From Chow Babe regarding a hack article by Laura Kranz in the Boston Globe:

Someone asked why I was upset about the Juma article in the The Boston Globe, and why it's bad reporting. It's a fair question. First, I'd argue that it's an article about a non-event. Calestous Juma wrote a blog post forThe Genetic Literacy Project. That's all it was, a blog post. It wasn't research, it wasn't peer-reviewed research, he wasn't paid, there wasn't even a grant involved...Essentially, there was zero wrong done by Juma and nothing to disclose. Yet this article makes it seem like there was something to disclose and it isn't an accident it was written this way. For instance, the article states: "Juma, an international development expert, said he was not paid by Monsanto to extol the benefits of GMOs." No, he wasn't paid. But why is it phrased to suggest that what he said may not be accurate?

Even more shocking is the willful misrepresentation of the Harvard conflict of interest policy. From the article: "A spokesman for the Kennedy School declined to comment on Juma’s failure to disclose his ties to Monsanto. Harvard’s conflict of interest policy states that 'faculty members should not permit outside activities and financial interests to compromise their primary commitment to the mission of the university.'" That policy is actually called the Harvard University Financial Conflict of Interest Policy, and it is certainly taken out of context for that article. The context of the next section from the Harvard policy states, quite specifically:

"Faculty members should refrain from actions that could reasonably bring discredit upon Harvard and their own academic and scholarly integrity, and they should avoid circumstances that reasonable observers would believe create an undue risk that the prospect of DIRECT OR INDIRECT PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN could inappropriately influence faculty members’ judgment or actions in fulfilling their University duties."

Context is everything. I have no doubt that US Right To Know placed this article in the Boston Globe. There is definitely a question of when the reporter got the emails, and whether she received them directly from USRTK or the University of Florida before the article was written. I challenge USRTK to prove that they didn't place this article in the Globe. OK, rant over. Back to comedy.