Wow, Just Wow
Dean Baquet
told an audience of eager undergraduates last night at Penn State that journalism faces some serious challenges. The managing editor of the
New York Times is concerned that “the craft of witnessing and reporting on the truth will die” and that printing accurately is one of the most difficult aspects in journalism right now. Truth? Let’s lower our sights and begin with something a bit more mundane, such as journalistic bias and viewpoint discrimination, which his newspaper once again
demonstrated this weekend when it castigated anyone who dares to question that the species spontaneously arose. The problem with such people is they question the science, “often getting down to very technical details.” Thankfully the
New York Times has exposed this underhanded ploy.
The problem is that editors such as Baquet don’t even recognize journalistic bias in their own publications, much less do anything about it.
Again, from the previously discussed NRO article:
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is the case that the scientific consensus regarding evolution is wildly off base and that George Gilder is in possession of the secrets of the universe. If that is the case, then the people who need convincing are the professors, not the high-school kids. Attempting to influence the scientific debate by monkeying around with high-school textbooks is like trying to steer an aircraft carrier with a wooden oar. That the creation-science gang is most interested in sharing its ideas with the audiences least intellectually prepared to evaluate them suggests that it is up to no good.
This is the underhanded ploy in question.
Is there some particular reason you ignored this paragraph of the NRO article and have yet to even acknowledge the distinction it makes?
No Scott, you're confusing articles. We're talking about the NYT article, not the NRO article. Go back and read the NYT article and you will understand.
DeleteNo, I'm not confusing articles.
DeleteAre you suggesting NYT article isn't talking about high-school text books? Are you suggesting high-school students are intellectually prepared to evaluate creationist claims about the relevance of very technical details that supposedly refute evolution?
Scott, There aren't any hypotheticals here. The Times *explicitly* stated that "questioning the science" is a "strategy" and that calling for students to “analyze and evaluate” some of the basic principles of evolution is a "back door for teaching creationism."
DeleteCH: Scott, There aren't any hypotheticals here.
DeleteThen the above quote *is* applicable in the case of NYT article as well.
Again That the creation-science gang is most interested in sharing its ideas with the audiences least intellectually prepared to evaluate them suggests that it is up to no good.
That's the strategy, summarized quite nicely.
And, to reiterate...
Perhaps it is the case that the scientific consensus regarding evolution is wildly off base and that George Gilder is in possession of the secrets of the universe. If that is the case, then the people who need convincing are the professors, not the high-school kids.
Feel free to replace George Gilder with, well, anyone, including yourself.
And, please, let's not conflate the idea that you, or anyone else, not haven't convinced professors is the same thing as you not having the opportunity to do so.
If you come up with a better explanation, biologists will listen. That's how science works.
Scotty,
ReplyDeleteBack in the 70's there was a song played on certain FM radio stations. And the chorus was "art for art's sake, but money for God's sake". Ha Ha Ha Ha.........
What's in your wallet? Ha Ha Ha Ha........