July 08, 2007
Crap Reporting in The Observer
Goddamn, these two pieces in The Observer are crap.
All about MMR, autism, Anthony Wakefield and so on.
Firstly how can you discuss Simon Baron Cohen on the subject without mentioning assortative mating? I mean, it's all there in Wikipedia, even if you can't be bothered to look up his papers or read his books.
Secondly, how can you talk about Anthony Wakefield without noting that his basic research into MMR was entirely rubbish? You know, that he was lying about what he found?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here? Is journalism reporting what people say? Or about uncovering the truth?
Don't journalists Google?
Another update. Do click through that trackback below from Tony. He's got something very good on Carol Stott.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Crap Reporting in The Observer:
» What the Observer's MMR Piece Didn't Tell You! from Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings
Next week Dr Andrew Wakefield and two of his colleagues from the Royal Free Hospital face the General Medical Council. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 8, 2007 4:57:49 PM
Surely... Andrew Wakefield!
Tim adds: Indeed. I make that damn mistake all the time. Andrew Wakefield and Anthony Cox....the guy I get all my real information on the subject from. Grr.
Posted by: MarkS | Jul 8, 2007 2:23:02 PM
Wow, 'Carol Stott, a now-terminated junior researcher in Cambridge University's psychiatry department' they don't mess about there!
Posted by: ScotsToryB | Jul 8, 2007 4:34:38 PM
This is all part of an orchestrated campaign. Expect more crap reporting in the run up to Wakefield's appearance before the GMC.
Posted by: mike stanton | Jul 8, 2007 9:53:00 PM