• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Awful Journalism from CBS News

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,005
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Recently it has become possible for me to watch American network evening news broadcast via iTunes, even though I no longer reside in the US. That's nice. I love the new gadgets and the fact that I can now watch American TV, etc. on my commute.

On my commute this morning I saw this story, which strikes me as total hack work. Basically it spreads doubts about the new HPV vaccines based on anecdotal reports of some "adverse reactions" (which aren't necessarily side-effects of the vaccine) and little or no data. This is completely unscientific and misleading. This could scare some people away from the vaccine, and one day some people may actually get cancer as a result. This does not inform or educate the public, it confuses them.

Hacks. Boooo!!! Booooo!!!
 
A little more digging around on the CBS News site quickly led me to this blog. Most recent entries in the blog are by the same reporter responsible for this story, which aired on the national evening news broadcast. I think the blog pretty much speaks for itself.
 
The news media is inadvertently feeding the woo crowd instead of actually investigating and reporting on what the VAERS data really represents. I don't think the reporters or newscasters have a clue despite the fact this is basic science 101. But rather than find out, they just take it as a given that people are actually having reactions to the vaccine.

It's a shame and a recognized side effect of the antivaxers pervasive stupidity.
 
This is what you get when the news folk are more interested in "getting the scoop" as opposed to "getting it right" - it's all about those damned ratings :rolleyes:
 
It's detestable, to be sure, but unsurprising. The main objective of entertainment news broadcasts like CBS News is not to inform the public. It's to increase ratings and advertising revenue. The typical viewer will be bored by statistics and data and would change channels when confronted with this information. Entertainment news broadcasts run stories that excite, shock, scare and entertain. If the story actually educates the viewer, it is entirely incidental. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I would strongly support a law that forced media outlets to label such programs as "entertainment news" as opposed to simply "news".
 
Last edited:
Highly Selassie said:
It's detestable, to be sure, but unsurprising. The main objective of entertainment news broadcasts like CBS News is not to inform the public. It's to increase ratings and advertising revenue. The typical viewer will be bored by statistics and data and would change channels when confronted with this information. Entertainment news broadcasts run stories that excite, shock, scare and entertain. If the story actually educates the viewer, it is entirely incidental. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I would strongly support a law that forced media outlets to label such programs as "entertainment news" as opposed to simply "news".
Click to expand...

I sort of agree, but not completely. Network News should be a step above mere entertainment. It's not supposed to only focus on pregnant celebrities or sensational stories. Yes, ratings do play a factor, but I think there is at least some audience out there for real informative news. And CBS, has fallen behind ABC and NBC recently. Judging on the sampling I've personally seen, there's a reason: they've become hacks. They've got at least one scientific illiterate (Sharyl Attkisson) as an "investigative reporter." Too bad for a once-proud news organization.
 
Puppycow said:
I sort of agree, but not completely. Network News should be a step above mere entertainment. It's not supposed to only focus on pregnant celebrities or sensational stories. Yes, ratings do play a factor, but I think there is at least some audience out there for real informative news. And CBS, has fallen behind ABC and NBC recently. Judging on the sampling I've personally seen, there's a reason: they've become hacks. They've got at least one scientific illiterate (Sharyl Attkisson) as an "investigative reporter." Too bad for a once-proud news organization.
Click to expand...
Oh, I completely forgot about that kind of entertainment news when I suggested that. I guess a different term is needed, as that's not what I meant at all. I agree, network news is a step up, but not by much. There is definitely an audience for real informative news. Those people tend to be more independent and get their news from a variety of sources, and even those sources have been known to run questionable material (Channel 4, anyone?) And yes, it's a shame how far CBS has fallen. From Murrow and Cronkite to... Katie Couric? :(
 
Puppycow said:
This could scare some people away from the vaccine, and one day some people may actually get cancer as a result. This does not inform or educate the public, it confuses them.
Click to expand...
Incorrect information isn’t going to give someone cancer. Irresponsible sexual activity is going to give someone cancer. You’re sounding pretty confused yourself.
 
TheDaver said:
Incorrect information isn’t going to give someone cancer. Irresponsible sexual activity is going to give someone cancer. You’re sounding pretty confused yourself.
Click to expand...

Actually I think that you are the one who is confused. A decision based on incorrect information could lead to cancer. The decision not to get vaccinated for example. A monogamous woman could catch this from her husband.
 
TheDaver said:
Incorrect information isn’t going to give someone cancer. Irresponsible sexual activity is going to give someone cancer. You’re sounding pretty confused yourself.
Click to expand...
Irresponsible? That is absurd. Gonorrhea maybe, but HPV is as common as cold sores which infect about 90% of the adult population. It's pretty darn hard to prevent unless you believe all sex is irresponsible. Calling all sex irresponsible is a contrived unnatural definition.

Just put some other behavior in the sentence and see how stupid it sounds: Using a hot tub is irresponsible behavior because you can get an infection in a hot tub.

Sex is a natural behavior. The idea any and all infections caused by sexual exposure is any more irresponsible than using a hot tub is preposterous.
 
Last edited:
Highly Selassie said:
Oh, I completely forgot about that kind of entertainment news when I suggested that. I guess a different term is needed, ...
Click to expand...
I think the term you might be looking for is news has become a commodity rather than a source of information. It matters more that it sells and makes a profit. That means cutting back on all investigative reporting which is expensive and hyping false or contrived controversy such as in this case because controversy sells.

Mainstream news media has been subjected to the corporate model of profit as the main goal. Accuracy and good reporting are not the main goals.

If we can manage to keep these same corporate models away from the Internet, the new generation which gets its information there instead of on TV and in the newspapers has a chance to remain informed. Otherwise, there will be some tough anti-science pressures ahead.
 
skeptigirl said:
Irresponsible? That is absurd.
Click to expand...

What she said. I hope there will come a day when medical science has made all STDs obsolete. This vaccine is one important step in that direction.

Then the old religious morality that says promiscuity is bad we be truly obsolete. It will be a lifestyle choice without negative consequences.
 
Puppycow said:
What she said. I hope there will come a day when medical science has made all STDs obsolete. This vaccine is one important step in that direction.

Then the old religious morality that says promiscuity is bad we be truly obsolete. It will be a lifestyle choice without negative consequences.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most stupid statements I've ever read on the forum.
 
Puppycow said:
What she said. I hope there will come a day when medical science has made all STDs obsolete.
Click to expand...


In principle, this COULD be done now, at least for bacterial infections (like Gonorrhea). If everyone who had it just got it treated before passing it on, it would be eradicated. We can kill bacteria, so if we can keep it sequestered in its current hosts, we can wipe it out.

That does not apply to viral STDs, however, like herpes and HIV. We don't have the antivirals to kill them (yet).
 
Puppycow said:
You could disagree without being disagreeable. So please explain why it would still have negative consequences. If you can do it civilly, that would be a plus. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I can't quite believe you actually think the only downside left to sexual promiscuity is catching an STD. Here's a couple of others:

1) There are plenty more diseases other than STDs which one can catch by close or intimate contact with another person.

2) Unwanted pregnancy.

3) The emotional impact on yourself, your sexual partners and people close to you and/or them. E.g., how many divorces occur because of extra-marital sex? How many kids are screwed up because Dad/Mom decided Mom/Dad wasn't enough in bed?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
I'm sorry, I can't quite believe you actually think the only downside left to sexual promiscuity is catching an STD. Here's a couple of others:

1) There are plenty more diseases other than STDs which one can catch by close or intimate contact with another person.

2) Unwanted pregnancy.

3) The emotional impact on yourself, your sexual partners and people close to you and/or them. E.g., how many divorces occur because of extra-marital sex? How many kids are screwed up because Dad/Mom decided Mom/Dad wasn't enough in bed?
Click to expand...

1) You can catch a cold on a train too. That's not much of a problem, certainly wouldn't be one unique to promiscuous people. And in a world where medicine has made STDs obsolete, it would probably have a pretty good handle on other diseases as well.

2) Again, not a problem unique to promiscuous people, especially if you take sufficient contraceptive measures. If science can make STDs obsolete, it could probably make unwanted pregnancies obsolete too.

3) These sound like problems for monogamous people, not people who have made a polyamorous lifestyle choice.

Sure, there could be negative consequences if you are not reasonably careful or honest with your partners beforehand, but what I mean is that it would be possible for people who are into the polyamorous lifestyle to do it without too much worry. These people already exist. For a while I was listening to a podcast called 'polyamory weekly' (I don't anymore) for people who are into this lifestyle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom