Back to academia's methods (eye-rolls circle the room), there are publications that go on and on about the virtues of St. John's Warts or whatever, but the Lancet never cites those journals.
Journalists seem unable to cast-out anyone who even claims to be one, as engineers and doctors absolutely do.
Back to academia's methods (eye-rolls circle the room), there are publications that go on and on about the virtues of St. John's Warts or whatever, but the Lancet never cites those journals.
Journalists seem unable to cast-out anyone who even claims to be one, as engineers and doctors absolutely do.
We all get that casting-out individuals from a designation of "registered journalist" is not going to happen, but that strikes me as quite do-able as a voluntary association that the publication can join if it meets standards, like the Better Business Bureau.
I really think that news sites should form such an association. Fox and National Post would both get in, because they have some thin line between their fact and opinion, do walk-back errors.
But the Hydroxychloroquine vendors and 9/11 truthers would at least be designated as "not even trying to be accurate".
Back to academia's methods (eye-rolls circle the room), there are publications that go on and on about the virtues of St. John's Warts or whatever, but the Lancet never cites those journals.
Journalists seem unable to cast-out anyone who even claims to be one, as engineers and doctors absolutely do.
We all get that casting-out individuals from a designation of "registered journalist" is not going to happen, but that strikes me as quite do-able as a voluntary association that the publication can join if it meets standards, like the Better Business Bureau.
I really think that news sites should form such an association. Fox and National Post would both get in, because they have some thin line between their fact and opinion, do walk-back errors.
But the Hydroxychloroquine vendors and 9/11 truthers would at least be designated as "not even trying to be accurate".