| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The NYT sure does get things wrong alot of times. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 18 2018, 02:26 AM (241 Views) | |
| Pat | Jun 18 2018, 05:15 AM Post #11 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK, I grabbed the first name Eric Lipton and here you go...lol Now watch Brew defend him. NYT's Eric Lipton Is A Science Birther Fake News Award for Science Goes to ... The New York Times! By Alex Berezow — October 26, 2017 The New York Times has some of the worst science coverage in the nation, its Tuesday section notwithstanding. The Times shamelessly promotes alternative medicine and organic food while scaremongering over "chemikillz" and trashing scientists who work in biotechnology. There's a reason for that. Not only is the paper trying to appeal to its elite, Upper West Side clientele, but the New York Times's publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., is married to Gabrielle Greene, who is on the board of Whole Foods. In May 2017, she was made chairwoman of the board. It shouldn't be a surprise, therefore, that the Times uses its influence to spread organic food industry propaganda about the supposed dangers of pesticides and GMOs. It helps keep the boss rich. In any rational universe, that would be considered a gigantic conflict of interest. But the NYT exists in one of its own creation. That's why it is unable to see its own conflicts of interest while it fabricates others when they don't actually exist. And the paper hires smear merchants to do its dirty work. Eric Lipton: The 'Birther' of Science Journalism The Times allows Eric Lipton -- who has worked his entire professional life as a journalist and has no knowledge of either business or science -- to write about the biotech and chemical industries. His academic background is in history and philosophy, which means that the New York Times is happy to have its journalists cover subjects they don't understand, as long as they have a political agenda of which the newspaper approves. The results have been entirely predictable. When given the opportunity to advance the NYT's long-standing anti-GMO agenda, Lipton intentionally distorted a story about biotech scientist Kevin Folta. Dr. Folta responded by suing both Lipton and the New York Times for defamation. That doesn't appear to have slowed Lipton down. His latest dreck targets Nancy Beck, who was tapped by President Trump to be the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the U.S. EPA. A deputy assistant in the little-known Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention? This is a rather obscure bureaucratic post in a gigantic EPA bureaucracy. It defies belief to assume that one person is capable of poisoning the planet. Apparently any scientist is worth smearing, as long as it advances the New York Times's agenda to sell more organic food for its boss. But it gets even more bizarre. According to her LinkedIn profile, Dr. Beck has expertise in microbiology, toxicology, and a PhD in environmental health. Additionally, she has worked in the Washington State Department of Health and has extensive policy experience in DC. In other words, Dr. Beck has forgotten more about science and health policy than Lipton ever knew, so she's precisely the sort of person who should be working at a high level in the EPA. But not according to philosophy major Eric Lipton. In his opinion piece, which masquerades as objective reporting, Dr. Beck is contaminated because she spent five years at the American Chemistry Council, a trade association founded in 1872 that lobbies on behalf of chemical companies. To hammer the point home, Lipton uses the term "chemical industry" 17 times in the article. As is typical, the article doesn't discuss science to any appreciable extent; instead, it just assumes that any chemical with a scary-sounding name is evil, and therefore so is anybody who favors using it. This is obscene. It's the journalistic equivalent of "guilty until proven innocent." It would be like writing an article about how a Middle Eastern scientist shouldn't work for the U.S. government because that's where terrorists come from. It's an absolutely outrageous smear, yet that's what passes for journalism at the New York Times. The notion that working for industry makes a person dishonest is one of the biggest lies circulating in America today. (Angela Logomasini has more on this.) About 2/3 of all research and development funding in America comes from industry. If industry vanished, America's leading role in science would vanish with it. That doesn't mean that industry should be allowed to do whatever it wants without regulatory oversight; but it does mean that an objective journalist should approach industry scientists with an open mind. If a philosophy major can't even do that, then what exactly are they good for? Given Lipton's track record, there is little reason to assume he'll ever do his job properly. Instead, like an Obama birther, he'll continue spouting conspiracy theories about scientists despite the evidence, ensuring that his boss stays wealthy. |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Jun 18 2018, 05:43 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Forbes |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 18 2018, 06:16 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why would I defend him, Pat? But an even better question is "Who is Alex Berezow?" - Based on the stuff of his you posted, he apparently is a somewhat Right Wing scientific oddball. How that applies to the politics of this particular article, I don't know. He complains in your bit that Eric Lipton is an unqualified science commentator, and based on what's listed, I'd tend to agree. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION. Unlike you, I looked up Lipton's career (An odd idea, isn't it? Actually looking up the person involved...) and what did I find? He started his career on the Hartford Courant, a small paper owned by the Sinclair Group, one of the most rabidly Right Wing media organizations in the country. And he moved to the New York Times just before 9/11, where he became a reporter / staunch supporter of Rudy Giuliani. Then, further down the line he won or at least shared in THREE Pulitzer Prizes! So, he's a well respected reporter, and if he leans at all, he leans Right. And now Berton (and apparently the rest of Righties here) are accusing a gifted and at least mildly Right Wing reporter of repeated errors, and of writing biased articles favouring the Left! At this rate, in the next little bit, I expect someone on this board is going to accuse Steve Bannon of being a Warmist and a Leftist plant. Edited by Brewster, Jun 18 2018, 06:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jun 18 2018, 07:25 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have pointed out many times how the NYT has to retract its charges. No one following good journalistic principles would have to retract that many stories. |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Jun 18 2018, 08:24 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good journalism admits when it makes mistakes and publishes corrections. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jun 18 2018, 10:47 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good journalism checks it's facts before printing the story. They obviously do not do that at the NYT. |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Jun 18 2018, 11:18 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sometimes people give out misleading information. Who can say that he/she has never gotten anything wrong? The true test is whether a person can admit to his/her mistakes. |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Jun 18 2018, 08:08 PM Post #18 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I clicked on your link but didn't find anything relevant to "bias." Perhaps I just missed it. My emphasis in my above post that you quoted, was about "bias." A news media can print/relate "facts" that are biased to what the media wants. They can also eliminate facts in a biased way to detract from what someone else wants. Also, a news source relates to many subjects and can show total impartiality to the subject; or they can relate to a subject like politics or personal character in a way that is biased... even though they present true facts to support the subject the way they wish to give emphasis to; or, not present other true facts that exist that do not support their journalistic agenda. They produce certain facts, but in a partial way to support their agenda. That's what we have, to the extreme, with the media since Trump won the nomination. I mean, you don't have to be a Nobel Journalistic Prize winner to see/hear it. Obvious is obvious... sort of like "“He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!’ Page wrote to Strzok. Strzok responded: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,” is obviously a "fact" that is biased for stopping more than it is for helping.. and in an official capacity. I mean, the people know. When the bias is that obvious, they know.... no matter the spin. |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Jun 19 2018, 12:04 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps you missed this part.
Ensuring that media outlets report the truth is the best way to avoid bias in reporting. You:
I don`t believe that I am following your line of thought. I agree that reporting the above text exchange is reporting fact but I don't see any bias in such reporting. The two individuals involved in the exchange are not journalists. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jun 19 2018, 12:45 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So anything he disagrees with is alternative facts. Looks like Ban is correct. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






10:34 PM Jul 11
