"The War In Medicine"
Continued from last post.The Last Word:
Some media shows like to pretend they present both sides of
issues. Frequently, when they present both sides of an issue
they will actually have someone from both sides of the fence
speak. But it is not what you think. The person the media
station doesn't like is always interviewed first. The
selections chosen from the interview with the person they
don't like may be very abbreviated and may be designed to
make the person look rather dull, meaning not very smart.
But it gets worse.
They then let the person they like give the "last word."
This person always explains why the first person was wrong,
then explains why their interpretation is correct. The
second person is always portrayed as very sharp and very
intelligent. A good announcer can enhance the differences
between the two people and make the second person look
Putting the two interviews together, it is partly an attempt
to mute the first person, then let the second person criticize
the first person and then present the "far more intelligent"
case by the second person. It is critical that the favored
person go last. That way when the second person is finished,
so is the debate. The listener is left with a bad taste in their
mouth for the first person and ends up thinking they
understand all of the issues. The listener, of course, ends
up agreeing with the second person. It is a technique that
appears on the surface to be unbiased, but yet it is among
the most pernicious techniques of all.
This is a technique of belittling the major players of the
enemy. Quackwatch uses this technique in almost every article
they write. They say something slanderous about one of the
proponents of alternative medicine. They even have an entire
article attempting to belittle Linus Pauling! I am waiting
for Barrett to win his two Nobel Prizes.
Income for the 98% that fail in Their Internet Business.