Message from Dr Walford (NY Times Article 23 Nov 2003)

[Guest guest]

Hello CR All:

Francesca Skelton of the CR Support Group has asked

that the following personal message from Dr. Walford be

posted to the CR Society. The message stems from the NY Times

article: " Food for Holiday Thought: Eat Less, Live to 140? " ,

By DAVID HOCHMAN, Published: 23 Nov 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/fashion/23DIET.html

(To see HTML version, register at NY Times)

Please be grateful for Francesca's sharing this way,

and for Dr. Walford's effort in framing a clear reply

about journalistic misquotes and sensationalism -- Warren

==================

From: Roy Walford

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:54:11 -0800

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Subject: Re: What you forwarded to me

Dear Francesca,

It is much harder to avoid being misquoted or sensationalized

than the people on the list seem to think. The journalists

are MUCH more skillful at sensationalizing you than you are at

avoiding it. They have daily practice at it, and that's what sells

the news. Three examples.

(1) Sherm is being said to be somehow fixated on the number 143,

because he allegedly said it twice. I doubt it. But if he said it

for the NY Times three years ago, the contemporary writer may have

just imported that quote (or misquote) as though it were part of

the present interview.

(2) One I fell for a couple of times is the " possibility question " .

They will ask something like Do you think it's POSSIBLE that people

will learn in the next 10 years to live to be 500? And if you answer,

Well, yes, it's POSSIBLE, it will come out as " Dr. Walford says that

within 10 years we will learn to live to be 500 " . Of course that's

not what I said in answering this hypothetical question.

(3) Then there are the set-agenda artists. They are usually writing a

very negative article about something and want to get some authorities'

support for their preconceived views, so they will call you, conduct

a good interview about, say, CR, and very CASUALLY ask something about,

say, the vitamin industry, or something else. Your response is ALL they

will quote in their article, (i.e., it's not about CR at all), so if

you do not recognize what is going on, and let something slip casually

out, you may be sorry.

All the above is why I say that if you really want them to really

get it right, best confine yourself to only talking to professional

science writers.

Roy Walford

PS: One thing you can use if you want to just inform/educate the

Journalist about something but not be quoted on it is to just say,

" This is OFF THE RECORD, but ..... " . They have an unwritten rule

to honor this, otherwise those in the know won't tell them stuff.

I have used this a lot and only one writer has ever broken

the rule (His name is Mark Christensen).