George Stanley is the Journal-Sentinel's managing editor. It's about bloody time somebody in-house corrected Patrick McIlheran's drivel.
Good on Stanley.
eta 01 OWN's Scot Ross concurs in part, dissents in part:
Two cents: I think it's incredibly hypocritical of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to point this out, when it pays [McIlheran] to churn out this right-wing, pro-corporate propaganda on a regular basis without any consistent voice of opposition. Until he strays from the company line ...eta 02 Jon Entine responds. Mr. Entine, a journalist and American Enterprise Institute (Scaife, Bradley, etc.) "fellow," wrote the article from which Patrick McIlheran produced the pregnant children:
Mr. Stanley ... is flat out 100% wrong. He lied to his readers.P. McIlheran hisself next appears in-thread. Flamewar!
eta 03 Jon Entine returns for some more:
For the record, Mr. McIlheran did not contact me. I noticed this article on Google News and read the comments. Frankly, Mr. Stanley's comment is so undeniably wrong and irresponsible, I believe he should be publicly reprimanded by the publisher and perhaps even fired. It's so antithetical to the established canons of journalism. Moreover, he criticized his own reporter[*] in public, which is as unprofessional as it gets. And he was wrong to boot. He should start with a public apology. And I would suggest an independent review of the Journal Sentinel's reporting on BPA and chemicals as it is apparent that his judgment is polluted beyond repair. What a disgrace for the JS.Good Day Sir!
* McIlheran was not "reporting" and Stanley didn't "criticize" him.
eta 04 And yet still more additional Jon Entine:
For example, Health Canada's ban came after its science advisory panel concluded, starkly: "Bisphenol A does not pose a risk to the general population, including adults, teenagers and children." It was then overruled by the political arm of Health Canada, which said in its news release that "decisions have to be made to meet society's expectations" — in other words, in response to hysteria generated by the likes of the JS.I don't know where the AEI "fellow" Jon Entine's quote comes from, but Health Canada's website reads:
Health Canada's Food Directorate has concluded that the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.Emphasis added. Health Canada then goes on to note its steps were/are taken to protect "this sensitive segment of the population."
So why does Jon Entine hate Canadian newborns and infants?
(By the way, positive and approving appeals to "This is how Canada does it!" are something you hear quite often from journalist Patrick McIlheran when he's on the healthcare warpath, aren't they. Oh yes.)
And: Medium wave howler Charlie Sykes to the rescue!
Well, there's at least one common denominator emerging here: The Bradley Foundation. Can law perfesser Rick Esenberg be far behind?
If Mr. Stanley is the managing editor, I'm wondering who on earth "edits" McIlerhan's work. You'd think they'd want to catch things like this before they get, you know, published under the Journal-Sentinel masthead.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think. McIlheran did change "pregnant children" to "pregnant women," however, so at least he's finally started to learn some biology.
ReplyDeletewho on earth "edits" McIlerhan's work
ReplyDeleteStanley's on the other side of the op/ed - news fence. His weighing in steps on many toes, making it deserving of an even bigger huzzah.
Wouldn't it be nice if all news editors would speak up when their opinion clowns make a complete hash of things. The Wall Street Journal Opinion section would improve tremendously (or disappear entirely) if the news editors were allowed to critique the accuracy of their claims.
ReplyDeleteP. McIlheran hisself next appears
ReplyDeleteWith uncharacteristic meekness.
I wonder who clued in Mr. Entine...
Jon Entine responds...
ReplyDelete"The committee was independently chose by the highly non-partisan Society of Toxicology, which has a history of being extremely sympathetic to the precautionary notion."
If the author of that sentence really was the author of an article from which PMac worked, one can hardly blame McIlheran for being even more addled than usual.
And Bruce Murphy is out of the office until May 2. He doesn't know what he's missing.
ReplyDeletethe author of that sentence
ReplyDeletePer he:
"The acknowledgments section DOES NOT state ... "
But see Stanley:
"The acknowledgments section reveals ... "
White men can't jump.
ReplyDeleteYes ... that's Murray/Rushton territory.
ReplyDelete"The acknowledgments section reveals ... "
ReplyDeleteOh, the careful point-missing is one thing. I was just pointing out the sustained failure to write in English. He's a journalist and author, they say? Ah, conservative author. So his readers are just skimming for keywords. Fair enough.
A. Rand. Minion: "Will Marty Kaiser ask an independent editor and reporter to review and report on the new study?"
ReplyDeleteYes, indeedy. Let's see if the front office sides with the guy holding the Pulitzer or the guy holding his putz.
Stanley is a disgrace. -- Jon Entine
ReplyDelete"his own reporter"
ReplyDeleteHahaha. I missed that the first time.
When's the last time you actually saw Patrick respond in his own comments section?
ReplyDeleteLong time.
ReplyDelete