Telling “both sides”

This may be a bit over the top, but it does rather point out what is in effect done when journalists lazily present “both sides” of issues that don’t really have two sides, at least not two sides that are anywhere in the same universe as far as scientific validity:

I do rather think that they could have found a better example for “Western” versus “alternative” medicine. That part of the video was actually pretty dumb and, quite frankly, painfully unfunny. Come on! A Hulda Clark parody, where the alt-med practitioner claims that all cancer is caused by a liver fluke and that it can be cured by a crappy little machine that looks like a Scientology E-meter would have been plenty ridiculous–and it would have had the virtue of being a real example.

ADDENDUM: Apparently the video’s posting this week was a mistake:

Once again, I learn the lesson that I really need to try and coordinate my blogs with the Bosses. I discovered after sending out my last entry that ROBIN VS. THE BOMB wasn’t supposed to post this week. They had scheduled a skit called BOTH SIDES that we shot a while back. But Zach and James weren’t happy with some of the green screen effects and decided to bump it to next week.

May I suggest that SMBC take this opportunity to reshoot part of the video in order to remove the middle portion of the video and replace it with something not so painfully unfunny? The video would be much improved and make its point a lot better. There’s a potentially hilariously spot-on video in there. It needs some work to bring it out, though.