--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" > > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter > > <drpetersutphen@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- nablusos108 <nablusos108@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > Agreed. My point is only that it is not much > > of a > > > > > big deal. This > > > > > fellow makes a small mistake in his eagerness > > and > > > > > them he apologies. > > > > > Why all this agitation over a small thing ? > > > > > > > > Journalistic ethics. You can't change writing, > > in this > > > > context, without indicating that a change has > > been > > > > made and noting your change from the original > > work. > > > > Its so the reader knows who wrote what. In this > > case > > > > the TMO did not like something about the > > original > > > > piece and changed it without noting they had > > changed > > > > it. If you make a change in someone elses > > writing and > > > > then present the writing as if the change has > > not > > > > been made, that is manipulation. > > > > > > I'm not sure "manipulation" is the correct term, > > but > > > the rest is spot-on, and not just for journalists. > > > It's in the same general category of ethical > > lapses > > > as plagiarism. > > > > > > On the other hand, nablusos is correct that the > > changes > > > were cosmetic, not substantive, so it's really > > just > > > the principle of the thing in this particular > > case. > > > But if that principle wasn't observed here, you > > can't > > > have confidence that it would be observed with > > regard > > > to changes that *were* substantive in other > > pieces, past > > > or future. > > > > > > So it's most definitely Not a Good Thing. And > > from > > > what Roth has been quoted as saying, it appears he > > > hasn't grasped what the problem is. > > > > > > > INSULAR group of people. The same thing happend with > > JAMA and Chopra. It wouldn't > > have killed them to properly fill out the form, and > > they actually were NOT trying to hide > > anything, as far as I can tell, since their original > > cover letter specifically said that they were > > consulting for MAPI. When I pointed out to someone > > (might have been ROth, might have > > been someone else) that they should have been > > EXTREMELY careful in filling out their > > forms because of the hostile environment they were > > publishing in, the response was that > > had they known how hostile it really was, they > > simply wouldn't have tried to publish in the > > first place. > > No Sparaig, you appear to be the insular one here. > Professionals are very, very careful regarding who > wrote what and when they wrote it. As Judy and > Nabolous point out the change by Roth was trivial, but > it is the principle of the act. If you contacted the > writer of the original story she/he would be furious > that his/her story was changed without such changes > being noted. By the way, what is the Chopra thing > you're talking about? It wasn't clear to me.
You missed my point. The MUM people are very insular and manage to convince themselves that nothing bad will ever happen to them when they ignore the accepted way of doing things. And the Chopra thing was the "JAMA Caper" when CHopra, Sharma and Triguna submitted a paper on Maharishi Ayurveda to JAMA without filling out their author- affiliation form, and JAMA suddenly "discovered" that they were affiliated with the organization they were writing about even though the original cover letter had explicitly stated that they were affiliated: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/mavletter.jpg http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/mavletter2.jpg JAMA then published a 6 page expose detailing how awful the TM folk were, in response to the 3 page paper JAMA had "inadvertently" published. JAMA's expose has been available for years on the web, but the original that prompted the expose has not been. Willytex has made it available at least for a while, on his website, however. http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/jama.htm JAMA's response, curtesy of Andrew Skolnick: http://web.archive.org/web/20000308180136/nasw.org/users/ASkolnick/mav.html Andrew Skolnick's Judy Stein Worship site: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ with an occassional guest appearance by moi: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/enlightenedHitler.htm http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/mantra.htm
