[a123b456c]

I have numerous experiences being quoted by NPR reporters. I have regularly observed them to deliberately frame stories to interest their audience (as I believe they should). In this case, if the reporter claims poisoning without sufficient evidence, the reporter and their employer will be attacked. If the reporter provides no plausible explanation, the story will be found wanting.

[Amezarak]

I think actively claiming poisoning is too far. You don't have to do that to not present the story as Problem Solved with a neat little bow tied; I just think like GP there's probably not a really serious evaluation of the underlying issues that led us here, and it's going to crop up again and again in different ways, maybe not tumeric explicitly if monitoring continues.

FWIW I've also been quoted by reporters before, and was really upset. They framed what I was saying to mean exactly the opposite of what I was saying, I assume because it fit the story better - I am 100% certain they understood me at the time, because the full context of my remarks made it very clear and we had a long conversation. So I don't lend much credence anymore to things like "what did the people interviewed in this story actually think about anything."