Pot times
Article Required Different Treatment
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1110/a08.htmlNewshawk: Herb
Pubdate: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 ARTICLE REQUIRED DIFFERENT TREATMENT
Source: Abbotsford News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2005 Hacker Press Ltd.
Contact:
editor@abbynews.com
Website: http://www.abbynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1155
Author: J. W. Breckenridge
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm
(Treatment)
Editor, The News:
Re: New nutritional therapy treats addicts" ( July 7, page A1 ):
I was disturbed to see such sloppy reporting on a story that could have very
negative consequences for any addicts who read it and accept the story as
accurate, since it was reported on the front page of the News.
Obviously your reporter needs to review the different standards one should apply
to writing a front-page story on the claims about an addiction treatment versus
writing an advertisement for the treatment.
Nowhere did the writer bother to ask the most obvious questions: Where does the
claim of a 75 to 80 per cent cure rate come from?
What facts back up this claims rate? Who - outside of those people with a
financial interest in this high success rate - conducted the study
showing/supporting this claimed rate?
The way the story reads it should start with a caption of advertisement .
. . advertisement . . . advertisement."
And any editor who failed to make the writer cite the proof of the claimed high
success rate, a most basic and fundamental editing question, owes an apology to
anyone who acts/accepts the story as true and is harmed.
The News, as our local paper, owes the community a follow-up story to examine
the 80 per cent success rate the paper reported to make sure that all who read
the first story will be able to see the proof, or lack thereof, for the claimed
success rate.
J. W. Breckenridge
Abbotsford
Editor's note: The Abbotsford News does not necessarily support this treatment,
but was merely offering information about a new clinic - the first of its kind
in Canada - being set up in Abbotsford. An opposing viewpoint - that this
form of treatment has no proven track record - was clearly presented by the two
medical experts interviewed for the article.
