Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
And thereby the good "dr's" Kucewicz, M., Tricklebank, M., Bogacz, R., & Jones, M. (2011). For their brand of "research and peer reviewed" masterpiece of psycho/pharma promotional fabrication also known as--
Dysfunctional Prefrontal Cortical Network Activity and Interactions following Cannabinoid Receptor Activation Journal of Neuroscience, 31 (43), 15560-15568 DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2970-11.2011
The Orwellian prize qualifying criteria (just in case you wanted to nominate and bestow your own)
The prize is given for an article in an English-language national newspaper that achieves an unusually high level of inaccuracy. Only articles that describe a piece of published scientific research are eligible. Points are given for every statement in the article that does not match the original source, as follows:
- Factual error in the headline: 3 points
- Factual error in a subtitle: 2 points
- Factual error in the body of the article: 1 point
Last year, I got two nominations, but, as described here, neither adequately met the criteria. This year, I’ve had just one nomination, from Neurobonkers, but it’s set a standard for inaccuracy that will be hard to beat. The article that I first selected in 2010 to illustrate the scoring system scored 16 points. This one achieves a startling 23 points.
Of course, there's no qualifying criteria for a source article fabricated completely for no other purposes than the of promoting products.
Evidently thats just called journalism these days. I think there IS an award for that though...DON'T they give Darwins to those guys? I'll look into it and get back to you.
#1 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:04 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
