Today’s post will not be so much about my food romp (beef shawarma with a pomelo drink) because I’m currently getting shredded for the article I published yesterday. I can’t say I didn’t see this coming because I’ve been around the science journalism scene for long enough to know that anything about GMOs will get you lots of angry mobs of the anti-science and anti-Monsanto persuasions. Of course, explaining in the article that there are thousands of studies indicating nothing wrong and that I don’t agree with the politics did nothing for me because no one ever reads articles before flaming them, plus I know better than to expect people to change their minds.
Which brings me to two rules that should be established before commenting. I also know better than to expect that to happen too, but one can dream:
- Read the article first. Seriously, you’re going to look stupid in the comments if you bring up stuff I already shot down.
- More importantly, if you’re going to tell me I’m wrong (and if I am, by all means, tell me), you better have proof. I’m not talking some random site that agrees with what you think. I’m talking a peer-reviewed and published study, more than one if you can find them. I’m not going to believe you otherwise.
Rereading the comments too much makes me mad, which doesn’t help when I’m trying to respond in the most civil fashion I can when dealing with people who don’t bother to look up the information. With the exception of one commenter who pointed out a very valid grammatical error on my part (my editor is fixing this as we speak), they’re resorting to using the very misconceptions I addressed in the article with only mild variations, not to mention logical fallacies.
I don’t know what I expected.
Wait, yes, I do. I expected people to be smart enough to do their research before posting crap like that. 33,000+ articles don’t lie. A quick Google search of university sites (not even .org sites can be trusted with this one) doesn’t lie.
Welcome to science journalism.