Journalist would feel challenged if expected to report on evidence for design in nature?
|March 23, 2012||Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Media, News|
In “Never Before” (New York Times Opinionator Blogs, March 21, 2012), Linda Greenhouse graciously allows us to know,
“Journalistic convention requires that when there are two identifiable sides to a story, each side gets its say, in neutral fashion, without the writer’s thumb on the scale. This rule presents a challenge when one side of a controversy obviously lacks merit. But mainstream journalism has learned to navigate those challenges, choosing evolution over “intelligent design,” for example, and treating climate change naysayers as cranks.
In other words, they are bigots without the bigot’s most plausible excuse of unavoidable ignorance.
They would like nothing better than to be free of the constraint. Some of us have heard science journalists actually say that.
To which one can only say, you go, girl: Shout your actual state of ignorance of why there are two sides to these controversies, unhindered by your self-imposed conventional shackles. Shout it out, shout it loud. Into the trees and telephone wires. Use your medium as a bully pulpit.
Did you imagine for a minute that we didn’t all know all along what you think? Could you possibly have gotten or kept your position if you didn’t join the pack bark?
Science journalism is crammed to bursting with this kind of self-righteous delusion, sad to see in intelligent people.