I just don't understand why most current news publications, not excluding the tv coverage, will not just state the facts. The headlines have been misleading readers for decades now. Are they so afraid of what will ensue if they happen to print the truth? Slanted and basically false news coverage seems to be the norm now and it is no wonder that there is so much misinformation out there. There needs to be a gold standard, when it comes to reporting, and playing down actual facts to make the news more palatable to the public, is helping to create ignorant and uninformed readers, who take that information and vote accordingly. We don't need news explained, because that subjects the reader to false and more often than not biased views. I am missing Walter Conkrite and that generation of newsmen, who laid out the facts and let us form our own opinions about what we heard and read. News analysis has its place but should not become our only source of information.
The "news" media have essentially lost the war with "entertainment" media (thank you Hollywood and a long string of snake oil salesmen) and given that most of those 'news media' corporations now are owned by billionaires seeking profitable returns rather than seeking truth, the straight forward reporting that you and I grew up with and came to expect, has lost out to the corporate finance types who worship at the alter of profit without cost, and the PR types who use drama, suspense and 'secrets' to bait their click counters in order to attract advertisers. MAGot obsession with shutting down public broadcasting is that the public funding model at least partially insulated PBC and PBS from those corrupting influences. For MAGots there is no point in allowing propaganda you can't fully control. How else can you ensure that the public masses are trapped in a propaganda echo chamber that permits no 'unauthorized, a.k.a., unclean' information within its walls - just like those in the "COMMUNIST" countries that they so loudly claim to reject..... "Nothing to see here!" ---Yeah, Right! Me thinks they do protest too much. ;-))
Most of what gets published or broadcast by corporate "news" outlets isn't journalism at all, but merely disseminating corporate and political PR. If there are any actual journalists left in the corporate media, most aren't being allowed to practice their craft, because we are constantly subjected to diametrically opposed statements without any indication as to which is closer to reality. And unless they had some education in science or medicine, most journalists aren't prepared to accurately report on such issues.
Without context, "he said, she said" is NOT journalism, but rather little more than gossip. Sure, there are plenty of complicated cases in which we don't know which of two or more possibilities are true, but far more common are reports in which one statement is correct and the opposing statement is false based on all available evidence. If that is the case and is NOT pointed out in a report, that's not news. And a "fact-check" in a separate release is no substitute.
Dang, guessed right again. If the headline was "What We Still Don't Know about Autism and Tylenol," it might still be clickbait, even as it better represents a fairly decent article that, yes, could be stronger and more focused in answering what it promises.
The issue is nuanced; multiple high quality studies gave contradictory results, which is why the Mount Sinai effort was a meta-study of existing evidence; and the authors emphasize that untreated inflammation carries risks of its own. But unlike many of the administration's claims, this one seems to have some substance behind it.
This is a good source, but it doesn’t change expert clinical advice for pregnant women, which the researchers note. And they suggest the increase in risk may be small, which is really important to know. However, because acetaminophen is widely used, a small increase in risk could have major public health implications.
The researchers’ message is very much at odds with Trump’s statement to women to fear acetaminophen and not use it. There is nothing of substance in the Mount Sinai article that backs up Trump and RFK. The researchers would probably be horrified by your suggestion that there is.
Trump and RFK don’t try to understand the science, and they are utterly clueless about how to translate science into policy. They are grandstanding, grabbing headlines—that’s all this is about. They are sowing misunderstandings and confusion, which may raise health risks for some women during pregnancy. Completely irresponsible.
I just don't understand why most current news publications, not excluding the tv coverage, will not just state the facts. The headlines have been misleading readers for decades now. Are they so afraid of what will ensue if they happen to print the truth? Slanted and basically false news coverage seems to be the norm now and it is no wonder that there is so much misinformation out there. There needs to be a gold standard, when it comes to reporting, and playing down actual facts to make the news more palatable to the public, is helping to create ignorant and uninformed readers, who take that information and vote accordingly. We don't need news explained, because that subjects the reader to false and more often than not biased views. I am missing Walter Conkrite and that generation of newsmen, who laid out the facts and let us form our own opinions about what we heard and read. News analysis has its place but should not become our only source of information.
The "news" media have essentially lost the war with "entertainment" media (thank you Hollywood and a long string of snake oil salesmen) and given that most of those 'news media' corporations now are owned by billionaires seeking profitable returns rather than seeking truth, the straight forward reporting that you and I grew up with and came to expect, has lost out to the corporate finance types who worship at the alter of profit without cost, and the PR types who use drama, suspense and 'secrets' to bait their click counters in order to attract advertisers. MAGot obsession with shutting down public broadcasting is that the public funding model at least partially insulated PBC and PBS from those corrupting influences. For MAGots there is no point in allowing propaganda you can't fully control. How else can you ensure that the public masses are trapped in a propaganda echo chamber that permits no 'unauthorized, a.k.a., unclean' information within its walls - just like those in the "COMMUNIST" countries that they so loudly claim to reject..... "Nothing to see here!" ---Yeah, Right! Me thinks they do protest too much. ;-))
Most of what gets published or broadcast by corporate "news" outlets isn't journalism at all, but merely disseminating corporate and political PR. If there are any actual journalists left in the corporate media, most aren't being allowed to practice their craft, because we are constantly subjected to diametrically opposed statements without any indication as to which is closer to reality. And unless they had some education in science or medicine, most journalists aren't prepared to accurately report on such issues.
Without context, "he said, she said" is NOT journalism, but rather little more than gossip. Sure, there are plenty of complicated cases in which we don't know which of two or more possibilities are true, but far more common are reports in which one statement is correct and the opposing statement is false based on all available evidence. If that is the case and is NOT pointed out in a report, that's not news. And a "fact-check" in a separate release is no substitute.
Dang, guessed right again. If the headline was "What We Still Don't Know about Autism and Tylenol," it might still be clickbait, even as it better represents a fairly decent article that, yes, could be stronger and more focused in answering what it promises.
I've posted this multiple times already, but here again:
I believe the administration is responding to the recent Mount Sinai report on Tylenol use during pregnancy and later developmental issues: https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2025/mount-sinai-study-supports-evidence-that-prenatal-acetaminophen-use-may-be-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-and-adhd
The issue is nuanced; multiple high quality studies gave contradictory results, which is why the Mount Sinai effort was a meta-study of existing evidence; and the authors emphasize that untreated inflammation carries risks of its own. But unlike many of the administration's claims, this one seems to have some substance behind it.
This is a good source, but it doesn’t change expert clinical advice for pregnant women, which the researchers note. And they suggest the increase in risk may be small, which is really important to know. However, because acetaminophen is widely used, a small increase in risk could have major public health implications.
The researchers’ message is very much at odds with Trump’s statement to women to fear acetaminophen and not use it. There is nothing of substance in the Mount Sinai article that backs up Trump and RFK. The researchers would probably be horrified by your suggestion that there is.
Trump and RFK don’t try to understand the science, and they are utterly clueless about how to translate science into policy. They are grandstanding, grabbing headlines—that’s all this is about. They are sowing misunderstandings and confusion, which may raise health risks for some women during pregnancy. Completely irresponsible.