Comments on: Search for ‘truth’ results in Radiolab apology

By: Yellow Rain and The Sound of the Matter: Kalia Yang’s Sonorous Objection to Radiolab « Sounding Out!

Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:02:00 +0000

[...] story appeared […]to invalidate the Hmong loss and suffering in Laos.” Aaron, a commentor on Current Magazine’s coverage of the controversy called Radiolab’s coverage “inexcusable science, nothing close to journalism, and if only ‘a story,’ one that cements [...]

By: Chris in MN

Chris in MN — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:31:00 +0000

The thing is, the mistake Radiolab made was taking the New Yorker article and the Harvard study as Gospel, and discounting the statements made by Kalia and Eng. And in my opinion, when Eng said straight out that he knew about bee droppings, and that this wasn’t it, that should have either stopped the RL report in its tracks, or drastically changed the tone and direction of the piece. You can hear Eng say this very thing in the recorded podcast itself, but what you don’t hear is when Kalia translates those words to English. That was cut out (deliberately in my opinion). Deliberate edits of information for the purpose of telling a predetermined story is what those in the business call “journalistic fraud.” It is no different than creationists who pick and choose scientific information to shoot holes in evolution because they want holes shot in it. Truth be damned.

The fact is the Harvard study could very well have been faulty. If this toxin was Sarin or something like it, traces would have broken down long before samples made it to the lab. And since those sample came from the jungle, they would of course have polen on them. Everything did. And frankly, there’s no shortage of New Yorker hatchet pieces on Reagan. Their editors still hold a grudge to this day.

Radiolab took the story of the genocide of the Hmong and one of the weapons used against them, and turned it into a puff piece through misleading editing and deliberate story modeling.

By: The real fact of the matter

The real fact of the matter — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:26:00 +0000

Regardless of their intentions, the story we got is the truth of what happened. Cappello in his seemingly thorough response to Kao Kalia Yang’s response left out an explanation why Radiolab left out the credentials of the Yangs while they made sure all the white men in the story were attributed accurately. Additionally, the final cut of the story framed the Hmong as backwards, uneducated, and ignorant living in the “remote” “backwaters” of Laos. Cappello also failed to explain why the Hmong subjects were framed in this way and did not address Yang’s allegation there there is imbalance of privilege and power. The real fact of the matter here is that regardless of the producers intentions, their actions weren’t aligned with it and regardless of how they edit the truth from the final cut, it can’t be undone. The truth of the incredible imbalance of power and unethical treatment of the subjects cannot let Radiolab off the hook until they accept their part in institutionalizing racism through the Yellow Rain story.

By: The Truth will Out: Radiolab withdraws from ‘Yellow Rain,’ sources continue the narrative « Boreal Bites

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:15:56 +0000

[...] responds to Minnesota Public Radio and Kao Kalia Yang. Also, public radio newspaper Current covers more of Radiolab’s side of the story. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like [...]

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:02:00 +0000

I think there is some evidence to support Houlihan’s statements. See the RadioLab response here. Very detailed.

http://bit.ly/RitCVO

By: Wendell

Wendell — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:22:00 +0000

Lucky journalists, you get to choose your moments of discomfort, even at the cost of humiliating others who have already experienced horrible tragedies. As a Hmong immigrant and survivor of the war, I didn’t get to choose my discomfort or exploit it for publicity. I just had to try to live through it, which apparently isn’t as true as scholarly papers.

Way to go Radio Lab! Your priorities have cost you my listener-ship and financial support.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:06:00 +0000

“According to Houlihan, WNYC’s spokesperson. . .Yang . . .initially reacted positively to the story in a private
email to them, but when they requested permission to publish her
comments online, she withdrew them and submitted a negative critique.”
WOW THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE. I had no idea they would stoop so low to cover their behinds. I think it’s fair to say that Kalia has all the old e-mails and could quite easily and convincingly show that these claims are false and quickly becoming malicious.

“The team strongly believed, based on their research and the science
available, that the accumulation of evidence would not have necessarily
added to the story, but certainly would have further questioned Mr.
Yang’s experience,”
ALSO APPALLINGLY UNTRUE. Read Aaron’s post above. These people are simply lying. There’s no other way to describe it. I’m sure the scientists who’ve criticized the bee crap theory will be thrilled to know they produced “media reports, not academic studies.”

Jad, Robert, Pat, you stepped in it big time. You must know this. Be adults and admit it and stop acting like you’re fooling anybody. Retractions, corrections, and apologies are all part of your trade. It’s time to use them sincerely and effectively.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:11:00 +0000

The comments from Houlihan about Kao Kalia Yang are only statements and are not backed by any evidence. For example: I invite people to read this response on the Radiolab page from professor Paul Hilmer regarding at least one of the sources offered to radiolab in relation to this episode LONG BEFORE they went to air. “If you want to know just how irresponsible RadioLab was about the science of yellow rain, chase down an article in “Politics & the Life Sciences,” 24 August 2007, starting on page 24.
The RadioLab team had access to this article, as well as a dissertation written by one of its authors, well before they interviewed Eng Yang. The article proposed a methodology for evidence collection, chemical analysis, & attribution assessment allowing for transparency “so that assumptions and rationale for decisions [and theories like Matthew Meselson’s, one would think] can be challenged by external critics.” The authors used a wide variety of previously unused evidence, including “8,529 pages of United States government documents, declassified . . .and released through a Freedom of Information Act request, including medical records, laboratory reports, diplomatic communications, internal memos, and protocols originating primarily from the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center. . .and interviews with 48 individuals with expert knowledge related to Yellow Rain, including 20 who were directly involved in investigating allegations. . .”
A few of the many conclusions in this paper:
“Between 1979 and 1982, refugee reports of attacks were consistent with other intelligence data, including known battles and flight paths of aircraft, more than 60 percent of the time. . .
Clinical complaints and findings among self-described victims and detailed refugee accounts of attacks were sufficiently similar in Laos, Cambodia, and Afghanistan to suggest a key common factor, most plausibly a Soviet link, in influence and support of direct operational involvement. . .
Clinical complaints and findings of alleged victims as documented by photographs, medical records, autopsy results, and third-hand accounts are consistent with mass simultaneous poisoning and not with any known natural disease endemic to Laos, Cambodia, or Afghanistan. . .
Approximately 75 percent of alleged attacks involved seeing or hearing a helicopter or airplane, followed by seeing or smelling a gas or powder fall to the ground.”
RadioLab sold the bee poop story—based on work conducted nearly 30 years ago— as incontrovertible fact instead of the questionable theory it is. And they had evidence in hand that made that clear. (Did they take the time to read it?) So it’s not just that they were rude and insensitive. They completely misrepresented the science behind the story and used their “certainty” as justification to treat Eng Yang like a superstitious, ignorant man. Eng protested during the interview [in Hmong] that his people kept bees and knew what bee poop looked like. Of course, Radiolab didn’t tell us that, either. This piece was inexcusable science, nothing close to journalism, and if only “a story,” one that cements erroneous ideas in the minds of its listeners. And all they want to admit is that they were overzealous in their pursuit of the “truth.” That’s simply a lie.”

By: Search for ‘truth’ results in Radiolab apology | Current.org | Sonoran Hanbok | Scoop.it

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:19:51 +0000

[...] RT @jedibunny: "lack of diversity on Radiolab’s staff may have played a role in its perceived insensitivity toward the Hmong people." http://t.co/ekRbZLFQ… [...]