Hacker News Reader

Comment by mathgeek | Hacker News Reader

Anyone have a good source for articles that eschew the political commentary in favor of just presenting the study findings in a concise summary?

Does anyone actually care that the global lobbyists for meat don't agree that meat is a carcinogen (or that any lobbyists against meat would care that it is)?

View on HN

This is the plight of today's journalism. Students are taught to find both sides of the issue and treat them equally, despite the fact that one side has a clear conflict of interest.

All sides in such arguments usually have a conflict of interest. The meat lobby is after money. The "regulate everything" crowd is after power.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C.S. Lewis

Just replace "meat" with "________" and you can supplant an entire shelf of political science tomes with a clear and concise summary of the 21st century political universe.

Or that lip service is paid to conflicting points of view (even if one side is nonsensical) in order to create a sense of false equivalence and therefore controversy.

What Jay Rosen of the NYU journalism school has called "The view from nowhere." (http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-question...)

Not an article, but here's the paper the WHO cites to make the "16% increased risk per 100g red/processed meat" claim. It's citation 12 on the WHO paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com