So you are saying that the FDA is never wrong and that its activities need no public oversight? I can see no other reason for allowing them uncontested access to spin their "signals".
If they were interested in "refusing to play the game of yellow journalism" they would not pre-announce their activities at all.
And are you really saying that Scientific American is "an organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information"?
No where did I say the FDA "is never wrong and that its activities need no public oversight." No part of my statement could even be misconstrued that way. But thanks for being disingenuous!
The FDA gets _true_ oversight from the thousands and thousands of scientist who work within the organization, who work outside the organization, and other organizations who have vested interests in "trashing" certain findings and approvals by the FDA. It sounds like you don't know how the FDA is generally set up so it would do you well to look into it. It's not exactly private.
The FDA again, doesn't want to play the game of yellow journalism. Why is this confusing? The following makes absolutely no sense, by the way. From your own post: "they would not pre-announce their activities at all." Please do elaborate how this somehow negates their motivations for not wanting the press to get out of hand and send false signals to the public. You can't just provide one little quip and expect that to unravel all their motivations. Again, I'm really struggling to see how this is confusing to anyone who has worked with anything remotely public, or even at a big corporation!
And no, I am not sure how a direct quote about Fox News and a sentence that follows the direct quote somehow gets misconstrued as me talking about "Scientific American." _However_, Scientific American has been known (especially over the last couple of years), to engage in generally click baity, irrefutably unscientific publications. Just like it is doing here.
You don't know what Yellow Journalism is. Actually, the FDA is PROMOTING yellow journalism because they refuse to allow reporters to interview independent sources prior to the embargo being lifted. So they are willingly supporting a policy that makes journalist less likely to seek corroborating or conflicting sources thus leading to inaccurate and even sensationalized reporting.
Your hatred of Fox News is noted, however the government has no right to discriminate against media outlets. Considering that Fox has the largest viewership of any US news channel, you'd think that the FDA would have a mandate to ensure that their policies were reported to the largest audience.
Seriously, Politico was on the preferential list and not Fox? That's just pettiness on the part of the FDA and it's obvious that they have an agenda. My point isn't that Fox isn't given advance access -- my point is that there ought not be exclusionary access lists in the first place.
>Actually, the FDA is PROMOTING yellow journalism because they refuse to allow reporters to interview independent sources prior to the embargo being lifted.
That is the most backwards statement you possible could have made. I am not even sure if you really believe it yourself.
>however the government has no right to discriminate against media outlets.
Yes they do.
>my point is that there ought not be exclusionary access lists in the first place.
And you've done nothing to negate my point that not only that they should and it makes sense to do so, but why you think letting news organizations run wild with public health information is a responsible thing to do. It's foolish, naive, and ignorant.
I can understand the argument that stonewalling outright hostile news organizations like Fox News is justified. I don't know whether I agree with it, but I can understand it.
But that is essentially orthogonal to the issue of whether embargoes should be "close-hold", in those cases where the FDA does trust a reporter enough to grant them early access. After all, if the reporter merely wants to cast aspersions and FUD, a close-hold embargo doesn't really prevent them from doing so; they can probably come up with it on their own, or cite preexisting criticism related to the subject (regardless of how well it matches up with the exact announcement at hand). It is only if they want to get informed, on-topic reactions from sources with relevant knowledge and experience that the embargo gets in the way. Indeed, such an embargo may all but force even well-meaning journalists to include misleading or useless "context" - decreasing the accuracy of the article - just to provide some slight semblance of impartiality, as in this example from the Scientific American article:
> CBS plunked down an out-of-context quotation from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, probably in hopes that readers wouldn't notice that it was two months old.
Now, I suppose it's possible that well-meaning journalists end up too credulously repeating the statements of sources with, as you say, vested interests in bashing the FDA. I suppose hamstringing them from even talking to those sources, along with all others, could hypothetically increase the overall accuracy of the article.
But let's be real. What you end up with is essentially a series of glorified press releases. Press releases have their place: to inform the public of a particular organization's viewpoint. True, the FDA is an expert organization and chances are its viewpoints are typically reasonable - valid - plausible. Indeed, they're almost certainly more studied and thorough than a quick reaction from any other source. But even so, valid is not the same as right, and for issues as contentious as the ones the FDA often ends up having to deal with, there is rarely any single right viewpoint. Thus citing a range of sources, rather than providing the public with any organization's viewpoint alone, is the only responsible thing to do. That is not yellow journalism: it is the essence of journalism.
Seriously: do you really think -
> Even after he updated his piece later in the day to get some outside comments, there was little hint of how controversial the new rules were. Members of the tobacco industry were generally unhappy with increased federal regulation of their business, while antitobacco advocates tended to argue that the new regulations were far too weak and took way too long to promulgate. And there was no mention, in Felberbaum's article, at least, that the agency had tried to regulate e-cigarettes several years earlier but was slapped down with a stinging rebuke from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
> a close-hold embargo doesn't really prevent them from doing so;
It makes it pretty difficult to have any kind of information to spin. Whether or not it's 100% preventative measure is as you say, orthogonal to helping prevent the issue in the first place. If they have nothing to quote of context, or twist their words, any material they make will be generally lackluster to their audiences.
>What you end up with is essentially a series of glorified press releases.
The FDA does not have a PR branch. It is smartly using the press to get information out to the public.
>But even so, valid is not the same as right, and for issues as contentious as the ones the FDA often ends up having to deal with, there is rarely any single right viewpoint.
Allow me to be extremely blunt here: who cares? Again these view points are largely handled through the actual scientific process. The general public with no knowledge on the subject being discussed isn't going to properly shift through competing view points, and it is exceedingly unlikely these other view points are correct by the time the FDA wants to give a press release about certain processes or products.
Again, this information about these other view points isn't private. The FDA just doesn't want the press to misinform the public. What is so controversial about this?
>Thus citing a range of sources, rather than providing the public with any organization's viewpoint alone, is the only responsible thing to do.
There is nothing stopping organizations from researching these issues on their own and reporting them. The FDA just doesn't want the press to spin their statements into something that could harm the public in any form. If you go to a press event, you are expected to report accurately on FDA's statements and processes, or else you're not going to be invited back.
I would like an explanation what the big deal is about actions the FDA are specifically taking in direct regards to the close-hold embargo without resorting to absurd claims that the FDA is somehow ruining journalistic integrity. Report the statements accurately and when the FDA is ready for the public to view them. Journalistic integrity is not being ruined. Journalists can still investigate the products on their own, and report other organization's findings.
>that omitting this context is an improvement?
The real question is how is that paragraph adding anything of value to the new rules and regulations by the FDA? People tend to get lost in the minuet talking points and stick to pedantic details with stories like these. Again, the FDA wants to have direct statements on these matters so there isn't any confusion about what they're doing or what they're going to try do.
If they were interested in "refusing to play the game of yellow journalism" they would not pre-announce their activities at all.
And are you really saying that Scientific American is "an organization hell bent on bashing largely agreed upon scientific information"?