« Hey, Hanukkah Is Still in Full Swing | Main | California Near Failing Its Kids, Study Finds »

Sunday, January 01, 2006


What's most interesting about this review is that despite being well written and smelling like good journalism to me, the LA Times didn't run it.

Looking at the list of quotes that media have made about the book:


...none of these media outlets reach as many people as the LA Times does.

Running this story in the Times would have made some impact on public health I suspect, but it didn't run for some reason.

I'm interested to know why (I realize that as the author of the piece, you may not know, either!)

There is no special reason the review did not run. Essentially, publishers drown newspapers in books -- hundreds of thousands are published worldwide each year -- and there simply was no room for the review. Lots of fantastic books get ignored every year because there is no choice. That's one of the restrictions of print journalism.

There is no special reason the review did not run.I particularly like the fact that results,significances, etc do not depend on normality of data and is non-parametric.They overlook the fact that most vegan leaders have died prematurely after battling severe illnesses for years.They also fail to produce a single authenticated vegan centenarian to validate their beliefs.

That's one of the restrictions of print journalism.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Blog powered by Typepad


  • The opinions expressed on DadTalk are the author(s) and the author(s) alone. We make no warranties on the accuracy of the information. Any personal or financial decisions you make based on the information presented on this website are YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY ONLY.