Special Report - Online activists are silencing us, scientists say Reuters March 2019

Barry said:
Are there any precedents in history, recent or not so recent?
Click to expand...

Knowing this was coming, I've actually done a lot of research on this and will hopefully produce that more general article I mentioned, soon.

It's very common. "Tone policing" is the official name for saying that someone can protest but must do it nicely, or what they have to say ought to be dismissed, but typically the ideal way in which to protest, according to the dominant group, is not at all. We will never be quiet and polite enough because objecting at all will never be considered acceptable. And when you are totally quiet in hopes that people will change based off of your 'good behavior' we lapse into the next term.

"Respectability politics" wherein people both inside and outside a group will attempt to appease the larger group by promoting or engaging in behavior that is seen as 'ideal' by or even that mimics that of the dominant group. The term was initially used in reference to black politics in the US, but it has since seen wider use, and several articles and papers have been written that use the term in reference to disability and/or chronic illness.
 
Last edited:
JaimeS said:
What/when is this from?
Click to expand...
In the article @JaimeS


Barry said:
But again, we do not know if those comments were taken out of context. I'll bet they were rigorously cut an spliced like with @Paul Watton, to sound different to what was actually said.
Click to expand...

Yes that is very true @Barry , I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions, am just so used to the CDC behaving badly I've been waiting for the 'other shoe to drop' since they made the changes.

My head is exploding & i'm feeling too emotional about it all. I'm bowing out.

LOL that wont be any loss to the thread :D

But i did want to say that eventually @dave30th will be the one getting a medal.
 
JaimeS said:
Knowing this was coming, I've actually done a lot of research on this and will hopefully produce that more general article I mentioned, soon.

It's very common. "Tone policing" is the official name for saying that someone can protest but must do it nicely, or what they have to say ought to be dismissed, but typically the ideal way in which to protest, according to the dominant group, is not at all. We will never be quiet and polite enough because objecting at all will never be considered acceptable. And when you are totally quiet in hopes that people will change based off of your 'good behavior' we lapse into the next term.

"Respectability politics" wherein people both inside and outside a group will attempt to appease the larger group with behavior that is seen as 'ideal' by or even that mimics that of the dominant group. The term was initially used in reference to black politics in the US, but it has since seen wider use, and several articles and papers have been written that use the term in reference to disability and/or chronic illness.
Click to expand...
Would be good for something similarly health related. The more readily it maps onto our situation, the more readily people would gain the insights they need. And it is about gaining insights.
 
Barry said:
But doesn't it just show how articles like this can bypass people's sanity checks, no matter how tuned in they are.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I fell for it too, for a second.

Even if you think CDC is about to sprout horns, Unger wouldn't release a video explicitly stating that ME is not a psychosomatic disorder one week and release a statement like that the next.

I'll lay bets on Kelland prompting Unger in some very specific way.
 
JaimeS said:
Exactly. I fell for it too, for a second.

Even if you think CDC is about to sprout horns, Unger wouldn't release a video explicitly stating that ME is not a psychosomatic disorder one week and release a statement like that the next.

I'll lay bets on Kelland prompting Unger in some very specific way.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I'll bet it's very much about the quotes that were omitted. The simplest form of bias is to omit what you don't want people to know, and then the bits you are left with - join them up out of context so their implied meaning gets screwed.
 
Paul Watton said:
That's a good point, because whilst she chose to highlight one of my Tweets which was critical of Sharpe, there are dozens I've posted (before and since) in praise of M.E. researchers who go about their work in a proper manner and adhere to the scientific method.
No mention also about the content of this document - which I put together and update about twice a year:
Click to expand...


I think it's ridiculous that your tweet was being presented as a key example of abusive harassment, but at the same time, I do think it's a reminder that tweets like that are unlikely to be useful, and can be used to distract from the real problems with research like PACE. I've had comments of mine taken out of context and used against patients before - it is shitty. It's also a reason to keep trying to remind each other that expressions of frustration on social media can be unhelpful and are worth avoiding imo.
 
Esther12 said:
expressions of frustration on social media can be unhelpful and are worth avoiding imo.
Click to expand...

I have very complicated feelings on this subject. We're all suffering and sometimes you have to let it out. I do wish people wouldn't let it out in the direction of knee-jerk anger or conspiracy theorizing, especially in the direction of Sharpe et al. -- their baseless theories basically run on tragedy and righteous anger at this point.
 
Esther12 said:
I think it's ridiculous that your tweet was being presented as a key example of abusive harassment, but at the same time, I do think it's a reminder that tweets like that are unlikely to be useful, and can be used to distract from the real problems with research like PACE. I've had comments of mine taken out of context and used against patients before - it is shitty. It's also a reason to keep trying to remind each other that expressions of frustration on social media can be unhelpful and are worth avoiding imo.
Click to expand...

Although I basically agree with @Esther12, I also think that this article clearly demonstrates that if the SMC and their friends in the media want to cast us in a negative light, they'll always find a way to do it. There's no point in anyone beating themselves up because their words have been twisted and used against them (and the rest of us) - all you can do is try and learn from the experience.
 
Stewart said:
Although I basically agree with @Esther12, I also think that this article clearly demonstrates that if the SMC and their friends in the media want to cast us in a negative light, they'll always find a way to do it. There's no point in anyone beating themselves up because their words have been twisted and used against them (and the rest of us) - all you can do is try and learn from the experience.
Click to expand...

Well said :)
 
The Trust Principles are:
  1. That Thomson Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction;
  2. That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;
  3. That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts;
  4. That Thomson Reuters shall pay due regard to the many interests which it serves in addition to those of the media; and
  5. That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.
Click to expand...
https://archive.fo/qUtNn

Feels like these principles are not counting for much.
 
Barry said:
https://archive.fo/qUtNn

Feels like these principles are not counting for much.
Click to expand...

Whoa, they DEFINITELY don't. Kelland has been writing for them for ages and always for some ethically shady group intent on smearing critics of their unethical practices or poor science. It's her MO and they've hosted her work for years.

Moreover, Reuters usually has a chuckle when anyone tries to correct her misinformation (see the article linked previously re: Monsanto).

I would like to see how they'd respond to criticism from the CDC itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom