The Singal problem


You might want to read this Twitter thread by Siobhan points out how Jesse Singal delicately carves up his sources to only allow views that align with his own perspective through.

Short version: Singal reported that the controversial “conversion therapy” lab of Kenneth Zucker was shut down for purely political reasons by omitting the words of scientists who pointed out that he was far out of the mainstream of clinical practice.

That kind of slanted reporting is why transgender individuals, you know, the people most endangered by his biases, consider him to be shady and untrustworthy.

Comments

  1. Siobhan says

    I honed in on one incident in which I had a direct connection, too. It’s worth noting his last official contribution to The Discourse was an omission that he had recruited his interview subjects from a website that coordinates the psychiatric torture of gender questioning young adults.

    https://thinkprogress.org/atlantic-jesse-singal-transgender-kids-54123639b640/

    Singal’s problem isn’t as often being literally incorrect with what makes it to print (though that does happen with him), the more common problem is what he chooses to cut from his final works.

  2. Steve Bruce says

    I can’t believe this idiot is getting so much attention. And the support he is getting from journalists whom I otherwise admire ( Greenwald and Pollitt) is disgusting. Lost a ton of respect for most of them.

  3. janiceintoronto says

    Kenneth Zucker was shut down because he was an incompetent fraud. Trans patients were “treated” in the sexual offenders lockup section of the Clarke Institute. One of his “doctors” on staff not allowed to be alone with female patients.

    The damage he caused trans-people was awful. I celebrated the day he got thrown out.

  4. Ichthyic says

    Greenwald lost the plot after Obama was elected.

    seriously, go look at his article history before and after.

    it’s almost enough to make me think the man is a closet racist.

  5. Steve Bruce says

    @6 Ichthyic
    I don’t have a problem with Greenwald’s criticisms of Obama. They seem very reasonable to me. Obama was a terrible president. It’s only in comparison to the current buffoon and the one who preceded him that he comes off looking good.

  6. methuseus says

    @7 Steve Bruce
    He was a status-quo president who barely did anything other than keeping on keeping on. A few things got better; the ACA did help many get insurance that wouldn’t otherwise have it. Unfortunately it had the opposite effect for many. It still helped more than it hurt. But, by and large, everything stayed the same under Obama. Nobody was prosecuted for the horrible mortgage lending issues that plunged the world into financial chaos. None of the war criminals from the early 2000s were prosecuted. In fact, a lot of the issues from that time were merely continued on.
    So, in closing, he wasn’t a terrible president. He was merely ineffectual and didn’t try to do most of what he advocated for. He was still likely the best candidate from either party both times he ran. That alone makes him less than terrible.

  7. firsttimelongtime says

    “delicately carves up his sources to only allow views that align with his own perspective through.”

    …a practice PZ would know a thing or two about.

Leave a Reply