This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the . Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under:
Grant number: G02HP30571
Title: Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training for Professionals and Paraprofessionals.
Total award amount: $300,000
Percentage financed with nongovernmental sources:
This information of content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsement be inferred by HRSA or the . Government.
A similar type of review that may be biased is the so-called " puff piece ", a review of "[a product]", film, or event that is written by a sympathetic reviewer or by an individual who has a connection to the product or event in question, either in terms of an employment relationship or other links. For example, a major media conglomerate that owns both print media and record companies may instruct one of its employees in one of its newspapers to do a review of an album which is being released by the conglomerate's record company. Although some journalists may assert their professional independence and integrity, and insist on producing an unbiased review, in other cases, writers may succumb to the pressure and pen a biased "puff piece" which praises the product or event while omitting any discussion of any shortcomings. In some cases, "puff pieces" purport to provide a review of the product or event, but instead merely provide " peacock words " ("An amazing recording"); " weasel words " and tabloid-style filler which is peripheral or irrelevant to assessing the qualities of the product or event ("During the filming, there were rumors that romantic sparks flew between the two co-leads, who were often seen talking together on the set").