The Winston Salem Journal’s Executive Editor responded to our letter this afternoon and had quite a bit to say about his paper’s reporting (you can read the whole email below.) But what I found most interesting was that he wrote:
"I agree that the story should have mentioned the critical editorial that appeared in the same edition of the magazine"
That means the paper did not sufficiently present the other side of this story. And what’s the other side of the story? The research is questionable at best and reckless at worst.
I have written back to the executive editor and asked once again if they intend to publicly address the paper's failings. More to come on this one.
Winston Salem Journal’s letter to NFI:
Mr. Gibbons,
I've discussed your letter with Mr. Craver and his editor and reviewed his reporting on the story. In my view, Mr. Craver went to considerable lengths to seek balance in the story, including obtaining comments from the N.C. Fisheries Association, whose president, Sean McKeon, is quoted extensively in the story. Mr. Craver also contacted or attempted to contact eight other groups or individuals for comment on the study, in most cases sending the source the press release announcing the findings. Several of those sources could not be contacted or, due to space constraints, did not make it into the story. And while I agree that the story should have mentioned the critical editorial that appeared in the same edition of the magazine, I don't think that omission materially affects the validity of the story.
Wake Forest University School of Medicine has a good reputation for vetting its research. I would also note that Dr. Chilton did not suggest that people not eat fish; in fact he recommends they do. His study was specific as to one type of farm-fed fish and its possible harmful effects in people with certain medical conditions.
As to Dr. Chilton's supposed conflict as the author of a book on inflammation, I consider that argumentative and not relevant. Almost all academic scholars and scientists write books in their area of expertise.
I don't want to dismiss the concerns of your organization. If we should find an opportunity to report on this study again, we will strive to detail the debate about the health effects of Omega-6 fatty acids more exhaustively. Thanks for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Carl Crothers
