Home » Culture, Darwinism, Media, News » Journalist would feel challenged if expected to report on evidence for design in nature?

Journalist would feel challenged if expected to report on evidence for design in nature?

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.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to Journalist would feel challenged if expected to report on evidence for design in nature?

  1. creationism for many is based on Christian belief in the bible.
    So they are saying the bible is not true.

    Is that so?!

    The only job for a journalist covering this subject is to be neutral.
    What they do they know?
    Are they sharp enough to understand these things?

    I don’t care what they think as they are useful only for being the conduit to the public.
    Yet I find they are involved and are making a case for the public.
    They have a dog in the fight.

  2. 2

    And some people STILL scoff at the notion of bias in the “mainstream” media?!?!

    Soooo, what could those two ‘theories’ that Miss Greenhouse mentions have in common that would make an alleged journalist call those who oppose them, “cranks”?

    Oh that’s right: Both are required to help implement eugenics.

    If people are just accidents of nature, then killing off those deemed “weak” or “unfit” is no problem, ESPECIALLY if people are the cause of global warming/climate change.

Leave a Reply