Article copyNot (yet) the USSR
the whole content of the article itself (mostly quotes from the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Pharmacy joint recommendation) is but a vibrant and unconditional disclaimer to the lies of the millenarians a la José Bové, in which the two respected academies psych up over the potential benefits of the GMO in the sustenance and the medical fields.
Granted, it's no big news for the advanced world and for a part of the emerging one: the American and some Asian people knows that for ten years now. But for
However, the news is too significant (at least down here) and those academies too respected for
And since it's not USSR yet, they just can't rewrite the history can they?
So how do you deal with such content when you're one of the most zealous supporter of the eco-terrorists' pseudo-scientific humbug?
The answer rest in: Font-Size and Font-Color:
First, cook up a big red conditional title such as:
Everything might be good in GMONext, (and it's a wonderful hint at Libération's chronic ill will) add the only negative abstract of the whole article (written by... The columnist herself) and place it in the margin, in a bold font and still in red, of course:
What about the risks on the environment? The representatives of the physicians and the pharmacist won't adjudicate: this will be the object of a report from the Science Academy, presented today.And you're all set.
I was under the impression that fair journalism should follow some rules.
For instance that a quote in the margin, should be a significant and representative excerpt of the main content.
Oh-So naive me.
Fortunately, I can understand the editorial staff's astonishment, over there at Libé, when they are confronted with respondents who don't give their advices on topics beyond their field of expertise.
I mean, when you choose to revere mainly people who spread unfounded facts on subjects they don't master (Since when José Bové is A physician? A geneticist? An economist? An environmentalist? I'm not sure Muammar Quadafi - oh, another famous Socialist and murderer by the way - taught you that in the Libya 1976 'direct action' training camp you attended... right José? Hell, you're even not the real farmer you always claimed to be - unless I'm mistaking on Berkeley's main nature, that is) it must be quite difficult to understand that an honest physician (that excludes Bernard Kouchner actually) or pharmacist won't advise on environmental issues.
Oddly enough, they'll stick to the medical field and choose "ethic" and "intellectual honesty" instead of "partisan braying".
Definitely out of Libération's scope.
I already knew that Libération was totally biased and I'm not expecting any change on that side, but they gave me another clue here:
Judging by this cautiously under towed page layout, their audience restrain its readings to big titles and in-margin digests.
Enlightened and educated crowd if there was any.
One final yet juicy irony comes with the conclusion of the main article:
(the two academies) insists particularly on the fact that 80% of the French people are opposed to GMO and that this reluctance should be addressed: "a large effort must be engaged pertaining to information and communication".
I'll leave that to your appreciation.
I'll just add that, if it was for any other issue, this could be funny.
Unfortunately, such new-age obscurantism, widely propagated by hunger-immune Western activists already killed.
Maybe one can safely assume that José Bové and his followers are, at least, accessory to murder. Maybe not.
I know I do.And don't forget!
+ --------- copy from here --------- +
I have just read and signed the online petition:
"Make Jose Bove Serve His Time"
hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service, at:
I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself.
the dissident frogman
+ --------- down to here ---------- +
+ paste into your own email, & send +