Before you go anywhere near the next drink machine, read this, notes from the "debate" about the toxicity of Bisphenol A, a petroleum product used to make tin cans and plastic drink bottles. I like how newspapers continue to call any discussion with more than one side a debate. "Environmentalists and ExxonMobil CEOs square off: What causes global warming, burning petroleum products or hippy love vibes?" "The debate rages: should a ten-time convicted rapist go free? Hear from disinterested street idiots and the rapist himself."

The article in question does pretty much the same thing. The Globe writer points out that there are several studies linking Bisphenol A to breast and prostate cancer, as well as hormone imbalance and developmental problems in children. Representatives of responsible companies call the scientists crazy, discount the type of rats used. Scientists go on record saying they are removing every ounce of plastic from their own homes; the PR man nods thoughtfully and then points over our shoulders, shouting, "Hey look, an eagle!"

Why do we have to keep listening to the other side when we know it is all bullshit? Why does anyone even go to a "Press Conference" when Tony Snow is giving out answers? Why do the 98% of scientists that agree that global warming is true and dire get the same coverage as a nutjob with a fat cheque from Exxon?

Democracy and free-speech. With the magnifying effect of the internet, we are not only at the mercy of the idiocy of the majority, but also the victims of every minority adding a new opinion to the pile for us to consider and weigh equally against all the rest. The scientific community may be in 99% consensus, but the variety and time spent on other opinions by the press, even when we know they are wrought with unadulterated bullshit, makes the issue at hand seem like a debate to the average Joe who has barely noticed what is going on.

So then what? Should newspapers do our thinking for us? Should we turn to news sources that we know are biased in alignment with our own ways of thinking? No, I don't think so. But for crying out loud, point out the lies and bullshit. Add a skeptical footnote, like "by the way, Mr. Suit A actually works for the tobacco companies in question." "Today, Tony Snow said something that was confirmed as true."

"Bush delivered another speech filled with abstract notions today, attempting to appeal to his middle-age evangelical idiot support base. Cheney spouted unrepeatable lies and the braying of a ass was heard. End dispatch."