Saturday, March 26, 2005

Heh

Libertyordeath, a diarist over at Kos, has a good post on The Scientific American's decision to come out swinging in an editorial in their April edition. Excerpts include the following:

"Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence."

and

"Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong."

Good stuff; no one can snark like pissed off scientists. Sadly, the editorial is unlikely to open many eyes. Corporate media has made the decision to present entertainment rather than information, since it's far more profitable. The politicians....well, you know. And as for the true believers? This is like explaining the principles of buoyancy to witch-dunkers; the best you can hope for are blank stares.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home




see web stats