NYT's Report on the Xiao-Fang case is tantamount to fraud on the public
Dear New York Times,
ANDREW JACOBS' report at the following link is near fraudulent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/world/asia/12briefs-DOCTOR.html?_r=1
As I informed NYT previously, it was Dr. Xiao who exposed Fang's plagiarism
first. Yet, NYT omits this crucial event in the causal chain again, and only mentions
Fang's attacks on the Xiao procedure . A reasonable reader of NYT may infer
that the sole possible cause of the beating incident was Fang's criticism.
But that's not necessarily true if the whole history is offered.
As reported by the media, Dr. Xiao stated that Fang is not qualified to judge
his work (which earned $2.51 million NIH funding), Dr. Xiao stated that he wanted to
teach Fang a lesson for insulting Dr. Xiao's wife and mentor.
If NYT is really interested in the Xiao-Fang story, it should speak the truth.
Other reporters have been more objective-- they start the story from Dr. Xiao
exposing Fang and Fang spending years to track Xiao.
Any attempt to spread misinformation will be futile in the internet age.
SIGNED
|
