Guardian: ‘Laughing stock’ libel laws to be reformed, says Nick Clegg
Friday, 7 January 2011, 11:09
"Nick Clegg will [on Friday] set out the most ambitious plans yet to relax Britain's libel laws, saying he will back a raft of reforms including a statutory public interest defence. … Britain will become the first country to ask parliament …
Solicitors Journal: The killing effect
Saturday, 30 January 2010, 14:45
"When the risk of being sued dangerously discourages doctors from taking part in medical debate and prevents important research from being carried out, it is time to change libel laws, argues Mark Lewis"
Guardian: Cancer jab fantasy closes down a debate
Saturday, 10 October 2009, 08:25
Ben Goldacre on the Express "Jab as deadlin as the cancer" story: "The article has now gone from the Express website, and Harper has complained to the Press Complaints Commission. 'I fully support the HPV vaccines,' she says. 'I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.'"
Kill or cure?
Thursday, 23 July 2009, 21:06
"Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. " My favourite: bubble bath causes cancer. (via Ben Goldacre)
Guardian: Man flu and the difference between mice and men
Saturday, 23 May 2009, 12:52
Ben Goldacre: "what if the media was no longer the public's key source of information on health? The NHS Choices website gets about 6 million unique visitors a month, with no publicity. There you will find Behind the Headlines (around 200,000 visitors), a service I played a tiny role in helping set up: they take the biggest health news stories each day, find the real scientific evidence behind them, and precis it, clearly, for a lay audience. What's amazing is that there is a need for this service."
The science behind the news stories
Saturday, 28 March 2009, 14:04
"thesciencebehindit.net is now open for testing! If you have a news story where the journalist has written about a biological or medical research article, this is the place to get a link straight to the original article."
Nature: Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?
Saturday, 21 March 2009, 14:45
"A Nature survey of 493 science journalists shows that jobs are being lost and the workloads of those who remain are on the rise … At the same time, researcher-run blogs and websites are growing apace in both number and readership. Some are labours of love; others are subsidized philanthropically, or trying to run as businesses."
Jeni Barnett: MMR and Me (updated)
Saturday, 7 February 2009, 11:25
Jeni Barnett's defense of the MMR programme that is the focus of a legal dispute between LBC and Dr Ben Goldacre. To her credit, she allows those who disagree with her to comment.
Update 9/2: It seems my pleasant surprise at Barnett’s willingness to engage with her critics was premature. As Holford Watch points out, out the critical comments have now been removed from her site.
Barnett also added second, more snarky post condemning Ben Goldacre as a “Bad Scientist”. The (quite reasonable) comments on that post have also been removed.
If you publish non-fiction in any public medium — be it a blog or something with a considerably larger audience like a radio programme — you must expect people to question the factual veracity of your reporting and the logical consistency of your analysis. If this happens, you should be willing to take it on the chin, defend your position, or even honourably withdraw claims that don’t stand up to the critique.
This is the standard that scientists hold themselves to, and it would be nice if those with the power to disseminate ideas to mass audiences would hold themselves to the same standard.
The Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project
Monday, 12 January 2009, 16:44
"A blog following the Daily Mail’s ongoing mission to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into those that cause or cure cancer."
Complete Tosh: Journalists as experts
Wednesday, 31 December 2008, 12:59
Neil McIntosh: "[T]here’s a strong argument for journalists in the future to be experts in what they write about, especially when they cover complex fields. Experts make fewer mistakes, and say fewer sillier things. Read Ben Goldacre’s summary of The Year In Bad Science to see what a potent mix of innumeracy, scientific ignorance and bad reporting can bring readers over 12 months. … A rise in specialism in journalism – and more true experts working in journalism – is going to be a central plank in journalism’s recovery from the hole it’s in. It’ll keep it relevant, and make it better."
Apathy Sketchpad: Stupid Formulae
Saturday, 13 December 2008, 13:48
A hilarious collection of those bullshit formulaic "formula for the best …" "science" stories from certain UK national newspapers. (Highlighted by Ben Goldacre in his Bad Sceince column today).
Guardian: Bad Science: How the Sun boobed over Britney Spears equation
Saturday, 13 December 2008, 13:44
Ben Goldacre: "[M]y frighteningly anal chums at the Apathy Sketchpad blog have performed quantitative analysis on this question, by doggedly documenting every single equation story to appear in the Telegraph, a serious paper that covers science properly. … These stories tell us nothing about science. They are what PR companies call 'advertising equivalent exposure' … "
Alone In The Dark: Strange Ontology: Week Beginning 8th October 2008
Tuesday, 14 October 2008, 07:06
A Daily Mail watch-blog looks at Ben Goldacre's observation that the Mail is "engaged in a philosophical project of mythic proportions: for many years now it has diligently been sifting through all the inanimate objects in the world, soberly dividing them into the ones which either cause – or cure – cancer."
Alone In The Dark: Strange Ontology: Week Beginning 8th October 2008
Tuesday, 14 October 2008, 07:06
A Daily Mail watch-blog looks at Ben Goldacre's observation that the Mail is "engaged in a philosophical project of mythic proportions: for many years now it has diligently been sifting through all the inanimate objects in the world, soberly dividing them into the ones which either cause – or cure – cancer."
