8 ms·

This is really disturbing: From the article: "Documents obtained by Scientific American through Freedom of Information Act requests now paint a disturbing pict

This is really disturbing: From the article: "Documents obtained by Scientific American through Freedom of Information Act requests now paint a disturbing picture of the tactics that are used to control the science press. For example, the FDA assures the public that it is committed to transparency, but the documents show that, privately, the agency denies many reporters access—including ones from major outlets such as Fox News—and even deceives them with half-truths to handicap them in their pursuit of a story. At the same time, the FDA cultivates a coterie of journalists whom it keeps in line with threats. And the agency has made it a practice to demand total control over whom reporters can and can't talk to until after the news has broken, deaf to protests by journalistic associations and media ethicists and in violation of its own written policies." So let see if I understand this... 1- They tell their friendly reporters who they can and can't talk to with conditional embargos. 2- They don't let reports they view as hostile into the press releases. 3- They actively thwart these reporters viewed as hostiles by intentionally telling them lies and half-truths. This is completely absurd, A federal agency is manipulating the story it wants and the side it wants to tell it. It is picking the winners and losers, and the winners keep quiet about the scam because it they start to be seen as trouble makers, soon they will start getting the Fox News treatment too.

Fordrus 10y ago
See, I do feel for the FDA. Trying to message things properly is like trying to send a smoke signal in a hurricane. When, for any given thing you want to regulate, there are 4 incredibly wealthy special interest groups trying to warp your message to protect the profit margins of the companies they represent, rather than keep safety or anything else in mind there, making sure that you don't take "Totally reasonable measure A" and get the people you're protecting messaged, "HOW DARE YOU, MY FREEEEDOM!" - that's quite difficult. But despite my understanding of that, the HUGE problem there is that "Totally reasonable measure A" and "Draconian Evil Measure X" look almost exactly the same to us onlookers, and when the FDA, or anyone, uses "Morally Ambiguous Embargo Y" to protect their actions, why, the rational response from us as onlookers is the ASSUME that they're performing "Draconian Evil Measure X." So what, exactly, is the answer? I don't think there IS one presently out there that isn't incredibly messy, but I hope we can still discover it - that is, figure out how to protect the almost certainly true and reasonable actions from the 'bad guys,' while not falling afoul of the rational reaction of the 'good guys' (us, in this case, the people being protected) and coming under attack from THEM.
- wooter 10y ago
  This is apologism. I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. I see plenty of fair, loud, and clear venues the FDA could have used.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    >>And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. Right, but see you shouldn't because that's hilariously naive.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      You're not using the word "expect" in the same sense he is. He's demanding transparency and good faith from the FDA.
      - Avshalom 10y ago
        No no, it doesn't matter demanding news sources investigate and report with integrity is just as naive as assuming they do.
        omginternets 10y ago
        Again, I don't think he's assuming anything. I read his comment as using "expect" to mean "they really really realy should, and it's a problem if they're not".
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Indeed. One can expect all one wants, but the business incentives for the media are strongly opposing integrity and truth. Which one can see daily, most obviously when some outlet is reporting on a topic one has direct experience with.
  - 10y ago
omginternets 10y ago
Meanwhile obesity (and related health complications) are skyrocketing despite a mounting body of evidence that shows saturated fat is not a causal factor... Hmm...
- jnordwick 10y ago
  Yeah, I submitted a story form the New Yorker by James Suroweicki (prob one of their best authors in my opinion) last week on the sugar industry getting caught red handed trying to push the fat = obesity narrative and it got zero traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12534056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12534056
  - jobu 10y ago
    There was a fair bit of discussion about the New York Times article on this topic last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12480733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12480733
    - jnordwick 10y ago
      "fair bit" is quite the understatement there. That's great.
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    That was submitted two days ago, not last week.
  - jokermatt999 10y ago
    HN also seems to dislike the New Yorker's writing style. They tend towards more narrative than informative/dry.
    - jnordwick 10y ago
      What? The Tweaker: the Real Genius of Steve Jobs Malcom Gladwell's new story isn't up to HN's standards? lol http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/14/the-tweaker http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/14/the-tweaker (Suroweicki and Gladwell are two of favorite authors on their staff right now.)
clarkmoody 10y ago
It may come as a surprise to some that the people running federal agencies often have their own best interests in mind most of the time -- rather than diligently serving the public. The result is that the American media basically has become Pravda when it comes to the federal government.
- __jal 10y ago
  > It may come as a surprise to some that the people <strike>running federal agencies</strike> often have their own best interests in mind most of the time FIFY. And why are you limiting this to the feds? State/local actors are frequently worse. Or at least, I haven't heard of the FDA arresting journos.
  - clarkmoody 10y ago
    Well the discussion was about the FDA. But I completely agree that people at all levels within government may use their privileged position for personal gain.

Fordrus 10y ago

See, I do feel for the FDA. Trying to message things properly is like trying to send a smoke signal in a hurricane. When, for any given thing you want to regulate, there are 4 incredibly wealthy special interest groups trying to warp your message to protect the profit margins of the companies they represent, rather than keep safety or anything else in mind there, making sure that you don't take "Totally reasonable measure A" and get the people you're protecting messaged, "HOW DARE YOU, MY FREEEEDOM!" - that's quite difficult. But despite my understanding of that, the HUGE problem there is that "Totally reasonable measure A" and "Draconian Evil Measure X" look almost exactly the same to us onlookers, and when the FDA, or anyone, uses "Morally Ambiguous Embargo Y" to protect their actions, why, the rational response from us as onlookers is the ASSUME that they're performing "Draconian Evil Measure X." So what, exactly, is the answer? I don't think there IS one presently out there that isn't incredibly messy, but I hope we can still discover it - that is, figure out how to protect the almost certainly true and reasonable actions from the 'bad guys,' while not falling afoul of the rational reaction of the 'good guys' (us, in this case, the people being protected) and coming under attack from THEM.

wooter 10y ago
This is apologism. I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. I see plenty of fair, loud, and clear venues the FDA could have used.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  >>And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate and report with integrity. Right, but see you shouldn't because that's hilariously naive.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    You're not using the word "expect" in the same sense he is. He's demanding transparency and good faith from the FDA.
    - Avshalom 10y ago
      No no, it doesn't matter demanding news sources investigate and report with integrity is just as naive as assuming they do.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        Again, I don't think he's assuming anything. I read his comment as using "expect" to mean "they really really realy should, and it's a problem if they're not".
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Indeed. One can expect all one wants, but the business incentives for the media are strongly opposing integrity and truth. Which one can see daily, most obviously when some outlet is reporting on a topic one has direct experience with.
- 10y ago

omginternets 10y ago

Meanwhile obesity (and related health complications) are skyrocketing despite a mounting body of evidence that shows saturated fat is not a causal factor... Hmm...

jnordwick 10y ago
Yeah, I submitted a story form the New Yorker by James Suroweicki (prob one of their best authors in my opinion) last week on the sugar industry getting caught red handed trying to push the fat = obesity narrative and it got zero traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12534056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12534056
- jobu 10y ago
  There was a fair bit of discussion about the New York Times article on this topic last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12480733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12480733
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    "fair bit" is quite the understatement there. That's great.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  That was submitted two days ago, not last week.
- jokermatt999 10y ago
  HN also seems to dislike the New Yorker's writing style. They tend towards more narrative than informative/dry.
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    What? The Tweaker: the Real Genius of Steve Jobs Malcom Gladwell's new story isn't up to HN's standards? lol http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/14/the-tweaker http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/14/the-tweaker (Suroweicki and Gladwell are two of favorite authors on their staff right now.)

clarkmoody 10y ago

It may come as a surprise to some that the people running federal agencies often have their own best interests in mind most of the time -- rather than diligently serving the public. The result is that the American media basically has become Pravda when it comes to the federal government.

__jal 10y ago
> It may come as a surprise to some that the people <strike>running federal agencies</strike> often have their own best interests in mind most of the time FIFY. And why are you limiting this to the feds? State/local actors are frequently worse. Or at least, I haven't heard of the FDA arresting journos.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  Well the discussion was about the FDA. But I completely agree that people at all levels within government may use their privileged position for personal gain.