Cell Phone Stigma and the Media Bias

As many of you know, I was involved in the wireless phone industry for 10 years so this issue is one I've followed for some time. The AP is reporting the results of a study in Denmark which tracked cell phone useage by 420 THOUSAND cell phone users, 52 THOUSAND of whom have been using cell phones for 10 years or more and guess what they found? In a comparison to the Danish Cancer Registry which lists all cases of cancer in Denmark, they found that those who use cell phones are no more or less likely to develop cancer of any type.

It's funny that I had to go searching for this information on the net and its not being covered as a segment of consumer news on any of the evening broadcasts in the area. On the other hand, when the ONE study (which has never been successfully replicated, by the way) showed a possible link between cell phone use and brain cancer, there wasn't a broadcast or newspaper that didn't prominently cover the story.

One of these TV "journalists" here in the NY area even "covered" the story by interviewing a sales clerk in a cell phone store about what phones offered the most "protection". The clerk, knowing that the Motorola Startac was the hottest phone at the time, offering the highest commission at the time, promptly demonstrated how the flip opened and "blocked" the rays because it was between the ear and the antenna. Asa took this as fact and reported it as such.

A review of the FCC website, where all manufacturers are required to submit their radiation testing results showed that of all phones sold in the US at the time, the Motorola Startac had the HIGHEST radiation although still within FCC acceptable levels. This was information that was easily gathered (as was the fact that the World Health Organization funded cell phone radiation research and was unable to produce any other study showing a positive link between cell phones and cancer) on the Internet. Any good reporter would have accessed this information to balance out the report.

To date, none of this has been reported in the popular press. I note this for two reasons. First, it's an area that I am knowledgeable in and can easily dispute the public misconceptions with factual research readily available. Secondly, and more importantly, it shows that the press is not unbiased and is most certainly writing with an agenda.

Given their bias in that, what else is so wildly slanted? "Information" on the effectiveness of tax cuts in raising government revenues? Global warming? "Total failure" in Iraq? You be the judge.