I enjoyed reading your post...I will only say that for such an elaborate Hoax it is a very anti-climatic ending..I am suspiscious because of this of this. It doesnt make sense.
First of all, I admire your own hoaxbusting methods. Let's see if we can establish some common ground between us as you suggest that I am confused.
A point of clarification here: The NewsTrust "comment" section, which you quote, allows us to express our "personal feelings" so that viewers understand where we might have a bias. Yes, my bias is that I believe the Africa/Palin "anecdote" is a hoax at Carl Cameron's expense.
Here's my rationale: Cameron is using anonymous sources. In your posted clip, he calls those sources "insiders" and then "McCain aides" and at first is careful to state "we're told," qualifying his remarks--using the verb "suggested" and also "anecdotes"; but later in the report he goes on a riff and makes statements as if he had investigated these allegations. I'm not sure that he has. As he doesn't cite his own sources, he just seems to be simply reporting what "insiders" have told him and forgetting to state that.
Remember the days when reporters used to investigate the veracity of what sources told them? (But I digress.)
The challenge in busting this hoax is to find out whether Palin actually didn't know "Africa was a continent." There are too many gossipy variables and motives, including one Cameron starts to explain, that she may have been questioning whether the reference was to southern Africa vs. South Africa. That easy fodder for gossip.
But let's investigate this further: Barack Obama's father was from Africa. To claim that Palin didn't know whether Africa was a country or a continent is just too nifty to be believed. Call me a skeptical former United Press reporter, or a curmudgeon journalism director, but I suspect those anonymous aides told a tasty tidbit to Cameron who felt he had to report it. And were I Cameron, what I would do now, in the aftermath of the Eisenstadt hoax, would be to redouble my efforts and interrogate those "insiders" to protect his journalism integrity.
You're right that this has occupied too much media time. But busting a hoax always is a much bigger story that often leads to investigative journalism, which is why I recommend to students to remain skeptical and question everything.
Rather than belabor this point, let's see if you and your viewers agree with my hoaxbusting methods. They're a little too long for a comment, so I posted them in PDF here: http://www.livingethics.org/hoaxbusting.pdf
I want to end, though, with a statement that you made in your last paragraph that begins with "Got it?" You write: "Carl Cameron is standing by his story, and apparently Sarah Palin really was confused about Africa."
Are you saying, on record, that you really trust a report with anonymous sources who have a motive (as McCain lost the election)?
If that's the case, Sheldon, then I just might be confused after all.
This trial was stopped half way through its designed period before adverse events ruined the slight gain they could claim.
There was a biased selection and a high dropout or non compliance in trial participants that was not reported.
Stopping a major clinical trial halfway through is a big deal, as it invalidates any credible statistical analysis of the benefits and effectiveness of a treatment, and makes safety and longer-term risks impossible to evaluate.
The actual (absolute) difference in mortality between the statin and control groups after nearly 2 years in the JUPITER trial was only 0.25% and incidences of heart attacks and strokes differed by a mere 0.35% a year. Looking more closely at the design of this trial, its methodology, selection of participants, attrition, findings and adverse events; as well as the evidence of C-reactive protein (CRP) and safety data of Crestor to date, suggests that all of the amplified claims being heard deserve a much more cautious look. There is a very good analysis of the trial here.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-news-sounds-too-good-statins-new.html
Claiming c-reactive protein as a new marker for heart disease is ridiculous. An analogy would be....
Looking down from above at all murder sites the day after discovery and noticing a team of detectives there and declaring that detectives cause murder because they are present at every site.
It is not a bad thing to take something for inflammation as you age and the best thing one can take is Alpha Lipoic Acid 600 mg/day.
CRP is a measure of inflammation, a risk factor for heart disease and cancer, among other conditions.
The next question should be: what reduces inflammation? Among other things:
Vitamin D from sunshine and supplements. (heart disease increases during the winter and in latitudes farther from the equator.)
Fruits and vegetables in the diet. (the vast majority of Americans do not get enough.)
Pages