[Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

[SlimVirgin]

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 06:35, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
>> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
>> research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
>> journalists. That makes no sense to me.
>
>
> The specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality
> source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the
> typical run of the media.
>
> (Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.)
>
> Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help.
>

In the example I gave I cited both the BBC and the original study, and
it was still removed.

How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the
mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely
reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the
funder and beneficiary of much of the research.