Natural News finds broken URL, sees media coverup
The thousands who’ve been reading about radioactive fallout on this page will be surprised to discover that this post doesn’t exist anymore because of a mainstream media cover up.
As you can see, that post does exist, but Mike Adams of Natural News followed a broken link, discovered a blank page, decided it signified a mainstream-media cover up, and now will neither correct the error nor allow me to correct it in comments.
Here’s the claim published yesterday by Adams, “the Health Ranger,” and the editor, publisher and prolific author of the popular website Natural News:
Although the mainstream media claims that all the deadly iodine-131 gets dissipated across the Pacific Ocean before it can reach North America, the greater truth is that the facts about Fukushima are diluted and dispersed long before they reach our shores. The result is an ongoing dangerous cover-up of what’s really happening there.
The mainstream media, of course, is blatantly engaged in an effort to suppress any scary-sounding information that might emerge about Fukushima. For example, a Forbes blog entitled “Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137…” which contained the text, “Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA…” has mysteriously disappeared, leaving just an empty shell of a page in its place. See the following link to find out if they’ve brought it back yet:http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon…
via Natural News
If you click on the link in Adams’s story, or in the quoted portion above, you’ll see that it does indeed lead to a blank page. That’s because I screwed up when I was publishing the post.
I had started writing it Friday evening and continued into Saturday morning. After I published it Saturday, I noticed the date stamp in the URL had been set on Friday—some of you who publish on Wordpress will recognize this issue.
It’s a problem if a post has the wrong date stamp in the URL because it gets buried in RSS feeds and the Forbes Network Activity Feed. It’s also simply inaccurate. It was time stamped Friday morning but reported on data that was released Friday afternoon.
So I corrected the date stamp, but Google had already indexed the page. As a result, Google directed thousands of readers to the old URL which displays—to no one’s chagrin more than my own—nothing but a blank page. The new page, meanwhile, was just a click away.
My efforts to post a note at the blank page failed. Wordpress kept adding a “-2″ to the URL. And I’m not enough of a techie to figure all that out, not when there’s a story about nuclear energy unfolding and more posts to be written. I chalked it up to lessons learned. So it goes. C’est la vie.
Then yesterday I visited Natural News because I wanted to link to it for a new post about Monsanto. There I came upon Mike Adams’s conspiracy theory — that my story had disappeared as part of a mainstream media coverup. Really? Have we been covering up the fact that radiation is being found in U.S. rainwater, drinking water, air, and milk? My recent posts:
I tried to post a comment at the end of Mike’s story, correcting my own URL error, but it didn’t appear. So I wrote Mike a note. I thanked him for his story, thanked him for linking to my post, and explained my mistake with the URL.
No reply.
Later in the day I noticed some other people had commented on his story, so I tried commenting again. This time, my comment appeared. An hour later, it was gone.
So I tried again, except this time when my comment appeared, I took a screen shot of it. A couple hours later I checked the page again, and it was gone again. I took another screen shot. You can view both screen shotshere. Or visit the page yourself. Is the comment there?
The comment that’s staying on top, from one Richard Pike (which would be a great name for a sockpuppet, wouldn’t it?), directs readers to a Google cache of the post, reinforcing the impression that the post itself has disappeared.
When Mike Adams visited that blank page, he had at least five ways to find the correct URL. He could have:
- Looked at my top-five box, in the sidebar to the right, where the post has been listed at #2 for days,
- Looked at the links at the bottom of the page,
- Clicked on our email link and asked me what happened,
- Checked the blog’s front page, where the post was on top,
- Checked the blog’s RSS feed, where the post was on top.
Thousands of other people followed those routes to the correct URL. Even another site Mike links to, PrisonPlanet—where he says my post has been “preserved”—links to the correct URL. And Mike must know there’s no coverup because a new post at Natural News today relies entirely, though not accurately, on one of my subsequent posts.
That Mike Adams missed those many opportunities was mere neglect, I’m sure. But now that he seems to have disregarded my email and erased my comments—that seems beyond neglect. And there’s more at stake than a dispute between blogging heads.
Does he care whether his readers receive the information in the post—about radioactive contamination of drinking water and milk—or is he more interested in deceiving them into believing a conspiracy theory?
I’m all for challenging mainstream institutions, especially when they engage in cover ups. But if we are going to make such accusations, it’s vital that we make them accurately, otherwise we lose our power to challenge. We lose it at moments like this, when we’re proven to be foolish.
We make mistakes. When we do, it’s vital that we correct them. We’re all publishing much faster these days and without professional editors, proofreaders, and fact checkers to verify our work before it goes online. That doesn’t make accuracy less important. It makes accuracy moreimportant.
It makes transparency more important.
And more broadly speaking, when we accuse, should we be accurate? When we write about health, should we be accurate? What’s the Health Ranger Code?
I have been a reader and a fan of Natural News, but after seeing how Mike Adams handles corrections, I’m suddenly wary of everything I’ve read there. In that Monsanto post, I quote a Natural News survey of evil corporations. Now I wonder, does it accurately reflect how readers voted?
I hope that it does.
I don’t think Mike Adams intends harm. I think anyone who dedicates himself to a project like Natural News intends to do good. He can blame the blank page on me, but he’s probably still just embarrassed to admit his story is wrong. It’s embarrassing to make mistakes.
Or maybe he has a hard time letting go of his “mainstream media coverup” conspiracy, which seems to have no evidence other than one missing post which isn’t actually missing. I don’t know. I’d like to hear his response to all of this. And I hope that my fellow Natural News readers will join me in asking Mike to clear things up.
Because when you have to engage in a cover up to preserve your fantasy of a cover up, haven’t you become what you deplore?
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/12/does-natural-news-do-cover-ups/
Supporting Information:
Proof that my correcting comment was removed is available here:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/natural-news-a-correction-cover-up/
Response
Jeff McMahon has contacted NaturalNews.com and received the following response.
The author revised his story.


Discussion Leave a comment
Hi, Jeff--thanks for filing this bug report!
So if I may take the liberty of summarizing what you're saying happened here (and as far as I can see, what did happen):
(1) You changed the timestamp and hence the URL of your radiation post, but Google pointed people to the old URL, which served a blank page
(2) Adams cited this as evidence of a media coverup
(3) You tried to correct the record by leaving comments on his site but they have vanished
(4) Adams hasn't responded to your inquiries.
We'll follow up...
Terrific summary. I should have done that myself. Yes, thank you.
Hello, Mediabugs,
I received a conciliatory note from Mike Adams of Natural News this afternoon and a promise that he would revise his story "as appropriate."
But his revision is hardly appropriate. Now his story claims my story was "restored" after his story was published, as if The Health Ranger is righting publishing injustices.
My story wasn't restored. It never disappeared.
Here's the extremely nice note from Mike Adams, via someone in his office named Holly P:
---
On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Holly P wrote:
Thank you, Jeff. I appreciate your explanation. I will amend our story as appropriate.
Truthfully, none of that was intended as a slam on you at all. I thought your text was outstanding. If my story came off that way, that's my mistake. I figured that Forbes headquarters canned your story, which is what I've seen literally hundreds of times, and I've had editors write me and complain how their stories were canned by the higher ups.
I should also mention that I don't consider Forbes to be part of the "usual suspects" of the mainstream media. That's more like CNN, USA Today, etc. Forbes carries quite a lot of good content that we consistently link to.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Best to you in your continued work. If you write more about Fukushima, I'd be happy to review it and possibly link to it.
Take care,
- Mike Adams
Thanks for the update, Jeff. We haven't heard back from Adams ourselves.
As the filer of the bug you have the choice now to either (a) close it out as "corrected" if you feel the response is satisfactory or (b) leave it open and continue to seek further responses/revisions/corrections from the site. If you choose to leave it open and there's no further action, our system will automatically change it to "closed/unresolved" in 60 days.
Mike Adams went through three revisions and some correspondence with me before he revised his story like this, which is reasonably close to accurate:
"For example, a Forbes blog entitled "Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137..." which contained the text, "Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA..." mysteriously disappeared, leaving just an empty shell of a page in its place. (After we published this article, the page was soon restored, by the way. We were contacted by the author who explained that he typo'd something in the Forbes content system, causing the article to appear blank. So it is accurate that this article mysteriously didn't show up, but the reason behind it thankfully wasn't censorship but rather just a typo. That's a relief because Forbes.com has actually been a solid source for a lot of information about the national debt, economic news and other topics.)"
Even though you didn't hear back from Adams, I only heard back from him after I opened this case with mediabugs.org, so I suspect mediabugs helped prod Natural News toward accuracy. Thank you for that.