Author Topic: Primal Diet hits the mainstream UK media! (Read 7197 times)

Michael · « **on:** March 21, 2009, 07:21:42 pm »

Hi guys,

I thought it may be a good idea to link this Times article to the group from today's online edition:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article5940774.ece

As with most newspaper reporting, it's incredibly biased and exaggerated. The article and the comments it's attracting are also very negative!

Feel free to all go and add to the discussion!!

Michael

goodsamaritan · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2009, 10:00:52 pm »

The writer - Julia Llewellyn Smith - is a complete ret*rd and should be sent back to journalism school. What a lousy piece of irresponsible shooting from the hip trash. As if primal diet focuses on rotting meat.

Satya · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2009, 10:29:41 pm »

Quote from: goodsamaritan on March 21, 2009, 10:00:52 pm

The writer - Julia Llewellyn Smith - is a complete ret*rd and should be sent back to journalism school. What a lousy piece of irresponsible shooting from the hip trash. As if primal diet focuses on rotting meat.

I thought that personal attacks were not allowed on this board. Frankly, I feel the same way about your quantavolution, but I would never be so rude as to post it. Perhaps you should go back to school and take some real science classes. In any case, as the parent of a disabled child I am disgusted. No one is perfect.

goodsamaritan · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2009, 10:39:17 pm »

The title of the item is already colored by an expletive phrase:
The Primal diet: the silliest diet ever?

Okay, I will do it again without my expletive.

"The writer - Julia Llewellyn Smith - should be sent back to journalism school. What a lousy piece of irresponsible shooting from the hip report. As if primal diet focuses on rotting meat."

Satya · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2009, 11:35:10 pm »

Quote from: goodsamaritan on March 21, 2009, 10:39:17 pm

The title of the item is already colored by an expletive phrase:
The Primal diet: the silliest diet ever?

Okay, I will do it again without my expletive.

"The writer - Julia Llewellyn Smith - should be sent back to journalism school. What a lousy piece of irresponsible shooting from the hip report. As if primal diet focuses on rotting meat."

You are still focusing on the person! Any way you look at it, it is still ad hominem, and thus, not a fair response in any forum where basic debate of ideas flourishes. The article title (I have not read the piece through yet) calls the DIET silly. She is not attacking followers of the diet for being silly, at least not in the title. It would be far better to say that the article is a piece of shit, and that it is unbelievable that it would be published.

The term retard is especially bad because it is a form of discrimination against a specific segment of the population. For instance, for me to single out any group and generalize about them in a derogatory way - "You know how cheap Jewish people are", or "How very Jewish of you" - is very offensive language. Furthermore, some people are brain damaged as a result of trauma, and it is very cruel to use their injury as a derogatory remark about how unfit someone else may be to write an article on raw foods. Natasha Richardson became very retarded on her way out of this world this week, so it is nothing funny.

This being an international group, I think it's important to use the common rules of debate when addressing anyone - although mistakes can be made. I know I make mistakes all the time.

Michael · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2009, 03:56:15 am »

Satya, I can understand your disgust at goodsamaritan's off-hand comment but I'm sure it was not intended as anything other than an expression of his own anger towards the writer of the article. As I'm sure you too are aware, it's very easy in such moments to express ourselves in an inappropriate manner but it's seldom meant as a reflection upon any inferred group.

I'm sorry to hear about your son's difficulties and greatly admire any parent strong enough and courageous enough to cope in such situations. I have spent much of the last 7 years working with clients with mental & physical health problems (including serious head injuries) so can relate. But, however eloquently and logically you stated your argument, I think that berating goodsamaritan for his comment in such a manner was at least equally disgusting to be honest.

But, back to the article - goodsamaritan, good to hear that you've tried leaving a comment on the newspaper website. I can't imagine how they're so inundated with responses as there only now seems to be 7 comments on the article thus far! I would imagine the comments deemed appropriate for publication will be as carefully cherry-picked as the information represented in the article!

Personally, I'm absolutely infuriated by this article and agree that it represents very poorly researched and biased information. It's even more disappointing as The Times is supposed to be one of our better broadsheets! However, I'm not surprised at such a sensationalist, biased and inaccurate article appearing in this paper now. There have been various such (unrelated) reports recently where I have been privy to factual inside information which were in stark contrast to the statements represented. In my opinion as a reader of this paper, it is no longer any better than the British tabloid press.

Satya · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2009, 04:19:10 am »

Quote from: Michael on March 22, 2009, 03:56:15 am

But, however eloquently and logically you stated your argument, I think that berating goodsamaritan for his comment in such a manner was at least equally disgusting to be honest.

Quite right. Thank you, Michael, for calling me out on it. Edwin, I do apologize for turning tables and berating you in order to make a point about ad hominem. You have been very instrumental in keeping this board alive since Craig has gone quiet I do value the information you provide here, especially the brilliant pictures of your food and family. Please forgive my lapse in judgement.

TylerDurden · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2009, 04:30:43 am »

I haven't read the Times until now. My paper is the Daily Telegraph which has, ever since the blasted Barclay Twins, sunk so low as regards printing tabloid-style trivia that I am appalled. Until recently, the Daily Telegraph had the best foreign-news journalists in the UK, with virtually all other papers simply buying info about news items abroad from Reuters instead of sending their people abroad to report. But the Barclays fired almost all the decent hacks, wanting the paper to be just another version of the ghastly Daily Mail.

*I notice that, even though I posted some corrections to the article in a comment, it still is yet to be printed. I'm not really surprised as the media are unlikely to print such corrections unless faced with serious legal action. That said, 1 or 2 of the 8 current posted comments are, surprisingly, favourable.*

Satya · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2009, 04:59:30 am »

Quote from: TylerDurden on March 22, 2009, 04:30:43 am

*I notice that, even though I posted some corrections to the article in a comment, it still is yet to be printed. I'm not really surprised as the media are unlikely to print such corrections unless faced with serious legal action. That said, 1 or 2 of the 8 current posted comments are, surprisingly, favourable.*

Too bad. The NY Times is really good about posting comments, regardless of their being in favor of a particular article. Everything I have ever written as a comment has been posted within about 15 minutes of receipt. I'll let y'all know if they ever write anything on RAF.

Michael · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2009, 06:22:12 am »

On this evidence, it appears then as though there are no good quality newspapers remaining in the UK! It certainly doesn't surprise me with regard to The Times with it being owned by Robert Murdoch's News Corp. I've been buying The Observer recently and have not been impressed. Next, I will try The Independent and then it will be down to reading more regularly magazines such as The Economist and The Spectator I think!

Satya, I'm glad that you did not take offence at my response to your comments

You're most fortunate with the New York Times! I have managed to obtain a few editions myself recently and thought it was an informative, unbiased and interesting read.

Regarding the article, I see there have now been an albeit limited number of favorable comments. It will certainly be interesting to see if any forum members comments get published!

goodsamaritan · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2009, 07:05:15 am »

Satya, Thanks for pointing out the obvious, I lost my cool. Well past few days I've been a little tense, we had a limited security breach with some of our customer websites, spyware reading ftp passwords / keystrokes. Thought I had to move whole servers which would include disruptions of this forum. I posted that comment above while closing the office at 10 pm on a Saturday... I'm not enjoying my weekend. Ah, we're all human, please accept my apologies everyone.

News: