Is it too much to hope that at some point, society will wake up and remember what journalism should be and what the media should be doing?
http://consumerist.com/2010/04/does-dr-oz-really-know-how-to-fix-what-ails-you.html From the "People will say anything if they can get money for it" department, Dr. Oz is in either the same wing or one adjacent to John Edwards (of 'Crossing Over' scammery, not of 'sticking my wang in a bajingo that is not my wife's' infamy). In response to his assertions/suggestions that vaccine(s) are optional and that they can cause serious problems:
"The purpose of the site is to provide users with as much information as possible and allow the users to differentiate between what they find helpful and what they do not," Dr. Oz's team wrote in response to questions asked by the paper.
Most common definitions of information:
- knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
- knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
- the act or fact of informing.
First: What is being provided here isn't information, it's garbage.
Second: When you are claiming to speak from a position of (informed) authority, you are assuming that users need help differentiating between what is helpful (fact) and what is not (garbage). If you need legal advice, you talk to a lawyer. You trust that the advice you are given is trustworthy, because that's WHY you're seeking it.
Also called into question is information from a man Dr. Oz calls a “highly esteemed pioneer” in alternative medicine, Dr. Joseph Mercola, who has been warned by the FDA about health claims he’s attributed to certain products he sells. Dr. Mercola also has circulated the idea that cancer is a fungus treatable with baking soda.
Putting aside the (actual) information that Dr. Mercola is a fucking quack, does Dr. Oz really think users need the "information" that cancer is a fungus treatable with baking soda?
How about suggesting that eating a bowl of feces is better for you than a bowl of ice cream because ice cream will make you fat? Why do the users not have that "information"?
More PR speak from the land of Oz (ha ha! See what I did there?)
"For it to be a fair discussion, we must include a multitude of voices and opinions, even those that may be controversial," Oz's spokespeople wrote, with the senior medical producer of The Dr. Oz Show, Susan Wagner adding that the show aims to "have a conversation with America about health and wellness, in a way that we have never done on TV before.”
NO! Here's where journalism and the media in general have totally lost their marbles. At some point, "a fair discussion" mutated into "we have to give equal time to all sides, even if some are TOTALLY WRONG."
Most common definitions of fair:
- free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
- legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
What people like Dr. Oz are doing is basically the opposite of fair. The "information" they provide is NOT free from bias, and it is NOT free of dishonesty. Well, it might be, but that would mean that it is NOT free of mind-boggling ignorance. I guess I'll let Dr. Oz decide which he wants to be.
If you're writing a news story about light refraction, absorption, and why the sky appears blue, you write the facts. You do not need to include the opinion that the sky is blue because the Earth is enclosed in a giant shell, just like The Truman Show, which is painted blue. You do not need to include that because it is TOTALLY WRONG. If, for some reason, you want to include that opinion, don't give it equal time, just give it a snippet. Something like "There are some batshit insane total whackjobs who think the sky is blue because the giant sphere our planet is enclosed in is painted that color." That's it.
"But won't people complain if we don't give equal time to all sides?" you may ask. Yes, people might complain. Those people are lazy and/or ignorant and should be punched in the throat. Also, no matter WHAT you do people are going to complain. Given that, you might as well do it *right*.
It's depressing that journalism has fallen to this, and that the media goes mostly unchallenged when pulling crap like this.
If someone insists that the Earth is flat today, they are almost always laughed out of the room (sometimes they're at a meeting of the Flat Earth Society, in which case they are roundly cheered). They should be, because they're lunatics.
These days, trying to call out the media for being lazy and incompetent by including all "voices and opinions" feels like claiming the world is flat.
Brawndo: It's got what plants crave! Posted via web from
Dann's posterous