It appears that CBS put the story up on their website, like other sites, but then took the story down. While it was up, it was attributed to the AP, but it's not an AP story. That was likely just an error on some CBS web-monkey's part. That CBS took the story down actually speaks well of them, to an extent. It still resides MSNBC.com and Yahoo sites, among other places. It would have been better if they'd never printed it in the first place, but they at least corrected their mistake, or erased it anyway.

Of course, the conservative blogosphere jumped all over this, but they totally missed the actual problem with this incident. Rather than look at the underlying issue of prepackaged "news" being distributed by companies like MarketWire and printed by corporate media outlets like CBSNews.com and MSNBC.com, they focused their ire on the "dirt worshippers" in the "liberal media" trying to enforce the "cult of global warming." To the blogs I came across in looking into this story, the real concern seemed to be that people were reporting stories related to global warming. That the story was really just a press release paid for by Tom Chalko or one of his corporate interests and reported as news was of secondary concern, only worth mentioning to sling mud at the so-called liberal media.

Whether media outlets have a perceived liberal or conservative bias, people should be much, much more concerned about the quality of the reporting or the lack thereof. CBS should actually receive a small amount of praise for taking the stupid thing down when they realized their mistake in printing it. They should be lambasted, though, like any other outlet that printed this story, for not bothering to even double-check the crap their pulling from the wires.

"Oh my god, Blaine. They're playing Billy Idol. Punk rock is so awesome!"

That's not to say I'm particularly surprised at the feeble attempt at nostalgia-chic that is the "Punk Revival" at a local rock-themed bar or the lame dildos that took part. To the contrary, this is exactly the kind of low-rent minstrelsy that the douchelords of society have always enjoyed. Americans have a rich history of appropriating the art or music of a marginalized subculture and repackaging it as ironic entertainment. I'm less offended by that than I am by just how little effort these clowns even put into the whole thing. What, they couldn't be bothered to dab on a little blackface? I'm not asking for authentic patches or those weird butt-flaps or anything that might get them mistakenly beaten up by some of the other 4th Street patrons. Some safety pins would have been fine. At least "Sara Wilson wore pink fishnet stockings." (Ah, so it is, in fact, a punk revival: fishnets!) Of course, they would have to stay within the dress code of the club, which I've learned is "Rock chic, trendy, or casual. No athletic wear." Will they relax that last rule when the inevitable hip-hop revival comes around? I mean, since we're reviving things that aren't dead, surely hip-hop is just around the corner.

"Oh man! Do you remember when this song came out? Dexter Holland is the coolest punk star! Keep 'em separated! Cool!"

Making fun of these goons is easy and entertaining, but there is a (somewhat) serious critique buried here somewhere. I'm not going to go on about what is punk or what isn't, because that's beside the point. It just chaps my ass that the people enjoying themselves at this event are so ignorant of the culture they're using for the night's entertainment that they can't even play to stereotype or be bothered to learn what those stereotypes might be. It's as if our culture of appropriation has gotten too lazy to even appropriate anymore. Considering these are likely the same folks turning to fine publications like Velocity to get their weekly dose of culture, I guess it should be expected.

It's no secret that most affiliates of the four major networks make heavy use of packaged news and that through this means corporations are able to promote their products, denigrate their competitors, and build PR for their brands. I'll leave that discussion for another time, though, as today I am more concerned with reports that are incomplete or, worse, incorrect. When it comes to local news -- crime, fires, terrorist threats...

That's to be expected in any media that serves as a money-earning enterprise, rather than a public service. What should also be expected, though, is for the stories, regardless of how sensational, to report the story accurately in the end. To continue the autism example, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is hearing 5,000 cases brought by the parents of autistic children who claim that vaccines played some part in the development of autism in their kids. It's necessary to note that the VICP does not discuss scientific plausibility. They are a legal court and discuss only legal matters, and in the public interest, their guidelines on payouts are fairly lax. If the plaintiff's case can offer a plausibility of "50% and a feather", the plaintiff will be compensated. Of the test cases selected to determine if the remainder of the 5,000 cases can be heard, the VICP decided to settle one of the cases, saying that enough evidence was presented to indicate the plausibility of a vaccine-related injury.

Does this mean that the government has conceded, legally or scientifically, that vaccines can cause or have ever caused autism? From some of the broadcast segments I've seen on the ruling, it sure would sound like it. Take, for example, KWQC's noon broadcast on March 7:

For years, the debate has raged: do childhood vaccines cause autism or not? Federal health officials have conceded that childhood vaccines "significantly aggravated" a rare, underlying disorder that led to autism-like symptoms in a 9-year old Georgia girl. The case is before a special court to compensate people injured by vaccines. The debate over whether vaccines cause autism has gone on for years. It is believed this is the first time health officials have conceded vaccines may have played a part.

Now, at the heart of the story, KWQC got it right. The crux of the settlement is that childhood vaccines aggravated a pre-existing disorder, and that led to the development of autism-like symptoms. What's wrong with the way this was reported? Among the smaller issues are the lack of detail regarding how the decision is reached in this particular court (e.g., "50% and a feather" rules) and the vague term "federal health officials" to describe what is, in reality, a legal court. Though health-related, it's important to note that this isn't the result of clinical trials or other scientific inquiry.

Those are fairly minor quibbles, though, compared to the real issue: the girl involved in this case does not have autism. Would anyone watching this short health segment have gotten that? Not likely, considering the last two sentences of the story specifically state that this is the "first time health officials have conceded vaccines may have played a part [in the development of autism]". That is simply inaccurate. The government conceded that there was enough evidence to show that vaccines aggravated a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder leading to autism-like symptoms, not to autism. This distinction is incredibly important to the story, but it's buried and the story closes by reinforcing an inaccurate detail. I chose this one example, but outlets across the nation reported this story in the exact same manner.

If I've gotten too bogged down in the details of this one particular story, let me cut through now with the main point. Broadcast news media outlets generally do not report scientific or health related stories with enough detail to give an accurate picture of the story at hand. The segments require more than a passing mention crammed between scandal and human interest segments, but broadcast news is unwilling to spend that extra time, short as it would be. We should demand more of the media. They should cut down the celebrity gossip and fear-mongering, and give us better health and science reporting.