4 ms·

Anyone have a good source for articles that eschew the political commentary in favor of just presenting the study findings in a concise summary? Does anyone ac

Anyone have a good source for articles that eschew the political commentary in favor of just presenting the study findings in a concise summary? Does anyone actually care that the global lobbyists for meat don't agree that meat is a carcinogen (or that any lobbyists against meat would care that it is)?

josho 11y ago
This is the plight of today's journalism. Students are taught to find both sides of the issue and treat them equally, despite the fact that one side has a clear conflict of interest.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  Or that lip service is paid to conflicting points of view (even if one side is nonsensical) in order to create a sense of false equivalence and therefore controversy.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  All sides in such arguments usually have a conflict of interest. The meat lobby is after money. The "regulate everything" crowd is after power.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C.S. Lewis
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Just replace "meat" with "________" and you can supplant an entire shelf of political science tomes with a clear and concise summary of the 21st century political universe.
- mturmon 11y ago
  What Jay Rosen of the NYU journalism school has called "The view from nowhere." (http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/ http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-question...)
cmccart 11y ago
Not an article, but here's the paper the WHO cites to make the "16% increased risk per 100g red/processed meat" claim. It's citation 12 on the WHO paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020456&representation=PDF http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3...

josho 11y ago

This is the plight of today's journalism. Students are taught to find both sides of the issue and treat them equally, despite the fact that one side has a clear conflict of interest.

mfoy_ 11y ago
Or that lip service is paid to conflicting points of view (even if one side is nonsensical) in order to create a sense of false equivalence and therefore controversy.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
All sides in such arguments usually have a conflict of interest. The meat lobby is after money. The "regulate everything" crowd is after power.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C.S. Lewis
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  Just replace "meat" with "________" and you can supplant an entire shelf of political science tomes with a clear and concise summary of the 21st century political universe.
mturmon 11y ago
What Jay Rosen of the NYU journalism school has called "The view from nowhere." (http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/ http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-question...)

cmccart 11y ago

Not an article, but here's the paper the WHO cites to make the "16% increased risk per 100g red/processed meat" claim. It's citation 12 on the WHO paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020456&representation=PDF http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3...