Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I had to laugh a few days ago when I read this post by Denyse O'Leary about the NCSE's Expelled Exposed site:
What is the cultural significance of the sheer dullness of National Center for Science Education's Expelled attack site?Is this their idea of an attack site?
Rows and rows of links to the usual suspects who have every reason not to like the film's message, offering the usual denials and denunciations.
Maybe an Expelled philanthropist should give them a grant to spice it up. After all, their site will be no use for Expelled publicity unless they come up with something better.
But wait ... maybe they can't come up with something better. Does that mean they are losing the culture war?
O'Leary succeeds here only in revealing her own lack of reading comprehension skills. Yes, the site was originally just a list of links to other sites, including my debunking of the Sternberg fake martyrdom case. But there was a very clear note right there on the front page notifying visitors that this was just temporary and that the full substantive contents would be revealed on April 15th.
So was O'Leary lying? Or is she merely inattentive? I have no way of knowing. Either way, she looks pretty ridiculous now that the whole site has been revealed. The front page includes a video about Chris Comer, the former Director of Science for the Texas Education Agency; unlike all of the examples of alleged persecution in Expelled, Comer actually was fired solely for taking a position her bosses didn't like.
The core of the site is really this page, which links to specific debunkings of nearly every claim in the movie. The response to the claims about Richard Sternberg is based largely on my detailed response to the Souder report. A slightly modified version of that response will be published in the next issue of Skeptic magazine and will be released later this week on the eSkeptic mailing list and on the Skeptic website. Over the next few days, I'll be taking a look at the other claims of alleged persecution in the film in more detail.
Comments
Ed, it's April 15th. =)
Although I have to agree with the assessment that the Expelled Exposed site is rather boring.
The irony is that the ID sycophants can't get past the style and actually look at the substance.
Posted by: FastLane | April 16, 2008 9:51 AM
I saw my first trailer for Exposed the other night on TV. It was the most obnoxious piece of shit I've seen in a while. Pretentious teacher in the front of a classroom talking about Evolution, when Ben Stein interrupts smugly from the back of the classroom, "Yes, but how did life actually begin?" Cut to teacher making a mad temper-tantrum face but unable to respond.
I wanted to throw my remote through the television screen.
Posted by: Chris Berez | April 16, 2008 10:12 AM
Unfortunately, the Exposed site fell under the weight of heavy traffic and resorted to the basic site we've already seen. I checked out the proper site while it was up yesterday and it's much better looking with detailed rebuttal of the lies in the film and the lies of the people behind the film.
Posted by: bub | April 16, 2008 10:20 AM
This has become THE standard right-wing "response" to substantive criticism: shout down the critics with constant references to "old" or "predictable" they are. As if "predictability" is suddenly a sin in itself. All they can do is dumb down the debate with infantilizing nonsense.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 16, 2008 10:24 AM
Here's a telling remark:
Is this their idea of an attack site?
See, she's already setting it up as an "attack", when actually it should be viewed as a "counterpoint site". Maybe she's expecting it to be something like the site Dumbski set up to attack Judge Jones's Dover Decision, complete with farting video. What she apparently fails to realize is that the NCSE is actually run by adults. In the adult world, it's what you say that counts, not how you say it.
Too bad the adult world has so few inhabitants these days.
Posted by: ShavenYak | April 16, 2008 10:26 AM
On a slightly related note about Expelled, I'm a bit concerned about where I'm seeing and hearing ads for this movie.
There's a commercial featuring Ben Stein that's getting played regularly during the Daily Show and the Colbert Report every night on Comedy Central. It reminds me of that anti-evolution Jack Chick tract, with the evil, closed-minded professor who punishes poor free-thinking Ben for daring to question evolution in the classroom (and even here the question is terrible; he asks about the origin of life, which is not addressed by the theory of evolution). You can see the 2-minute trailer for Expelled on YouTube, but the 30-second commercial on Comedy Central excises everything except Ben asking the professor about the origin of life, and then being ejected from the classroom for "making a movie." All mentions of intelligent design and clips of the scientists who were supposedly persecuted are removed.
Also, I've been listening to Air America talk radio, which features several liberal talk radio hosts. And I'm continuing to hear the same radio ad for Expelled over and over (you can listen to it on YouTube). For extra irony points for an ad running on liberal talk radio, it mentions how the movie is endorsed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved. And the movie opens on "Freedom Friday!"
(I'm not the only one who noticed this; see another blog post that I commented on here.)
So I'm puzzled why they're running these ads during programs that normally draw a substantial liberal/anti-rightwing audience. The ads do try to portray the movie as an anti-establishment, free-thinker rebellion to the oppression of evil "Big Science," exclusively focusing on how scientists are being "silenced, denied tenure, and, even fired." And there's no mention of intelligent design at all.
So I guess it's a snow job to convince the knee-jerk anti-establishment liberals to see a movie that's supposedly also anti-establishment, but is actually a vehicle for right-wing anti-science propaganda. I hope it's not working.
Posted by: Big C | April 16, 2008 11:00 AM
Shaven Yak says:
"In the adult world, it's what you say that counts, not how you say it."
Not true if you want to be understood. How is very important nowadays. This is obviously troubling and exciting in a time of new types of media. As far as reaching younger people goes the how is more critical than ever in my opinion. Vernacular is very, very important. I even had a student say that yesterday. Art and propaganda need to be balanced in any message. By propaganda I use the generic meaning of message. I think art is more important than message right now. The art(meaning painting, journalism, music ...) has to be excepted then the message can get through. Just an opinion but I think a true one.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 16, 2008 11:05 AM
No farty flash animation --> Boring site.
Posted by: Tom Ames | April 16, 2008 12:15 PM
I think expelled exposed being flashy would be a bad thing.
The only concern I really have with the site right now is it isn't exactly to the point. You have to click at least twice to get to any content, and someone stumbling onto the site at random wouldn't know which two clicks to perform. It looks like it's probably a good resource for someone already likely to disagree with "Expelled" and needing precooked debunking, but I wouldn't feel comfortable, say, putting this website on a flyer and handing it out to random strangers, because I get the feeling they'd take one look at the front page, not be sure where to go from there, and wander off.
Posted by: Coin | April 16, 2008 12:16 PM
"In the adult world, it's what you say that counts, not how you say it."
I couldn't disagree more.
speaking as someone who has done web development in academia for several years, i can say that i agree with denyse on several points (evolution and secularism are not among them, of course).
first, "expelled exposed" is not a good attack site. while the content may now be a little more substantial, the organization and information layout is counter-intuitive and dull. regardless of how useful or informative the content is, its presentation is unfortunate.
the second point i think we can all agree with, at least on some level: where culture wars exist - regardless of whether there is a manufactroversy like ID - science and atheism are losing on many fronts. since creationists do not have a seat at the table, they naturally go directly to the internet, and poor lots of money into well-designed sites that entice the public. lawrence krauss is right in this regard: it doesn't matter how well your data is cited if you won't take the time and effort to present it to the public in a clean and understandable manner.
as a member of ncse, i hope they find a way to spend more time on the presentation and organization of their information, since this is such a critical part of educating the public on these issues.
PZ, I think sites like yours (and RD's) could be a good place to start discussion on how to organize people who have the right skill sets for this kind of work.
Posted by: R | April 16, 2008 12:46 PM
and by "PZ", of course, I meant Ed. :)
Posted by: R | April 16, 2008 1:15 PM
Posted by: tincture | April 16, 2008 1:27 PM
Given the heavy efforts to market the movie to the religious community, it is really odd that they now believe advertising during The Daily Show and the Colbert Report is going to work. Seems to me like another case of bad judgment by Premise Media. The demographics of the viewers of these shows compared with, say, Fox News, shows them to be younger, more intelligent and more liberal -- i.e. just about the last group of people to be taken in by Expelled.
Premise Media are idiots.
Posted by: tacitus | April 16, 2008 2:31 PM
I have some otherwise liberal friends who are sympathetic to Intelligent Design because they have bought into the idea that "it's only fair to allow both sides to be heard." They agree that Creationism is wrong, but that makes no difference.
Unfortunately, arguing for science as a process with high standards doesn't work: first, because they already embrace alternative medicine and its anti-establishment view that Big Science is a close-minded conspiracy; and second, because they are spiritual. Since we already know that we know things through faith, shouldn't science be able to accept and include what we already know? An atheist like me, of course, would not be expected to understand or respect this.
Very frustrating.
Posted by: Sastra | April 16, 2008 2:49 PM
tacitus said:
The demographics of the viewers of these shows compared with, say, Fox News, shows them to be younger, more intelligent and more liberal -- i.e. just about the last group of people to be taken in by Expelled.
Yeah, but the 30-second commercial seems designed to dupe people into seeing the movie by pushing the "Evil Big Science" angle. As I said above, I think there is a knee-jerk anti-establishment sentiment in many liberals that could be exploited by these ads. "Evil Big Science" sounds a lot like "Evil Big Pharma" or "Evil Corporations." This sounds vaguely anti-establishment and anti-rightwing enough that it could draw in at least some uninformed people on opening weekend.
The commercial is so vague that it doesn't even mention intelligent design or God directly. If you're not aware it's an anti-science propaganda movie, and you don't google it, it might even look like a documentary in similar style to Michael Moore's movies based solely on seeing this ad. Of course, these folks will be sorely disappointed after seeing the movie, but Expelled might get a boost on opening weekend.
I admit this seems unlikely it would actually make a big impact, but it seems at least a plausible rationale from Premise Media's POV. I'm just annoyed I have to see and hear these ads while watching and listening to shows I enjoy.
BTW, tacitus, are you the same tacitus who comments on David Brin's blog? Nice to see ya here.
Posted by: Big C | April 16, 2008 2:59 PM
Nice video showing Stein in all his idiocy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
Posted by: Taz | April 16, 2008 3:12 PM
Chris Berez: ...Ben Stein interrupts smugly from the back of the classroom, "Yes, but how did life actually begin?" Cut to teacher making a mad temper-tantrum face but unable to respond.
If the ad played out the way the movie reportedly does, the teacher would suggest the Cairns-Smith hypothesis, and Stein would exclaim, "Mud!?"
Posted by: Grumpy | April 16, 2008 4:49 PM
"Is this their idea of an attack site?"
That line just really grabbed my attention... it's like she fails to see the difference between a response in a discussion (counter argument made with evidence and reference) and lashing out against an opponent (try to call character into question without engaging in substantive discourse).
On another level, I see it as a snobbish sneer at how ameteurish she considers the NCSE's 'attempt' at an attack based on how she thinks these 'debates' should go... as if the lack of flashy designs, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and non sequitors means her opponents are weak.
Posted by: dreamer | April 16, 2008 7:45 PM
I was watching Discovery Channel and that Ben Stein commercial came on ... I threw up a little in the back of my throat, especially with the "that must be one hell(heck?) of a movie" line.
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 16, 2008 8:34 PM
Damn straight! Chris Comer has every reason to hate the theory that it's the poor theists who are getting sacked by Big Bad Atheistic Science. Ken Miller has every reason to detest the false dichotomy between science and religion. PZ Myers has every reason to object to the way he was lied to, misrepresented and then excluded from the screening. Abraham Foxman has every reason to correct the misrepresentations about the history of Nazism. Even Jonathan Coddington has good reason to set the record straight about how Richard Sternberg's office relocation had nothing to do with anything he'd published or tried to publish.
Everyone who has been lied about, lied to, or ignored because their work (or even mere existence) disproves the whacked-out conspiracy theory has good reason not to like the film's message.
Posted by: Pseudonym | April 16, 2008 9:58 PM
The line that jumped out at me was "Does that mean they are losing the culture war?" Oops, there they go again - confessing that ID is all about the culture wars and not just a scientific debate.
Posted by: ScottH | April 17, 2008 10:40 PM