- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 3,802
- Reaction score
- 1,541
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And so be it. My sincere thanks for your consideration and your civility.I do apologize but I simply do not agree with you on anything you stated.
I do have another point to raise. You might find it more compelling.
One of my grievances about the rise of editorializing in newspapers, news magazines, and now (apparently) science magazines is that the publishers are insulting the intelligence of the readership, possibly without realizing it. They're no longer willing to simply present a set of facts (e.g. "global warming model predicts X", "development timelines on 6 COVID vaccines", "quantum computer breaks record", "EPA study shut down due to lack of funding", etc.) and let the readers, with their unique experiences and backgrounds, reach their own reasonable conclusions on the moral, political, and personal implications of these facts.
Frankly, even a publication's choice of what stories to run and not run, what facts to include and not include, what authority to cite and not cite, grants the editors enormous editorial license to manipulate the thinking of the readership without any overt editorializing.
But this wasn't enough for hack newspapers, and then mainstream newspapers and news magazines, and now even 175-year-old institutions like SA. No, too many of their readers were too stupid to reach the conclusions they ought to be reaching. They needed to be helped along, rules be damned. So publishers started putting in more editorial pieces, more op eds, and more guest columns. When that didn't produce the desired result, they started injecting innuendo into their fact pieces. "A study released by the IPCC concludes that AGW was a likely contributor to California 2019 wildfires" became "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. Many experts suggest that the worst effects of AGW could be mitigated through carbon taxes. Just sayin'."
When that wasn't enough, they gave up the subtlety of innuendo, "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. America desperately needs carbon taxes. Carbon taxes and green energy subsidies will save America." And now that this too has (surprise, surprise) failed to persuade everybody, and public trust in the media is in the toilet, it appears that some of America's once most treasured, respected pillars of the Fourth Estate--including the NYT, CNN, Time, et al., and possibly also SA--have abandoned their mandate of journalistic objectivity entirely and are openly instructing readers how to cast their ballots. "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. So vote for Joe Biden. Joe Biden loves science. Text VOTEJOE to #55555 and get $5 off your next Scientific American subscription."
Every step of the way, they've been silently screaming at the people who bother to digest their publications: "You're too stupid to know what to think, what to conclude, or how to vote, hence we're going to tell you. Here you go, bozo."
And after taking a torch to their objectivity, their professional ethics, their reputations as neutral conveyors of information, they wonder why the public (a.k.a. their stupid readers) don't value their input any more than 10,000 other blogs, politicians, experts, and celebrities, all of who have equally strong opinions about public policy.
So unless SA repents of this wrong-headed suspension of their 175-year-old standards and ethics, I say to their editors: watch your credibility and people's trust in your objectivity go right down the crapper along with the rest of the MSM. I hope it was worth the 30 pieces of silver.
Last edited: