Media Lens - not averse to a bit of censorship...
I was most upset to see the (usually very good) people at Media Lens wage an embarrassingly bad campaign against the people behind Iraq Body Count.
I posted a couple of messages to their message board about the inaccuracies in their reports and was accused of trolling and then promptly banned from the site:
Their remit to correct the distortions in the media obviously doesn't include criticism of their own output!
The post I was making was:
--Previous Message--
: Were the IBC rebuttal and your response
: coordinated or did it just drop out of the
: blue?
: The Newsnight interest in the last few days
: was surprising but with the IBC posting this
: evening and the subsequent trolling I
: wondered if it wasn't coincidental.
Yeah. Maybe I'm a member of a secret kabal of music lecturers?
Maybe Paxman was a music student before he became a journo?
And since when was pointing out that ML have made a mistakes "trolling"? The Editors can check my subscription - I've been a subscriber and appreciator of their work for a long time.
But the criticism of IBC was based on bad figures and bad advice. Dragging Pilger into the debate and then resorting to ad-hominems has made things worse.
Media Lens should be supporting the IBC by criticising the media that mis-represents their data. Not criticising the IBC because the media mis-represents their data.
Hardly radical, but too critical of Media Lens for publication.
Sad.
Very sad.
Just in case they decide to censor all of my posts:
Posted by Martin on April 27, 2006, 8:53 pm
User logged in as: g33kthug
The IBC have published their rebuttal of Media Lens' baseless attack. You'll find it at their site.
No need to delve deep into the massive document because the Executive Summary covers all the important points.
Les got his IBC figures wrong. They were corrected some time ago in the real publication - but you were too lazy to check and he's to busy bigging it up in the media to mention it.
Stick to re-hashing Chomsky boys - and proving what we already know: journalists tell lies and have trouble with maths & statistics.
Maybe the next alert will be about your own "distorted vision"?
Shame on you for your pathetic response too - resorting to ad hominem. Now, what was that daily death rate again?
And here is the sad ad hominem from Media Lens:
In his interview, Sloboda, for example, immediately proceeds to pass judgement on the Lancet report - a scientific study conducted by some of the world's leading professional epidemiologists and published in one of the premier science journals after a rigorous peer-review process.
And yet Sloboda's university website describes him as "internationally known for his work on the psychology of music".
I wonder what qualifications the Media Lens team have for passing judgement on John Sloboda?
I posted a couple of messages to their message board about the inaccuracies in their reports and was accused of trolling and then promptly banned from the site:
Their remit to correct the distortions in the media obviously doesn't include criticism of their own output!
The post I was making was:
--Previous Message--
: Were the IBC rebuttal and your response
: coordinated or did it just drop out of the
: blue?
: The Newsnight interest in the last few days
: was surprising but with the IBC posting this
: evening and the subsequent trolling I
: wondered if it wasn't coincidental.
Yeah. Maybe I'm a member of a secret kabal of music lecturers?
Maybe Paxman was a music student before he became a journo?
And since when was pointing out that ML have made a mistakes "trolling"? The Editors can check my subscription - I've been a subscriber and appreciator of their work for a long time.
But the criticism of IBC was based on bad figures and bad advice. Dragging Pilger into the debate and then resorting to ad-hominems has made things worse.
Media Lens should be supporting the IBC by criticising the media that mis-represents their data. Not criticising the IBC because the media mis-represents their data.
Hardly radical, but too critical of Media Lens for publication.
Sad.
Very sad.
Just in case they decide to censor all of my posts:
Posted by Martin on April 27, 2006, 8:53 pm
User logged in as: g33kthug
The IBC have published their rebuttal of Media Lens' baseless attack. You'll find it at their site.
No need to delve deep into the massive document because the Executive Summary covers all the important points.
Les got his IBC figures wrong. They were corrected some time ago in the real publication - but you were too lazy to check and he's to busy bigging it up in the media to mention it.
Stick to re-hashing Chomsky boys - and proving what we already know: journalists tell lies and have trouble with maths & statistics.
Maybe the next alert will be about your own "distorted vision"?
Shame on you for your pathetic response too - resorting to ad hominem. Now, what was that daily death rate again?
And here is the sad ad hominem from Media Lens:
In his interview, Sloboda, for example, immediately proceeds to pass judgement on the Lancet report - a scientific study conducted by some of the world's leading professional epidemiologists and published in one of the premier science journals after a rigorous peer-review process.
And yet Sloboda's university website describes him as "internationally known for his work on the psychology of music".
I wonder what qualifications the Media Lens team have for passing judgement on John Sloboda?
posted by g33kThug at 5:24 PM
<< Home