I think that pointing out the difference between correlation and causality is quite valid, because the writers of Slate fall into the same trap as other columnists and journalists: They fail to present this distinction more often than not, leaving causality as the implicit message.

It's a journalistic responsibility to present the entire truth present to the journalist, and failing to provide the antithetical perspective is something Slate has increasingly little problem with.

So criticizing the Fray readers savvy enough to point out glaring flaws in journalistic technique feels less like pointed, intellectual exercise, and more like complaining that the public might have a better bead on issues than the writers and eds would prefer.

We're allowed to police our press, and the apparent contempt shown for this process is quite disheartening.

Kev -

Not to worry - you can't irk these eds.

You know the TV commercial about the "big" bankers and the "small" business loan applicants?

It's kinda like that.

How silly of me, Nairobi, you're right.

We're "small people," and our opinions don't matter. Not until we are allowed to plaster our misinformation and get paid for it are we truly equal.

Good job on the contempt for the people who pay your bills, Slate. Enjoy pseudo-reporting.