[Marxism] Fakethrough! GMOs and the Capitulation o f Science Journalism » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Jeff meisner at xs4all.nl
Wed Jan 8 16:11:26 MST 2014


At 16:58 08-01-14 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>
>http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/08/fakethrough-gmos-and-the-capitulatio
n-of-science-journalism/
>

Well this is a perfectly good article about mass-media JOUNALISTS. Or about
"Science Journalism" in the sense of reporters who are not scientists
(yeah, maybe they got a science degree of some sort and then went into
journalism as a career) and who are writing popular science articles. Or
not even science in most of the examples cited but really technology. And
not even about THE technology (the issue of the recent thread) but
particular CLAIMS and BUSINESS PLANS using that technology. And the point
of the article, completely valid, was that so many reporters for popular
media are happy to serve the interests of corporations. Surprise surprise.

The author made no claims relating to the issues we have been discussing,
but presented a very good picture of the capitalist media. So please be
clear about what the point of posting this is. To prove to us not to trust
the media? Fine. But nothing about genetic engineering. It was entertaining
to learn about claims reporters were happy to echo (surely inflating the
stock price of the corporations they were parroting) that turned out to be
hot air. Now I have read probably hundreds of similar claims concerning
computers or electronic products that never panned out, where the reporters
were equally irresponsible. Does that cast a bad light on electronics?
Should I stop using my computer? If you're reading this then you probably
haven't stopped using your computer, despite many invalid claims that have
been made about computers.

Anyway, as I said, the article is perfectly fine. But putting on the list
an article about commercial JOURNALISM at the exact time that we were
having a separate discussion about the safety or efficacy of an entire
technology, appears to be a back-handed attempt to address an issue that
the article was NOT about.

- Jeff






More information about the Marxism mailing list