New Scientist, The Lancet, and tobacco

Abstract

Authors' replySir—In my report, I wanted to explain to our readers, briefly, why a story originating with New Scientist of May 161Concar D Day M Undercover operation.New Scientist. 1998; May 16; : 4Google Scholar made the national newspaper headlines of May 14. The press release was the harbinger of what New Scientist would say; I take it that New Scientist does not now disclaim originating the story, or that its press release was the common stimulus for Times, Guardian, and Daily Telegraph articles on May 14.On May 16, New Scientist reported “Among those claimed to be acting as consultants were an adviser to a British parliamentary committee and ‘an editor’ of The Lancet” (p 4).1Concar D Day M Undercover operation.New Scientist. 1998; May 16; : 4Google Scholar The editorial (p 3)2Editorial. The whole truth.New Scientist. 1998; May 16; : 3Google Scholar also refers to “an editor”. The argument seems to be about quotation marks as escape mechanism from journalistic responsibility in starting up a story. Authors' reply Sir—In my report, I wanted to explain to our readers, briefly, why a story originating with New Scientist of May 161Concar D Day M Undercover operation.New Scientist. 1998; May 16; : 4Google Scholar made the national newspaper headlines of May 14. The press release was the harbinger of what New Scientist would say; I take it that New Scientist does not now disclaim originating the story, or that its press release was the common stimulus for Times, Guardian, and Daily Telegraph articles on May 14. On May 16, New Scientist reported “Among those claimed to be acting as consultants were an adviser to a British parliamentary committee and ‘an editor’ of The Lancet” (p 4).1Concar D Day M Undercover operation.New Scientist. 1998; May 16; : 4Google Scholar The editorial (p 3)2Editorial. The whole truth.New Scientist. 1998; May 16; : 3Google Scholar also refers to “an editor”. The argument seems to be about quotation marks as escape mechanism from journalistic responsibility in starting up a story. New Scientist, The Lancet, and tobaccoYour Ombudsman, in his July 4 report1 on tobacco, gets his facts wholly wrong in stating that “The Lancet and its editors appeared on the front page of The Times and in several other British newspapers on May 14, after a press release from the New Scientist of May 16 claimed that in March, 1990, a Lancet editor was a consultant for the tobacco industry”. The press release sent out by New Scientist made no such statement, nor did it mention The Lancet. Full-Text PDF