A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Skepticism Courtesy Of The Daily Mail … Seriously.

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Skepticism Courtesy Of The Daily Mail … Seriously.”.

4 comments to Skepticism Courtesy Of The Daily Mail … Seriously.

  • […] I just Posted this I wrote it a couple of days ago, and found this post, where Evan Bernstein comments on a Daily Mail article about the mummy. Though I agree with Mr. […]

  • I just finished writing about this case myself, then popped on here to find this! This case isn’t that different from the Starchild skull that Dr. Novella wrote about a few years back. Cradle boarding and hydrocephalus can explain them both.

    Though it was nice to see the sidebar on Cranial Modification (which if anyone has not seen, you should go take a look at it: the Wikipedia page is pretty good, but the pictures from a simple google image search are amazing), the bit about the teeth being from both a child and adult seems a little strange. I can’t tell from the picture that well, but it seems to me that the skull is missing both it’s central and lateral incisors, and it’s canines, which places the “large teeth” seen in the pictures in the adult per-molars should be, but as those look like molars to me the position would make them deciduous molars- and therefore evidence of a child not an adult.

    But then again, my standards of journalistic inquiry may be too high for TDM.

    Anyways, thanks for bring this one up.

  • Not to rag on the hopefulness of this post, but as a long-time critic and observer of the DM, I can tell you that they often write something slightly more reasonable right at the end of their articles (especially inflammatory ones, not so much pseudoscientific ones). This is because they know studies have shown that when people read articles, most only tend to read the headline and the opening few paragraphs. As the article continues, readership tails off dramatically.

    This way, the DM and other tabloids can say whatever they like, stir up a ruckus but also include the ‘responsible’ counterpoint within the article, in case anyone calls them on it.

    I admit, in this case, the counter point is in a big orange box, which is a step up.

  • […] og fremst er det ille fordi Dagbladet helt ukritisk gjengir en sak fra Daily Mail, en avis som ikke akkurat er kjent for sin journalistiske integritet. Det er forståelig at det kan være fristende å kaste seg over en slik sak, fordi det gir mange […]

Leave a Reply