John The Jack / A Response to Fiona Fox

[Cheshire]

This is in response to the blog post by Fiona Fox who was reacting to criticism of the Science Media Centre (SMC) for its support of the SMILE trial (1). Although both her blog and this post refer to myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), the issues are much broader and raise major questions about the organization.

https://johnthejack.com/2017/10/20/a-response-to-fiona-fox/

 

[Valentijn]

Primarily focused on Fox's blog post claiming the Science Media Centre isn't biased, with a lot of specific questions as to what steps they take to ensure that. He also calls out some of the more blatant bullshit:

Two things immediately stand out. First, in a blog post claiming that she and the SMC are free of bias, Fox reveals her bias: she links ME to climate change and to animal experiments; she makes a loaded comment about ‘vocal critics’; she refers to ‘ME activists’; she contrasts ‘ME activists’ with friends ‘in science’. Second, in an attempt to address questions about SMC bias, Fox responds with anecdotes. ‘I’m not biased: some of my best friends are…’

The whole blog is well worth a read, as always

 

[Trish]

Good article. I think it's a pity he didn't quote the tribunal finding showing the harassment/ animal activist story to be the nonsense it is.

 

[Luther Blissett]

I wonder how long it took for comments to be 'approved' to the original blog?

I'd given up waiting for mine to appear or be declined. Nifty way of news management that.

I'm particularly fond of this brief bit in John the Jacks's post; '(apparently one can inoculate oneself against ME by belonging to the Revolutionary Communist Party.)'
We need a snorting emoji.

 

[Joel]

always pleased to see someone highlight the blatant bias of the SMC

 

[Sean]

apparently one can inoculate oneself against ME by belonging to the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Yeah, that was amusing.

 

[Snowdrop]

There was a comment beneath the blog that linked to some written evidence submitted suggesting some of the same points-- journalists are not independent--experts keep getting things all wrong. . .

http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEv...logy/Science communication/written/34673.html