if you’re reporting on a scientific study,
cheap jordans
, you need to actually look at the paper. You need to talk to a source who has real scientific expertise,” Bohannon told?the Washington Post.
This point that journalists should take care when covering health and statistics has been made over and over again. This was not an instance of last resort that required undercover tactics. There are numerous resources for journalists to help them interpret statistics: At its annual meeting, the National Association of Science Writers,
cheap jordans free shipping
, for example,
cheap retro jordans
, has hosted many sessions dedicated to this topic. (Speakers?at last year’s session included Science News managing editor Tom Siegfried,
cheap air jordans
, who has written?extensively on this topic, and statistician/reporter Regina Nuzzo,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
, the author of the piece on statistical errors that Bohannon links to in his write-up). Another way to highlight bogus science is to call it out by exposing quacks?and telling readers how to be skeptical.
Bohannon and his colleagues decided to create a wrong to prove that wrongs exist. They lied to the public to make their point. Granted,
cheap wholesale jordans
, it’s unlikely that anyone will be harmed by eating more dark chocolate. But not only does the caper do a disservice to people who are desperate for meaningful information about health and nutrition, it also undermines all of science and all of journalism. There’s real wrongdoing in both science?and journalism (most infamously,
cheap jordans online
, see Stephen Glass,
cheap jordan shoes
, Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Jonah Lehrer, Brian Williams). But intentionally creating wrong to make a point is both bizarre and

http://www.kenklaudt.c...nsstock-com-2017-01-14-14

http://www13.plala.or....ite_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi

http://www.f1grand-pri...hread.php?thread_id=13241