<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bad Science &#187; media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/category/media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badscience.net</link>
	<description>Ben Goldacre&#039;s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>These Guardian / Independent stories are dodgy. Traps in data journalism.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s an interesting problem with data analysis in general, and so, by extension, data journalism: you have to be careful about assuming that the numbers you&#8217;ve got access to&#8230; really do reflect the underlying phenomena you&#8217;re trying to investigate. Today&#8217;s Guardian has a story, &#8220;Antidepressant use in England soars&#8220;. It&#8217;s much more overstated in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sampling error, the unspoken issue behind small number changes in the news</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncertainty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 20 August 2011 What do all these numbers mean? &#8220;&#8216;Worrying&#8217; jobless rise needs urgent action &#8211; Labour&#8221; was the BBC headline. They explained the problem in their own words: “The number of people out of work rose by 38,000 to 2.49 million in the three months to June, official figures [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to read a paper</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sun]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 29 January 2011 If science has any authority, it derives from transparency: you can check the claims against the working. Sometimes you hit a brick wall. Sometimes you might consider a shortcut. Let’s look at 3 types of checking. First up, in the Sun, a child has been born at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The year in nonsense</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/the-year-in-nonsense-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/the-year-in-nonsense-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 18 December 2010 It&#8217;s been a marvellous year for bullshit. We saw quantitative evidence showing that drug adverts aimed at doctors are routinely factually inaccurate, while pharmaceutical company ghostwriters were the secret hands behind letters to the Times, and a whole series of academic papers. We saw more drug companies [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/the-year-in-nonsense-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The caveat in paragraph number 19</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irrationality research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 16 October 2010 You will be familiar with the Daily Mail’s ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into the ones that either cause or prevent cancer. Individual entries are now barely worth documenting, and the phenomenon is best appreciated in bulk through websites such as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The power of anecdotes</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/in-praise-of-anecdotes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/in-praise-of-anecdotes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[anecdotes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 28 August 2010 For simpletons and amateurs, there are good research methods, and bad research methods. In reality, different tools are valuable in different situations, and sometimes, even very tiny numbers of people can give you a meaningful piece of information: even an anecdote can be informative. For example, if [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/in-praise-of-anecdotes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More than 60 children saved from abuse &#8211; small update</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/more-than-60-children-saved-from-abuse/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/more-than-60-children-saved-from-abuse/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:34:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/more-than-60-children-saved-from-abuse/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 7 August 2010 According to the Home Office this week, Sarah&#8217;s law &#8211; where any parent can find out if any adult in contact with their child has a record of violent or sexual crimes &#8211; has &#8220;already protected more than 60 children from abuse during its pilot&#8220;. This fact [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/more-than-60-children-saved-from-abuse/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nullius in verba. In verba? Nullius!</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/nullius-in-verba-in-verba-nullius/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/nullius-in-verba-in-verba-nullius/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[show your working]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1709</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi there, just back from Glastonbury, here&#8217;s my column from last Saturday. The Guardian didn&#8217;t take it, they said it was too soon to be critical of a Guardian journalist after the column on fish oil, and the issue was too technical. I&#8217;m not prone to melodrama, so I don&#8217;t see this as a big [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/nullius-in-verba-in-verba-nullius/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jeremy Laurance gets angry about scrutiny for journalists&#8217; claims</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/jeremy-laurance-is-an-angry-man/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/jeremy-laurance-is-an-angry-man/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hate mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You might be amused by this piece from the Independent&#8217;s health reporter Jeremy Laurance today. It&#8217;s about what a bad man I am for pointing out when science and health journalists get things wrong. Alongside the lengthy ad hominem &#8211; a matter of taste for you &#8211; there are a number of mistakes and, more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/jeremy-laurance-is-an-angry-man/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fish oil in the Observer: the return of a $2bn friend</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fish oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 5 June 2010 &#8220;Fish oil helps schoolchildren to concentrate” was the headline in the Observer. Regular readers will remember the omega-3 fish oil pill issue, as the entire British news media has been claiming for several years now that there are trials showing it improves school performance and behaviour in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook causes syphilis, says Prof Peter Kelly, Director of Public Health, NHS Tees?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret data]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 27 March 2010 After the Mail&#8217;s definitive headline of last year “How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer” (in the same week as a story about a radioactive paedophile, no less) comes a competitor. &#8220;Facebook spreads syphilis&#8221; was the front page headline in the Sun on Wednesday: &#8220;sex [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is it okay to ignore results from people you don&#8217;t trust?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/when-is-it-okay-to-ignore-people-you-dont-trust/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/when-is-it-okay-to-ignore-people-you-dont-trust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tobacco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/when-is-it-okay-to-ignore-people-you-dont-trust/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 6 March 2010 ﻿﻿If the media were actuarial about drawing our attention to the causes of avoidable death, your newspapers would be filled with diarrhoea, Aids, and cigarettes every day. In reality we know this is an absurd idea. For those interested in the scale of our fascination with rarity, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/when-is-it-okay-to-ignore-people-you-dont-trust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The BBC have found someone whose cancer was cured by homeopathy</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:27:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homeopathy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ladies and Gentlemen, we have hit the bottom of the barrel. Homeopathy cured my cancer, on BBC News.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>123</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jabs &#8220;as bad as the cancer&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[express]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaccines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, Saturday 10 October 2009, The Guardian Last month I had a debate at the Royal Institution with Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, in which he argued that I was too harsh on British science coverage, which is the best in the world. During this event our chairman (bizarrely and excellently Simon Mayo) pulled [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;How to read articles about health&#8221; &#8211; by Dr Alicia White</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/how-to-read-articles-about-health-by-dr-alicia-white/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/how-to-read-articles-about-health-by-dr-alicia-white/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:22:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[guest writers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is something that came up on the Five Live discussion with Lord Drayson at lunchtime today. Simon Mayo pulled out a front page story from the Express about a breakthrough cancer drug, and asked us what we&#8217;d make of it. Having not read it, I said I&#8217;d regard it with caution, because it might [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/how-to-read-articles-about-health-by-dr-alicia-white/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Health Warning: Exercise Makes You Fat</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, 29 August 2009, The Guardian Why would you listen to a government health message, or your GP practise nurse, when the Sunday Telegraph has much more exciting news? “Health warning: exercise makes you fat” is the kind of full-width headline you want to see across a broadsheet page: it’s affirmative, it’s reassuring, and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>80</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ben Goldacre and Science Minister Lord Drayson debate: 16th Sept, Royal Institution, tickets are free on 020 7409 2992</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/ben-goldacre-and-science-minister-lord-drayson-debate-16th-sept-royal-institution-tickets-are-free-on-020-7409-2992/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/ben-goldacre-and-science-minister-lord-drayson-debate-16th-sept-royal-institution-tickets-are-free-on-020-7409-2992/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/ben-goldacre-and-science-minister-lord-drayson-debate-16th-sept-royal-institution-tickets-are-free-on-020-7409-2992/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A couple of months ago the science minister Lord Drayson was saying that British science journalism is fabulous, the lessons from MMR had been learnt, and so on. I disagreed, and after a bit of chat on twitter I’m very pleased to say that the minister’s office have organised a public discussion on the topic, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/ben-goldacre-and-science-minister-lord-drayson-debate-16th-sept-royal-institution-tickets-are-free-on-020-7409-2992/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rape: a helpful non-correction from the Telegraph</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/rape-a-non-correction-from-the-telegraph/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/rape-a-non-correction-from-the-telegraph/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/rape-a-non-correction-from-the-telegraph/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Update: Just got an email from Sophia Shaw, the MSc student in question: &#8220;I am happy that they have made an apology , but I am very aware that a number of other mistakes were made that were not acknowledge in their statement. Sophia&#8221; The media is a game-like world of blurry truths, where the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/rape-a-non-correction-from-the-telegraph/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asking for it</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/asking-for-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/asking-for-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/asking-for-it/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 4 July 2009 There’s nothing like science for giving that objective, white-coat flavoured legitimacy to your prejudices, so it must have been a great day for Telegraph readers when they came across the headline “Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists”. Ah, scientists. “Women who drink [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/asking-for-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steve Connor is an angry man</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hate mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We’re having a meeting in a pub tonight, it’s free to get in and open to all, we’ll talk about the problems with science journalism. Apparently science journalists won&#8217;t tolerate this. www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-connor-lofty-medics-should-stick-to-their-day-job-1724485.html Steve Connor: Lofty medics should stick to their day job Science Notebook: Doctors claim media coverage is &#8220;lazy, venal and silly&#8221; Independent, Tuesday, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>78</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

