He's not immune from using language to suit his arguments though.
Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of time for George Monbiot, but he does have axes to grind.
Here's an example.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/06/19/not-what-it-says-on-the-tin/
This article denigrates baby milk manufacturers (mostly correctly) but includes the statement
"A poll by Mori for the National Childbirth Trust found that around a third of women had received the impression that infant formula was “as good as” or “better than” breastmilk"
the implication being that a third of women believed that infant formula was as good as breastmilk.
Yet isn't this treating us, and particularly women as idiots?
Just because 1/3rd of women had recieved the impression implanted from capitalist interests, this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of women believe that infant formula is as good as breastmilk.
Bad choice of language? or a deliberate misuse of statistics?
|