tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369432396898204613.post6818616484249820704..comments2023-01-15T10:39:00.543+01:00Comments on Lighthouse in the Sky: Reporting FAILUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369432396898204613.post-32020929881966217522010-06-12T05:09:10.685+02:002010-06-12T05:09:10.685+02:00The particular article I pointed to may be a dodgy...The particular article I pointed to may be a dodgy British tabloid, but the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkzmIMXwwbDSOIe9-I2DEJdVBjzg" rel="nofollow">Agence France Presse article</a> is no better. The <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/10266498.stm" rel="nofollow">BBC article</a> is slightly better, in that it mentions that you should be particularly afraid of the high-powered ones you can get on the Internet.<br /><br />I suspect they're so bad because they're all just echoing the BMJ original article. But one of the standard reasons to claim "old media were better" is that reporters are supposed to be willing to do things like phone the doctors involved to get extra details.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00764119699293212898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369432396898204613.post-2840137713362439782010-06-11T23:37:21.507+02:002010-06-11T23:37:21.507+02:00You must remember that this is a British tabloid n...You must remember that this is a British tabloid newspaper. They regularly distort (as here) or simply make things up to sell newspapers.<br /><br />Conflating class 1 over-the-counter devices with unregulated internet stuff is typical. What is unusual in this case is a link to the original source so the distortion is plain.<br /><br />For a laugh, look at The (New) Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project, which describes itself as "An ongoing quest to track the Daily Mail's classification of inanimate objects into two types: those that cause cancer, and those that cure it." it can be found at:<br /><br />http://dailymailoncology.tumblr.com/FatBigotnoreply@blogger.com