<?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>Salon.com > bad science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/bad_science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bad science gets busted</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/24/bad_science_gets_busted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/24/bad_science_gets_busted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organic food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brian schweitzer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13020424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[High-profile cases show the importance of questioning academic research -- especially when it has a corporate tie]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As any P.R. hack worth his weight in press releases knows, the most persuasive content is that which doesn't look like propaganda at all.</p><p>If you want to influence a mass audience, for instance, you can try <a href="&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/25-years-later-remembering-how-top-gun-changed-americas-feelings-about-war/2011/08/15/gIQAU6qJgJ_story.html">to do</a> what the Pentagon does and subtly bake slanted information into entertainment products such as movies and television shows.  If, on the other hand, you are looking to influence a slightly higher-brow audience, you can embed disinformation in newspapers' <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2012/08/hbc-90008782">news</a> and <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-15/op-eds-for-sale">opinion pages</a>. And if you are looking to brainwash politicians, think tanks, columnists and the rest of the political elite in order to rig an esoteric debate over public policy, you can attempt to shroud your agitprop in the veneer of science.</p><p>While these are all diabolically effective methods of manipulating political discourse, the latter, which involves corporate funding of academic research, is the most insidious of all. But the good news is that the last few weeks provided important reminders about the problem -- and why scrutiny of sources is so important.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/24/bad_science_gets_busted/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/24/bad_science_gets_busted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
