The Columbia School of Journalism is bought out. They advocate one-sided journalism. After all, "Why waste time telling both sides of the story when you already know which one is right?" Journalists are excepted from lobbyist rules, but journalism by definition is supposed to play fair and be objective, like the standards for the Associated Press (unless they've changed them!)

The New York Times had run an op ed from Columbia Journalism Review on this awhile back; I can't find it today. Here's one from 2 days ago: http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/political_centrism_is_not_objectivity.php

The Skeptics, of course, see no need for objectivity in journalism.

Here are a few links on how objectivity is still important:
http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/special-report-columbia-university?page=2
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101090/Why-Objectivity-Still-Matters.aspx
http://www.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php?page=all

RAISING THE BOULDER. Yes, it’s been a year of now done darkness, but the Sisyphean boulder doesn’t roll all the way back. The blind see, the deaf hear, and the voiceless speak. Thank you, Dan Olmsted, Mark Blaxill, Kim Stagliano, John Stone, and the other saints at Age of Autism and beyond. No one can take back what’s been said, seen, and heard.

Red alert! Paul Offit in NY Times with his bs, this time attacking supplements.

There is just no stopping these people. The presstitutes are on the march!

While shopping the other day I struck up a conversation with a lady who out of nowhere (we weren't talking about vaccines or HPV - we were talking about wireless hazards) told me that her niece died after receiving the HPV vaccine. I was so taken back, then she said that the girl died again some months after. Then I realized that she meant that the previously healthy girl went into an arrest on 2 separate occasions without warning or provocation that they could tell and needed resuscitation to be saved. She said that her family can't think of any cause other than the HPV vaccine and were trying to figure it out. She said the girl's doctors didn't attribute these episodes to the vaccine - didn't deny it, but said they weren't sure, if I understood her correctly. This lady did not know about VAERS or VICP or the 3 year statute of limitations. She did say that she had watched and taped Katie's program, but she didn't know about all the politics surrounding the airing, and didn't catch the reference to Sanevax. She knows now! I gave her a bunch of stuff to look up including all the articles here, especially Mark and Dan's chapter in Vaccine Epidemic, "License to Kill".

I believe most media types truly don't understand the nature of the vaccine debate. They think it's just another subject to be explored; sure it's controversial but what isn't in a polarized country. They are completely unprepared for the backlash from the "public health" establishment. How dare they even bring this subject up, it's highly irresponsible to do so, they gave a megaphone to the dangerous "anti-science" quacks, "people will die" because of their actions. Once subjected to the critical firestorm, they fold like a cheap suit and fall all over themselves apologizing.

It has been very interesting to see almost the exact same thing take place over the last few weeks on another topic unrelated to vaccines. The Australian media show "Catalyst" (similar to 60 minutes) produced an extremely well-researched program that questioned the conventional wisdom regarding widespread use of statin drugs for heart disease prevention. The show was compelling and made a strong case that the drugs were largely ineffective, side effects were much more common and severe than portrayed, and that the prescribing guidelines were driven by medical experts with extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Sounds familiar.

I was struck by the immediate backlash against the show and its producer/host, Dr Maryanne Demasi. Irresponsible, dangerous, "people will die" came from all the usual suspects. Just like vaccines, one is not allowed to in any way question the prevailing dogma and it's $20 billion/year pharma revenue stream, it's just too dangerous to do so we are told. Dr Demasi is unapologetic and sticking to her guns, good for her.

No surprise to the readers here, but one is not allowed to publicly question pharma's cash cows. To do so invites a furious pharma-coordinated counterattack, with plenty of "useful idiots" happy to pile on. Katie Couric found that out the hard way.

Although generally I side with Casey Stengel about not making predictions "especially about the future" I believe it was possible to predict the outcome of the Katie Couric episode to a millimeter, but nevertheless she let the cat out of the bag.