IMHO, The NY Times is no different than the supposedly respected medical journals, in that they also choose to print subjects with conclusions supporting the mandated protocol, slanted so far as to turn over backwards. Not only do they appear to discriminate, but they remove already accepted and published studies on false charges or the…
IMHO, The NY Times is no different than the supposedly respected medical journals, in that they also choose to print subjects with conclusions supporting the mandated protocol, slanted so far as to turn over backwards. Not only do they appear to discriminate, but they remove already accepted and published studies on false charges or the clamor of the mob. Credibility is determined by the quality of the information, not the ‘respected names of authors’ who in many cases have shown themselves to have been compromised (high profile studies funded by grants that come with unspoken strings attached). Often the conflict of interest statements show no conflict or are not detailed enough (lying by omission). Will stop now, could go on, sorry.
Understood and agree. I could not come up with a simile for truthful and respectful content vs contrived, slanted, biased content. My initial thought was Playboy vs Penthouse.
Trying to get there with that analogy. Maybe those publications could be contrasted as stylized vs sensational. Each has a market, but neither of them are professing to be a source of scientific research (I think). Interesting, though, but can’t quite get it to fit. Enjoying the thought process, thank you.
IMHO, The NY Times is no different than the supposedly respected medical journals, in that they also choose to print subjects with conclusions supporting the mandated protocol, slanted so far as to turn over backwards. Not only do they appear to discriminate, but they remove already accepted and published studies on false charges or the clamor of the mob. Credibility is determined by the quality of the information, not the ‘respected names of authors’ who in many cases have shown themselves to have been compromised (high profile studies funded by grants that come with unspoken strings attached). Often the conflict of interest statements show no conflict or are not detailed enough (lying by omission). Will stop now, could go on, sorry.
Understood and agree. I could not come up with a simile for truthful and respectful content vs contrived, slanted, biased content. My initial thought was Playboy vs Penthouse.
Perhaps recalling the NE and a politician's baby (John Edwards) might be of interest. But since its sale, who knows. OTOH while Mr Edwards might actually have been a good President, he was forced out. Still his legacy live on https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2022/05/09/the-shadow-of-john-edwards-00031097.
Trying to get there with that analogy. Maybe those publications could be contrasted as stylized vs sensational. Each has a market, but neither of them are professing to be a source of scientific research (I think). Interesting, though, but can’t quite get it to fit. Enjoying the thought process, thank you.