The New York Times has conducted a decades-long vendetta against the … techniques of genetic engineering applied to agriculture. Bias and inaccuracy have pervaded its op-eds, columns and even its reporting of “news.”
…[I]t’s difficult to know which of their failures represent hitting bottom, but a recent article by “investigative reporter” Danny Hakim and the witless defense of it by his editor and by the Times’ “public editor” certainly have a claim to the title.
. . . .
…As economist Graham Brookes wrote about Hakim’s article, he makes “spurious comparisons that will mislead readers….”
. . . .
…Hakim’s article elicited an avalanche of condemnation from scientists, agricultural researchers and farmers. Many of those critical comments … were sent to Liz Spayd, the Times’ “public editor”… who took note of them in the paper.
. . . .
The public editor’s [response] …:
…I found the piece to be a thorough, educational read on a complex subject. But I thought readers had some interesting feedback. … In this case, given how many questions that were raised about the methodology, it’s clear that the piece would have benefited from more explanation of how the data was [sic] assembled and used.
. . . .
Thorough? Educational? What part of inaccurate, cooked, biased and misleading does Ms. Spayd not understand?
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: On ‘GMOs’, The New York Times Violates The Rule Of Holes: When You’re In A Hole, Stop Digging
