Question asked on May 29, 2022
You ask us about the origin of a text that is transmitted on social media, its appearance evokes the appearance of a newspaper article, and it is presented as taken from the title. daily of meeting. it will be from “A warning in the form of an interrogation of the terrible risks posed by the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines against COVID-19”. The text is titled “Messenger RNA Vaccine: Study sounds the alarm” reverberation “A very serious and well-documented study, without the authors’ conflict of interest, published April 15 in ScienceDirect”which would yield The results will be published in the Official Journal of the Chinese Society of Toxicology (CTF), the world-renowned journal of toxicology. Accordingly Sars-CoV-2 mRNA ‘vaccines’ may: Create a modified mRNA with complex but above all unpredictable effects. sustainable production of spike proteins; weak innate immunityetc.
As many netizens quickly pointed out – and journalist from daily – This text, which was actually published on May 27 in the Reunion newspaper, is not a newspaper article. It’s actually taken from the “Letters from Readers” page. In the print version, the topic name appears very clearly at the top of the page. In the online version, this important clarification is skipped.
The study referred to is known to readers CheckNews, where we dedicated an article to her at the beginning of May. Published online April 15 on the magazine publisher’s website Food and chemical toxinsthis disturbing publication has been the subject of intense criticism, indicating the basic speculative nature of the arguments, as well as the authors’ lack of experience with respect to many of the topics they address.
Even in letters to the editor, publishing a text promoting such a controversial article, without putting it in a journalistic perspective, in daily of meetingchallenged many Internet users.
Text circulated at least ten days ago
The published letter appears to have been signed by Bruno Bourgogne, a nephrologist from Reunion. a “Used to messages from readers daily»As one of the headline journalists pointed out in August in an article covering a demonstration against the health card in which this doctor participated. Over the past nine months, at least twenty characters signed with his name have been published on page 2 of dailyand dealing with topics mainly related to environmental issues. However, the team CheckNews I was surprised to learn, in this prose, a text that circulated for at least ten days on various sites, presented under another signature.
Regardless of the letter’s introduction, most of the paragraphs appear in fact copied and pasted from text signed by Tipo Masko, author of a subscription-distributed letter, called “Uncensored Health”, which presents itself as a journal for “New Alternatives Free from Lobbyists”. call him CheckNewsBruno Bourgogne asserts that he acquired the text “Uncensored Health”, “By adapting it to be little more than evangelism in the face of the people of Reunion. But daily He didn’t copy the text I sent them extensively, it will be posted on my collection site. The nephrologist tells us that Have not yet read the review of this article. However, he tells us “That when someone says something that’s not in the mainstream, let’s say, I tend to think that the criticisms that fall from behind are really well directed, often by people who might have a conflict of interest”. The author of controversial notes about hygienic procedures, the nephrologist was called in December by the captain of doctors, but no penalty was imposed on him – because, according to Bourgogne, “procedural defect”.
“Committed Thinking of Scientific Information”
Kevin Pollard, newspaper editor Reunion newspaperexplains to CheckNews After learning of the controversy during the day. “Reunion daily newspaper In 1976, in a very private, closed information context. The right owned all the newspapers, where you can put nothing but the dominant voice – 90% of the people of Réunion, especially the Creoles, were left out. This newspaper was created specifically to fight censorship, and from the beginning we have been fighting for freedom of expression. Readers’ mail is a space for freedom of expression, and we are deeply attached to it. But it is clearly not infinite. In the editorial office, we take the law as a framework: we will challenge all messages related to defamation, incitement to racial hatred, any form of discrimination, advocacy of violence, etc. This is our compass. Readers’ letters are positions and opinions, which are freedom of expression, but they do not reflect the newspaper’s editorial line. The manager says so The Daily “published letters from readers who took a stand in favor of vaccination… which earned us pranks of insults.‘, this indicates “For the letter of a professor from the University of Reunion that established a link between the fourth wave in overseas departments, low vaccination rate, illiteracy rate… We are careful about what we publish, but you could be wrong. We do not always have the scientific knowledge to validate the data. But we do have the knowledge Legal requirements to know what we are entitled to pass or not.
The editor-in-chief notes that on May 30, he received a letter from a researcher criticizing the article published in Food and chemical toxins. “We will call him back.”, he explains. With respect to the precaution of seeking outside opinion or advice from science editors on such topics, Kevin Pollard acknowledges that “These are the discussions that are taking place in drafting a draft daily. We’ve had a lot of discussions about this lately. The newspaper hosted a health and wellness trade show, and it was a chance to put things on the table. There are already very different opinions about how to approach scientific information in writing, and we’re in the middle of thinking about how to improve. Last week and last week everyone defended their arguments about it, and this led to active exchanges at times, and we agreed to sit down and work out a method. Until now, we have been approaching journalistic treatment of scientific information and health issues in a more general way, and we will include readers’ messages in this reflection. We are a small regional daily newspaper. If we are not at the top, we try to improve.
Activists ‘use newspaper as propaganda tool’
The controversy over the weekend had a strong resonance within the magazine’s editorial board daily. Edward Marshall, union representative for the National Syndicate of Journalists section, judge “Medical and scientific lies cannot be allowed to spread in such an accidental way. The answer that it was posted in the mailbox does not satisfy us. It is clear that the responsibility of the publisher is to control the editorial content. This applies to messages from readers, a fortiori when they are placed on page 2 As we have it, it is enriched by the image of … ” It is also considered that “The readers’ mail page is, undisputedly, cynically used by anti-vaccine activists, who use the newspaper as a propaganda tool.”
current controversy It follows a number of reservations we have previously expressed in the editorial line, and on the way we deal with anti-vaccination movements. In a department where our vaccination rates are lower than the national average, I think we have a duty of increased vigilance. Admittedly, we’re not professional journalists, and we don’t all have the scientific culture to deal with these topics, but we must do our job of verifying and clarifying the information. It is necessary to rupture the abscess thanks to this incident. The thing we can criticize is, of course, not answering these questions in advance, perhaps because we did not want to create tensions between the divergent opinions within the editorial staff. But today, I think we can no longer be silent: our reputations as journalists have been tarnished today. We are dealing with fools by publishing this kind of text.”concludes Edward Marshall.
[Mise à jour du 31/05/22 à 17h15 : au cinquième paragraphe, correction d’un pluriel («une manifestation» au lieu de «des manifestations», et «à laquelle» au lieu de «auxquelles».]