How did scientists miss this?

[DodgyAgent]

A look at her published articles shows that she started on the Guardian, moving to the Telegraph (Daily and Sunday) in August 2008. The vast majority of her articles have been general interest churnalism:

• Yes minister, a new cat for No 10 | Politics | The Guardian - Sep 2007
  
  
• Led Zepplin back in the studio - Telegraph - Aug 2008
  
  
• Trial halted after jury members vanish for fag break - Telegraph - Apr 2009

Her gifts in the field of science journalism were, it seems, finally noticed in December last year, when the first article describing her as "Science Correspondent" appears:

• Memory champion beats hot favourite to the title - Telegraph

since when she has been credited with a number of in-depth articles covering the cutting edge of scientific knowledge:

• Four hours of light gardening each week could cut kidney stones - Telegraph - Dec 2013
  
  
• PG Tips adverts 'left stars struggling to be chimps' - Telegraph - Jan 2014
  
  
• Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals - Telegraph - Apr 2014

though without any shadow of a doubt, her finest hour came on Thursday 9 January 2014, when she published two stories which complement each other perfectly:

• Sugar is as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco, warn health experts - Telegraph
  
  
• Sugar not as bad as tobacco say nutrition experts - Telegraph

you dont like women much do you?

[NickFitz]

you dont like women much do you?

What does the fact that she's a woman have to do with anything I've said?

[pjclarke]

But it's not good news for you pj is it ?

She may be cuttn and pastn, but it's not exactly 'on message' for you is it.
The tide is turning, even in the poodle press. It's not the usual barrage of doom and gloom that you are used to

Oh, come off it. The Telegraph can be relied on to be consistently contrarian and wrong. It gave Christopher Monckton a platform for his nonsense ...

Climate chaos? Don't believe it - Telegraph

and it continues to employ Christopher Booker, a global warming naysayer who also believes white asbestos and talcum powder are the same thing ....

Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[EternalOptimist]

the tide is




....











.....





...


turning

[darmstadt]

I think this job advertisement from their website sums up the Telegraphs attitude to journalism:

Vacancy details

Vacancy titleHead of Interactive Journalism
Vacancy reference REQREF0000791

Location London Salary Competitive & Excellent Benefits

Vacancy descriptionThe Telegraph Media Group has set the pace for change within the UK newspaper industry. We have successfully evolved into a multi-platform digital operation that continues to deliver the highest quality journalism, setting the global news agenda. This transformation means we remain ahead of our competition at the leading edge of the ever-changing media landscape. As part of our continuing commitment to being the industry's leading media organisation, we are seeking to appoint a new Head of Interactive Journalism.

The Head of Interactive Journalism is responsible for leading innovation and the development of new forms of digital journalism in order to establish The Telegraph as a world leader in this space. Your key deliverables will be to develop ideas for interactive content and innovative ways to tell stories; leadership of the Interactive Team; ensuring that content produced is delivered against the priorities set by the Director of Digital Content.

To be considered for this role you will be a pioneer of digital storytelling; have demonstrable interest in news and journalism (previous newsroom experience is not needed however); have expertise in HTML, CSS, JavaScript and experience in interactive development, and be passionate about innovation across the newsroom.

Although it seems to be a 'slightly' techie role why is it titled 'Head of Interactive Journalism' yet no newsroom experience is required which I would have thought would have been a pre-req for a newspaper?

[DodgyAgent]

Oh, come off it. The Telegraph can be relied on to be consistently contrarian and wrong. It gave Christopher Monckton a platform for his nonsense ...

Climate chaos? Don't believe it - Telegraph

and it continues to employ Christopher Booker, a global warming naysayer who also believes white asbestos and talcum powder are the same thing ....

Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How interesting that something appears that the left don't like that they respond by rubbishing the deliverer of the story.

[EternalOptimist]

How interesting that something appears that the left don't like that they respond by rubbishing the deliverer of the story.

attack the










...




man




...



not




...






the ball

[MarillionFan]

What does the fact that she's a woman have to do with anything I've said?

What the woman hating mysognist said?

[NickFitz]

How interesting that something appears that the left don't like that they respond by rubbishing the deliverer of the story.

I didn't. I responded by rubbishing the journalism, with links to relevant content such as the paper itself at PNAS which proves there were basic factual errors in the Telegraph's article, and other examples of the Telegraph's science coverage (including two stories that appeared on the same day, one directly contradicting the other) to demonstrate that it is, generally speaking, churnalism and should not be relied on to accurately convey the scientific significance of that which it claims to be about.

When you didn't like what I said, you didn't attempt to rebut it: instead you resorted to an ad hominem attack which was so far off the mark and clearly irrelevant that it only served to highlight the lack of reasoned arguments with which to defend the article.

Calling those you disagree with names does nothing to enhance the credibility of your position.

[pjclarke]

Whether they are liked or disliked is irrelevant. It is more that they have a track record of BS. Do you really want examples of Monckton purveying lies and nonsense, Booker getting it hopelessly wrong and the Telegraph's embarrassing and costly errors of fact?