| Main Board • cheap air jordans Store - CheapJordansStock |
| 05.03.2017, 12:03 - nieeshoes - Rank 6 - 1159 Posts
his study. Not only was Bohannon’s con ethically reprehensible — he lied to the public, undermining their trust in both journalism and science — but also Bohannon is guilty of the very practices he claims he exposed. Let’s start with the ethics. Deception in the name of journalism has a long history. Typically it’s used to uncover serious wrongs, cheap air jordans , for example, exposing discrimination in housing practices by sending a white couple and a black couple to apply as renters for the same apartment. But generally, cheap jordans free shipping , deception is considered a last-resort tactic when there are no other ways to expose fraud or injustice. “Deception is occasionally appropriate, http://cheapjordansstock.com , but should be used very sparingly, cheap retro jordans ,” Rick Edmonds, a faculty member at the Poynter Institute, cheap jordans online , told me. “In this particular case, the point could have been made in other ways.” The main mark in Bohannon’s sting wasn’t shoddy scientific journals that publish shoddy studies that use shoddy statistics. It was the reporters who cover those studies, cheap wholesale jordans . The study showed accelerated weight loss in the chocolate-eating group, cheap Authentic jordans , but “you might as well read tea leaves as try to interpret our results, cheap jordans ,” wrote Bohannon. That was part of his point. The study was small and had so many measurements that the odds of getting a “statistically significant” result were good, even if chocolate wasn’t helping people lose weight. I agree with Bohannon’s point that reporters shouldn’t have covered the study. “People who are on the health science beat need to treat it like science, and that has to come from the editors. And http://koch.cucs.udg.m.../registro#comment-1750562 http://www.lostritapet...read.php?thread_id=122037 http://www.nvstripercl...261.msg2447368#msg2447368 |