NBC has changed the headline--
Because his friends at Greenpeace told him it was so, food columnist Mark Bittman then told his readers that Fish Aggregating Devices used by tuna companies “kill countless numbers of [other] animals in their quest for cheap tuna.”
New York Times Blogger Mark Bittman was once a journalist. He once was held to a standard higher than -- these are my friends and this is my opinion. But that was many moons ago and now he peppers his musings about paprika and potatoes with a hearty dose of his own food politics, regardless of facts, figures and God forbid science.
Last week when Mercury Policy Project (MPP) released its agenda driven ramblings in the form of a “report” on mercury in canned tuna, a number of questions were raised about this opinion piece that was neither peer-reviewed nor published.
If you’re ever in Ms. Gordon’s Catskills neighborhood when the power goes out, knock on her neighbor’s door. Rather than use mass care authorities like the Red Cross to craft her survival tips (published in the Huffington Post), she relies on the National Resource Defense Council’s (NRDC) “Preparing for Disaster” checklist.
Scientific studies that are outliers or in the end don’t reach a causal conclusion or can’t really be practically applied but at least appear to buck current knowledge are often fodder for headlines. When in reality they shouldn’t be.
September 5, 3012
Reuters America News Service/Syndicate
3 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Bohan,
Heading into the Labor Day weekend more than one editor, reporter or producer has scanned the news horizon and found little to chose from, outside the hand shaking and baby kissing of a Presidential election in full swing.
Today, while digging into the proverbial health file CBS Radio found a story about fish, mercury and heart attacks. They reported with great haste that a new study found “mercury in fish appears to counteract the heart healthy benefits of the omega 3’s.”