2 ms·

Sadly, this is also wrong. Many parts are outside of quotes or indirection and state false things. For instance: "The gum works by slowly releasing compounds c

by hawkice 10y ago

Sadly, this is also wrong. Many parts are outside of quotes or indirection and state false things. For instance: "The gum works by slowly releasing compounds contained in an extract from a plant called Pueraria mirifica." That's the whole paragraph. If you can explain how that's not the BBC lying, please, enlighten me. That's all beside the point. The story isn't about the claims being made, the story is "chewing gum can 'enhance breasts'". They never indicate the claims could possibly be false (even in the section labeled skepticism, which for some reason you believe contains skepticism), so saying, since most of the language is in quotes or using sources, it's somehow _super real news_ is somewhat astonishing.

Dylan16807 10y ago
The gum does have those compounds. That part isn't a lie. You might be reading too much into "works by". That means it's the active ingredient, not a claim of effectiveness. Not having a counterpoint is lazy journalism, but it's not lying to go "X claims Y". And this article does have a counterpoint. "has not been extensively studied and such products may be simply another food gimmick"
- hawkice 10y ago
  This is like stepping into bizarro-world. You're saying _there is an active ingredient_ yet denying that there was a claim that it did anything! There is no active ingredient! It's email spam! It doesn't work by any means at all. You could correctly say it contains X, Y or Z. But saying there is an active ingredient says there is an ingredient that does something! There isn't!
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    You are being painfully pedantic. I had originally written my comment in an elaborate and precise way, but it was roundabout and I thought "active ingredient" would be simpler to get the meaning across. Apparently not. I'll go back to the original: The gum does what it does by releasing those compounds. "works by" means that the gum's mechanism is releasing those. This in itself is not promising any particular outcome. I can show you a "skin rejuvenator" and then tell you that "It does nothing. It works by blinking lights at you." and I would not be contradicting myself. "works by" is only stating mechanism, not result. Nowhere in that article does the BBC claim a result.

by hawkice 10y ago

Dylan16807 10y ago

The gum does have those compounds. That part isn't a lie. You might be reading too much into "works by". That means it's the active ingredient, not a claim of effectiveness. Not having a counterpoint is lazy journalism, but it's not lying to go "X claims Y". And this article does have a counterpoint. "has not been extensively studied and such products may be simply another food gimmick"

hawkice 10y ago
This is like stepping into bizarro-world. You're saying _there is an active ingredient_ yet denying that there was a claim that it did anything! There is no active ingredient! It's email spam! It doesn't work by any means at all. You could correctly say it contains X, Y or Z. But saying there is an active ingredient says there is an ingredient that does something! There isn't!
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  You are being painfully pedantic. I had originally written my comment in an elaborate and precise way, but it was roundabout and I thought "active ingredient" would be simpler to get the meaning across. Apparently not. I'll go back to the original: The gum does what it does by releasing those compounds. "works by" means that the gum's mechanism is releasing those. This in itself is not promising any particular outcome. I can show you a "skin rejuvenator" and then tell you that "It does nothing. It works by blinking lights at you." and I would not be contradicting myself. "works by" is only stating mechanism, not result. Nowhere in that article does the BBC claim a result.