Columbia Journalism Review critiques Associated Press;

A lot of cancer is more newsworthy than a little cancer, or so seems to be lesson of an Associated Press article about possible consequences of the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan.
With a long-term population study of the impact of just getting under way, the AP set out to do a bit of enterprise reporting, asking what it might find with regard to cancer rates. The answer: “cancers caused by the radiation may be too few to show up” in such studies because “the ordinary rate of cancer is so high, and our understanding of the effects of radiation exposure so limited.” As the AP reported, “that could mean thousands of cancers under the radar in a study of millions of people, or it could mean virtually none.” Yet overall, its article is clearly structured to induce at least a modicum of fear. After all, scary stories sell papers.

And now a reader in the nuclear industry critiques CJR;

What’s ironic about this story is that the CJR criticizes the MSM for neglecting the notion that there will likely be no increased rates of cancer due to Fukushima, but they themselves seem to be unaware that there’s the distinct possibility that cancer rates could actually decrease. It’s known as hormesis, the effect of low levels of stressors which could provide positive biological benefit. Just as vaccination introduces minor toxins in order to prepare the body to fight major diseases, low levels of radiation exposure can help the body to better combat certain forms of cancers.
But since that goes against the official storyline, don’t hold your breath for even moderate voices to discuss this in respectable news media.

More: A different Fukushima flashback from James Delingpole, along with this related item from Scientific American.
Related update: “These findings mesh with those from numerous other studies that point to a sweet spot at which radiation becomes a help rather than a harm to human health.”

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
EVIDENCE – Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC):

Minister Toews, I want to thank you personally for your persistent support for those like me in our caucus who stand against the long-gun registry.
Bill C-391 and C-19 are both straightforward bills that end the requirements for individuals and businesses to register non-restricted, non-prohibited firearms. I was concerned this morning when I read media reports of an analysis done by officials. A certain official thought that both C-391 and C-19 could have a number of unintended consequences, including the trafficking of firearms at the border.
I was concerned about this report. Is it accurate? Can you comment on this official’s opinion?

Hon. Vic Toews:

I had a chance to take a look at that article. I wasn’t familiar with the memorandum, which an official in my department had prepared, I assume, for internal purposes. But now that I’ve seen it, it’s clear that the analysis presented by this official is factually flawed; it’s incorrect. I’ve asked my deputy minister to look into the matter.
Contrary to the suggestion made in the analysis, neither Bill C-19 nor Bill C-391 removes any controls on the importation of firearms. In fact, we have increased penalties for the illegal importation of firearms. Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end this wasteful, ineffective long-gun registry once and for all. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re not getting into the areas this memorandum suggested we might get into. I think the memorandum is phrased to suggest that if we did something else, the repercussions would be such and such. But we’re not going down that road.

Ms. Candice Hoeppner:

Just to be clear, C-19 doesn’t change the way our border officials are able to monitor, track, or stop legal guns from coming into the country.

Hon. Vic Toews:

No. The analysis of whether or not something is a prohibited or non-restricted firearm has nothing to do with the registry. That’s an analysis that the officers make at the border and elsewhere throughout the country. Tying that to C-19 is a bit of a red herring. As I said, the analysis is quite flawed.

Ms. Candice Hoeppner:

Thank you for clarifying that. I’m sure it will be clarified in future media reports as well.

Hon. Vic Toews:

Don’t bet on it.

h/t Just Another Jaybird

Remember Kai Nagata? It appears that America has discovered its very own Journo-Activist in the persona of one Natasha Lennard. Like Nagata, she wrote her own version of “Don’t Cry For Me Argentina”.
Not everyone is so quick to let her off the hook though. Are J-Schools actually able to churn out unbiased journalists anymore or is every graduate predestined to be a far left “social activist”?!
Here’s Lennard helping organize a group of fellow comrades:

The ultimate media takeover–how appropriate:

Economist named Italy’s new prime minister

To catch a journalist.

Like everyone else, I have no idea whether Herman Cain’s accuser is telling the truth.   She says she is.   He says she’s not.   But one thing’s for sure, the way the media handles sex scandals COMPLETELY depends on the person’s political affiliation. For American politicians, I created this handy little flowchart to illustrate the mainstream media’s approach:

Update: A lot of people have made some excellent (and hilarious!) suggestions about how to improve this flowchart. You can download the original version here. If you don’t own a copy of MS Powerpoint, there appear to be several freeware compatible versions. Feel free to e-mail me your greatest enhanced versions. I promise to post the best of them on my blog and perhaps the best of all here on SDA.

h/t Francois

h/t Paul T

Reading the headline, you probably assumed you’d be reading about this, right?
Instead, please focus your attention on the name “Vera Baker“. Most people have never heard of her. Why? Because the vast majority of the mainstream media doesn’t strive to report the news fairly, in an unbiased manner. Instead they just serve as a defensive wall around Barack Obama and viciously attack anyone who threatens his reign of the kingdom.
There are a few cracks though.

“It took the mainstream media nearly a year to catch up with the John Edwards Affair, but only weeks into Herman Cain’s narrow frontrunner status for the GOP nomination, the goodfellas at Politico are letting the uppity black conservative have it.”

Found lying on Rob Ford’s driveway.

An inventive solution to an old problem: how to silence an inconvenient study?

After initially playing the wrong video under the heading, CTV replaced it with the correct version – without audio.
But there’s agenda journalism, and then there’s flat out scumbag.

The rapid adoption of tablet computers like Apple’siPad has not reversed the slide in paying customers for news, as many media company executives had hoped the devices would.

No shit, Sherlock.

National Public Radio’s Michele Norris, who co-hosts All Things Considered, is stepping down “temporarily” from her post as her husband works to re-elect President Barack Obama.

Last week,

… the night before Peladeau’s testimony to Parliament, the CBC freaked out.
In an unprecedented move, it issued what can only be called an attack ad against Peladeau. It wasn’t a news story. It was a false and defamatory attack on our company, as vengeance for our questions about how the CBC spends taxpayer money.
If any other government department had done something like this, whoever responsible would be fired immediately. It wasn’t just unprofessional. It wasn’t just outside of its mandate of what it is given its government money for. It was an attempt to destroy a private-sector competitor.

h/t WalterF

Big Journalism has learned that the Occupy Washington DC movement is working with well-known media members to craft its demands and messaging while these media members report on the movement. Someone has made the emails from the Occupy D.C. email distro public and searchable. The names in the list are a veritable who’s who in media.

The email archive is here.