to anyone under the age of 18.

Similar here (Electronic cigarettes ignite debate, Times Leader, March 27):

Pennsylvania has begun legislation that would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under 18.

Puts up a warning sign that someone might be working on yet another e-cig law (a “ban to under the age of 18” does not always represent the delivered package). Does someone know about the actual measure?

 

[Vocalek]

I'm sure Bill Godshall will be keeping an eye on it.

 

[Tom09]

I'm sure Bill Godshall will be keeping an eye on it.

I’d think so, too. Just have not seen anything about a PA measure on the forums...

 

[SABOTEUR]

Reminds me of the old adage that if you say something often enough, loud enough, it becomes "true" regardless of whether or not there is evidence to support the claim.

It's obvious seeds are being continuously planted to discredit electronic cigarettes. Negative public perception of e-cigs may assist anti-vaping legislation.

 

[TNT]

Intreresting posts, but this is still what stuns me about the article:

Despite e-cigarettes' clean claims, the FDA said they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals like diethylene glycol -- an ingredient found in antifreeze that creates the vaporizing agent behind the so-called smoke.

Bartolotta said her White Cloud e-cigarettes are different because the vaporizing agent, propylene glycol, is FDA-approved.

To the average reader, this looks like diethylene glycol is THE main ingredient of every e-cig... except White Clouds, which apparently are some novel technology, propylene glycol. That is, it's gone from "The FDA tested a few random samples and found one (or was it two?) that contained a trace of diethylene glycol," to it being the "vaporizing agent behind the so-called smoke."

In other words, people can pull this out as "proof" that anyone who doesn't use a certain brand is vaping pure anti-freeze.

That's scary. Although it makes vaping a lot cheaper... a gallon of Prestone is, what?, $5 or so?

As far as PA passing a law against underage buyers, I'm not concerned. Yes, they'll ultimately pass that law (every state will), but politicians here aren't known for being especially bold. That partly explains why PA hasn't produced a candidate for President in as long as anybody can remember.

 

[Vocalek]

Nah. Prestone contains 0% to 8% DEG. The main ingredient is Ethylene Glycol. https://www2.itap.purdue.edu/MSDS/docs/7104.pdf

 

[Vap0rJay]

I like this one...

"That nicotine is what federal regulators take umbrage with -- as well as the host of e-cigarette flavors that reportedly draw children in."

Yeah, because being an adult means your tongue swells up and falls off and you can no longer taste. I mean... Seriously... God firbid I as an adult, like cotton candy?

 

[cookiebun]

What's also infuriating is that you can't comment on that story. It make it sound like only White Cloud uses PG.
All ecigs use PG. I hope some one contacts them and gets them to correct this blatant error.

Edit:
After a bit of fighting with Google Chrome I can see there are comments from informed people on this story. Hallelujah for that.
That article made me REALLY angry. I sweep floors for a living and I could have written a better article than that.
At least I can operate a search engine. Apparently the "journalist" responsible for that story can't.

 

[Kurt]

Holy crap!! Look at these White Cloud prices!!

Starter Kits | White Cloud Cigarettes

$290 for a starter kit? Smooth-draw cartridges? After looking closely at this sleazy site, I have concluded that it is probable that their "Cirus" ecig is an E9, like GreenSmoke, and their WAY more expensive Cirus II is a kr808d-1. For literally hundreds of dollars.

This story was clearly a plug for White Cloud. Whenever I see something like this, with some shady overpriced starters and completely ignorant claims, I always look to see if it is another ad-which-looks-like-news, but this seems to be a genuine news story! Is the newspaper getting a kickback on these insanely expensive POS ecigs? How is it that this company got its own link in the article?? Bettin' they wrote it and paid them to publish it as a story.

The message: all other ecigs use DG as their vehicle (they do not at all, even remotely), only White Cloud will save you from DG, but you will have to pay huge to be safe. This is bad journalism taken to a new level of evil. Beyond angering. Hopefully people will see the equally angry comments.

 

[JustJulie]

Puts up a warning sign that someone might be working on yet another e-cig law (a “ban to under the age of 18” does not always represent the delivered package). Does someone know about the actual measure?

I saw that, too, Tom, and wondered the same thing. I've been searching PA proposed legislation and have yet to find anything, though.

 

[Bill Godshall]

It would have been helpful had someone had e-mailed that WTAE story (from several days ago) to me, as I didn't see this thread until now. I've been interviewed by WTAE dozens of times over the years, and I know many folks there (the station is just two miles from my office).

I'm also not aware of any legislation that has been introduced in PA to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, as I'll be the leading proponent of it once something is introduced. In the meantime, I'll continue fighting legislation that would ban the sale or usage of e-cigarettes and/or other smokefree alternatives.

 

[Traver]

This story was clearly a plug for White Cloud. Whenever I see something like this, with some shady overpriced starters and completely ignorant claims, I always look to see if it is another ad-which-looks-like-news, but this seems to be a genuine news story! Is the newspaper getting a kickback on these insanely expensive POS ecigs? How is it that this company got its own link in the article?? Bettin they wrote it and paid them to publish it as a story.

Putting a link to a site or a business they mention is a common practice. I could be wrong but I think they do get a kickback through google. Though I don't remember how it works. It doesn't mean it is a pr piece for the company but it could be. This kind of kickback is often how review sites make their money and many of the are definetely biased towards the companies they make the most on.