Comments on: Aren’t Reporters Supposed to Check Their Facts?

By: Elissa

Elissa — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:01:22 +0000

LOL – I thought that one was unbelievably silly. While the author – or the dietician she got the quote from – never explicitly state that “multiple sources of protein” are bad, this is strongly implied by the language used.

And that epitomizes what irked me about this article… there’s oodles of dark forboding about implied risks, yet no actual evidence of any damage to life, health or development. Even Mikey Santini – the kid who opened and closed the article – appears to be happy, healthy and thriving, despite his “heavy” supplement use. His current stack is filled w/stuff a typical, 19-year-old “bro” would buy – a lot of name-brand overpriced and overhyped blends stuffed to the gills with “label decoration.” I imagine his wallet is taking a hit, but beyond that, it’s tough to see the harm.

Once again, yes, there are supps to be concerned about – but a little perspective is in order. Ultimately, parents, teachers and coaches (and newspaper reporters!) need to establish themselves as credible sources of information, and help kids differentiate between what’s safe and what may not be (and why). Otherwise, why should they listen?

The coach’s reaction, “You don’t need it, we don’t recommend it, and if you eat right and work hard, you’ll get the same benefit”, is both quite typical and EXACTLY the wrong thing to say. It’s just another spin on those 4 little words most kids hate to hear: “because I said so!” You can get away with this when you’re talking to a 6-year-old, but it won’t fly with a 16-year-old. High school kids are adults-in-training, and deserve good, thoughtful answers to their questions. At this stage in their development, respect isn’t given automatically (and rightfully so, I might add). Adults can earn it by being authoritative – not authoritarian.

To make a long story short(er): kids generally aren’t stupid. They can sense when the adults in their lives are full of it… a condition which this “informational” article ironically confirmed.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:12:10 +0000

Wow! Looks like the deadline for this article crept up really quickly and the author needed to come up with something quickly. “Multiple sources of protein?” The horror… the horror.

This isn’t simply bad reporting, it’s lazy and irresponsible. If this bonehead worked for me, he’d be out on the street looking for another job.

By: Makster

Makster — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:43:00 +0000

Checking facts? In todays media? Facts are a secondary concern today. The main concern is how much controversy can we cause by writing a partial fact based article. Usually demonizing something (in this case supps), to get the attention of the reader.

It is sickening to see people like this do an unjustice to everyone that reads this article and takes it as fact.

I have read many reports on the safety of creatine supplementation over the long term. Where she gets her info (or lack there of) is beyond me.

Multiple protein sources? Thats a bad thing? She would really crap if she saw my custom blend of protein. Five different proteins! In one blend! OMG!

All I can say Elissa, is keep up the good fight to keep us truely informed with “fact based” info.