We at ACSH don't like to brag (1).
But I'll make an exception this time. Here's why.
You need a fairly thick skin to work here. Some people just don't like us because we tell the truth. And the truth can hurt, especially when it costs a person, company, or organization money because we expose dishonest and tricky marketing based on flawed science or tricky interpretations of real science.
Then there are the crazies, like Carey Gilliam and the rest of the inmates over at US Right to Know (Nothing) and Michael "Mad Dog" Balter over at... who knows? The guy seems to have trouble keeping a job. And the lawyers and history majors over at NRDC and the Environmental Working Group are not especially fond of us either, with good reason - we constantly call them out for bad (or invisible) science, especially when they make up phony chemical scares (without the benefit of a chemist) as well as promotion of "everything organic." (2)
But, perhaps our message is starting to get through. When the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote up the latest non-story from EWG about traces of the weed killer glyphosate being found in cereal (3) we fully expected to be called "industry front group" or a similarly inaccurate (not to mention appallingly unoriginal). Much to our surprise, we read the following.
Imagine that! Instead of calling us shills the Journal Constitution (4) called us exactly what we are - a nonprofit (5) consumer advocacy organization founded by scientists.
The link the paper cited just happened to be a hole-in-one by Dr. Alex Berezow entitled "Dear EWG, This Is Why Real Scientists Think Poorly Of You." It's great. I suggest you read it.
What are the chances of someone finally getting us right?
How about twice in the same month?
Only last week the site Media Bias/Fact Check went against the tide and rated us very highly for scientific accuracy. Here are some of its findings:
"They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes."
[We use loaded words because we are perennially pissed off at all the liars and frauds out there. We do not pull punches. And I'm not sure what getting the science right has to do with either liberal or conservative causes, but I can live with it.]
"Overall, we rate ACSH Right-Center Biased based on pro-business support and High for factual reporting due to adhering to the consensus of science on most issues and a clean fact check record."
[Thank you!]
"A factual search reveals that the American Council on Science and Health has not failed a fact check."
[41 years and we haven't failed a fact check. No wonder our critics call us names. They can't argue the science.]
"Overall, we rate ACSH Right-Center Biased based on pro-business support and High for factual reporting due to adhering to the consensus of science on most issues and a clean fact check record. (8/14/2016) Updated (D[ave] Van Zandt 5/30/2019)"
All things considered, this is already a pretty good June and it's not even half over.
NOTES:
(1) OK, maybe that's a lie.
(2) It is more than a little ironic that we are called industry shills when groups like NRDC are 100-times larger (and wealthier) and supported by the organic food industry so they can scare people.
(3) The chemical scare industry uses the same tactic over and over and over - ignoring the dose or exposure. They want you to believe that the presence of a chemical is indicative of its risk. This is pure nonsense.
(4) Originally written Cox Media
(5) We are a little too non-profit for my taste.
But I'll make an exception this time. Here's why.
You need a fairly thick skin to work here. Some people just don't like us because we tell the truth. And the truth can hurt, especially when it costs a person, company, or organization money because we expose dishonest and tricky marketing based on flawed science or tricky interpretations of real science.
Then there are the crazies, like Carey Gilliam and the rest of the inmates over at US Right to Know (Nothing) and Michael "Mad Dog" Balter over at... who knows? The guy seems to have trouble keeping a job. And the lawyers and history majors over at NRDC and the Environmental Working Group are not especially fond of us either, with good reason - we constantly call them out for bad (or invisible) science, especially when they make up phony chemical scares (without the benefit of a chemist) as well as promotion of "everything organic." (2)
But, perhaps our message is starting to get through. When the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote up the latest non-story from EWG about traces of the weed killer glyphosate being found in cereal (3) we fully expected to be called "industry front group" or a similarly inaccurate (not to mention appallingly unoriginal). Much to our surprise, we read the following.
The link the paper cited just happened to be a hole-in-one by Dr. Alex Berezow entitled "Dear EWG, This Is Why Real Scientists Think Poorly Of You." It's great. I suggest you read it.
What are the chances of someone finally getting us right?
How about twice in the same month?
Only last week the site Media Bias/Fact Check went against the tide and rated us very highly for scientific accuracy. Here are some of its findings:
"They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes."
[We use loaded words because we are perennially pissed off at all the liars and frauds out there. We do not pull punches. And I'm not sure what getting the science right has to do with either liberal or conservative causes, but I can live with it.]
"Overall, we rate ACSH Right-Center Biased based on pro-business support and High for factual reporting due to adhering to the consensus of science on most issues and a clean fact check record."
[Thank you!]
"A factual search reveals that the American Council on Science and Health has not failed a fact check."
[41 years and we haven't failed a fact check. No wonder our critics call us names. They can't argue the science.]
"Overall, we rate ACSH Right-Center Biased based on pro-business support and High for factual reporting due to adhering to the consensus of science on most issues and a clean fact check record. (8/14/2016) Updated (D[ave] Van Zandt 5/30/2019)"
All things considered, this is already a pretty good June and it's not even half over.
NOTES:
(1) OK, maybe that's a lie.
(2) It is more than a little ironic that we are called industry shills when groups like NRDC are 100-times larger (and wealthier) and supported by the organic food industry so they can scare people.
(3) The chemical scare industry uses the same tactic over and over and over - ignoring the dose or exposure. They want you to believe that the presence of a chemical is indicative of its risk. This is pure nonsense.
(4) Originally written Cox Media
(5) We are a little too non-profit for my taste.
Please Help Fund Our Work Just like money, debunking junk science doesn't grow on trees. And we've done a lot of it recently in the media. But we are only able to do what we do because of the generous support of readers like you. So please donate
No comments:
Post a Comment