…and this is a 
First, read this parody of science journalism. It's the template for just about every science story you'll find in a newspaper, and it's so depressing.
Second, imagine something even worse. Hint: it's the media's coverage of every scientific "controversy" you might think of. It takes a few of the tropes mentioned in the parody, like "shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist" and "quotes from some fringe special interest group of people who, though having no apparent understanding of the subject, help to give the impression that genuine public 'controversy' exists." and "Special interest group linked to for balance" and expand those to fill the allotted space. There is no possibility that a journalist will actually examine the evidence and show which side is clearly bonkers.
For an example of this phenomenon in action, examine this article about a teacher in Modesto, Mark Ferrante, declaring that he will teach intelligent design in biology classes. It's a moist sopping wallow in the so-called middle ground, getting quotes from teachers on both sides of the issue, and making special care to include a theist teacher mumbling platitudes about "Let science tell us what and how. Let religion tell us who and why."
And of course, they go to the Discovery Institute for their story about ID, and set them against the NCSE, as if these two groups have an equal investment in the scientific truth. They do not. Intelligent Design has no credibility, no empirical support, and no reasonable proposals for scientific investigation. When will the media wake up and realize that their constant pushing of a false equivalency is a major factor in feeding this pseudo-controversy?
To top it all off, then they do something quite common that the media parody forgot to include: they included a poll. Of course they did, because that's how you settle an issue in modern journalism…whatever view the majority holds must be true.
Should "intelligent design" be taught in public schools?
Yes, it should be taught in science classes 37%
Yes, but only in religion or culture classes, not in science 18%
No 44%
The school district is taking the correct route and has declared that ID will not be taught. Why can't the local newspapers recognize reality?
Comments
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 27, 2010 1:19 PM
I've seen a lot of stories, not just science reporting, where this is used.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 27, 2010 1:22 PM
Hehe, the picture in the Guardian article does, indeed, appeal to me :D
Dinosaurs and space!
Posted by: ironflange
|
September 27, 2010 1:34 PM
Hmmm, he must have swiped that very template from aitch-you-eff-eff-pee-oh.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 27, 2010 1:35 PM
Yakawow!
"When will the media wake up and realize that their constant pushing of a false equivalency is a major factor in feeding this pseudo-controversy?"
When they can no longer make money off of said pseudo-controversy.
Posted by: vbalbert
|
September 27, 2010 1:38 PM
ARGH! I've been rickrolled!
Sadly, I think this is an example of some of the reasons behind your previous article about US education.
Posted by: Icefog
|
September 27, 2010 1:39 PM
The poll is still open.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 27, 2010 1:39 PM
Yes, I suppose the fact that the NAS and court cases side with the NCSE means nothing, and the DI's lack of any scientific research in the area of ID--they do a little research in evolution via the Biologic Institute--is as good evidence for ID's scienciness as the huge amount of evolutionary research (including their own little bits) is for the NCSE position.
Gag. It's just like Expelled, the very charlatans who feel persecuted are allowed to argue that ID is science after all, with no evidence whatsoever.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: SC OM
|
September 27, 2010 1:57 PM
Well done. Reminds me of this piece which I came across recently: "How to Write about Haiti." It was inspired by "How to Write about Africa."*
*Which contains one of my favorite lines: "Always take the side of the elephant."
Posted by: Ken
|
September 27, 2010 1:58 PM
There's two parts to this item:
1) Case law is pretty clear that ID is NOT science, and a school district CAN decide to exclude ID from the curricula AND do so without showing religious discrimination. A nice summary of the law is at: http://ncseprojects.org/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
2) Why would anybody expect the news media to present the facts when sensationalizing the story makes a story? IF they reported the decision is consistent with case law precedent there would not be a story...perhaps a brief entry somewhere in the back pages, probably nothing. By making the story a controversy--where none should exist (& where none does exist, legally)--they're creating news...including follow-up story/ies. That's what the press does, has always done, and can be expected to continued to do in the future. To expect otherwise is foolish.
Of course, there's a few keen intellectual nitwits fond of ranting on this blog that will stupidly drone about some distorted aspect that has a passing similarity to the facts of the situation. They're fun, and usually provide enough input to allow a pretty good mental health assessment.
Posted by: Ken
|
September 27, 2010 2:08 PM
RE: they included a poll. Of course they did, because that's how you settle an issue in modern journalism…whatever view the majority holds must be true.
THAT--polling--could be a third part.
Be the above remark as it may....The media does polls to guage their customers views, to identify what "answer" their constituency wants to hear/read so they can draft their news accordingly. That's as much or more the motive than to "settle an issue" -- its to ensure they settled it on the correct answer.
Give'm what they want to see.
Its showbiz & they're providing a certain brand of show (like whores).
Posted by: Dr. Drang
|
September 27, 2010 2:09 PM
The Guardian article is cute, but it's a direct copy of this well-linked blog post by Chris Clarke from the beginning of the year.
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
September 27, 2010 2:13 PM
by all means teach ID but usually philosophy isnt taught in high schools
Posted by: Marco
|
September 27, 2010 2:24 PM
P.Z. wrote:
Not only in journalism, but in "polite conversation" as well. Even among "liberals" (for whose limp-wristed, opportunistic, unprincipled politics I feel a growing revulsion only exceeded by the revulsion I feel for repugnicans and reactionaries), there is an unspoken agreement that a more or less sacrosanct "realism" dictates respect for the bastardized "will of the masses" supposedly reflected by polls, which they conveniently forget can be, and are, directed to provide the desired results by how the questions are framed and sampled.
Instead of an intelligent debate among individuals who know the terms of the discussion and the realities behind it, we are forced to live in a realm of lazy-minded, remote-controlled idiocy elevated to the level of "respectable" opinion.
Posted by: rieckg0245
|
September 27, 2010 2:29 PM
Is it any wonder USA science education is ranked somewhere south of 48th worldwide? This is the junk we must waste time discussing.
Posted by: Loreo
|
September 27, 2010 2:46 PM
@Marco
I recently heard somebody say "I think the truth lies in a respectful plurality of beliefs", which is very nice and kind and inoffensive and open-minded and absolutely useless.
It's like that old canard, "aren't scientists supposed to have open minds?" as if the point of science was to refine one's ability to consider any proposition at all.
We're trying to find the truth, and that involves dismissing a whole lot of useless theories as bunk.
Posted by: Ken Pidcock
|
September 27, 2010 2:47 PM
What is pathetic is that the newspaper will receive little criticism from influential voices in the community. Whether it be business leaders, clergy, or politicians, nobody wants to stir the nuts, and so such lunacy remains "controversial". Of course, biology professors will object, but everybody knows how they are.
Posted by: raven
|
September 27, 2010 2:48 PM
That is actually illegal. Since ID is creationism, it violates the 1st amendment. Teachers have been fired for it in a few cases, i.e. John Freshwater.
Of course, teachers get fired for teaching evolution in biology classes in some places. That is illegal too, but that doesn't stop christofascists when they think no one is looking too hard.
Maybe kook Mark Ferrante wants to automartyr himself. Wingnut xians do this occasionally.
Posted by: No One
|
September 27, 2010 2:55 PM
I.D. how does it work?
Truly the insane clown posse.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
September 27, 2010 2:55 PM
I've always wondered, though, what exactly is there to teach about ID? I mean, seriously: "Today, we're going to learn that the Christian God made us exactly like we are today because the Bible says so. Thank you and enjoy the rest of the class period."
There's really not much more to say than that.
Squigit
Posted by: abb3w
|
September 27, 2010 3:40 PM
Hm. Interesting that after Pharyngulation, the poll is solidly "no" - despite the option to include ID in religion/culture classes.
I would think that there ought to be coverage of ID in social studies classes, as an important part of explaining the history of creationism education in the US, and showing how ID is simply the latest attempt of many to put a lab coat and Groucho glasses on religion. How else will students learn to recognize the pattern (creationism, creation science, intelligent design, "teach the controversy", "strengths and weaknesses"...), and thus recognize whatever the next attempt is when it comes along.
Would anyone care to argue why ID should be excluded not merely from Science classes (the sense of which exclusion seems obvious to me), but from Social Studies (which seems not obvious at all)?
Posted by: Crystal
|
September 27, 2010 3:50 PM
My sister teaches college mathematics. Recently she watched a news program that dealt with mathematics and she said everything the reporters said that was math related was wrong. Now she tells me her faith in the news is shaken and she can’t trust them to be telling the truth about subjects she doesn’t know about. So maybe this is a problem for other disciplines. The reporters are not trained in the subjects they are reporting.
Posted by: Nancy New
|
September 27, 2010 3:55 PM
One sad truth is that newspapers as a media are in such economic dire straits that they end up kowtowing to subscribers and advertisers (and the paper ownership, which is increasingly corporate and controlling), and, what's more, are working with smaller and smaller, and younger and less experienced staff, who frrequently get their information from web sources, not from investigative reporting.
Essentially, this means more and more corners are cut, the "editorship" becomes a rubber stamp for the conglomerate that owns the paper, and that the local staff worries about backlash if it offends a vocal community element.
It sucks.
Posted by: Andy Groves
|
September 27, 2010 3:58 PM
When will the media wake up and realize that their constant pushing of a false equivalency is a major factor in feeding this pseudo-controversy?
You are really missing the point. The media do not care if the controversy is justified or not. The controversy is the story. That's it. No controversy, no news. No news, empty pages or air time.
It is much easier to cover the controversy than discuss the science, because controversies are easy and science is hard.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
September 27, 2010 4:24 PM
Crystal, I've had a number of occasions to talk to reporters over the years. I apologize in advance to the RARE exceptions, but as a class they are a depressingly ill-educated, ignorant, incurious lot.
Posted by: Shiden
|
September 27, 2010 4:31 PM
Maybe my school days were different, but for me, Social Studies was a history/geography class, and we didn't cover creation stories, especially not in the context of anything other than discussing myths. ID purports to be SCIENCE (despite being creationism), and since I doubt creationism would be covered in Social Studies in that context, ID should not either.
In a comparative religion class, perhaps (though how common are good CR classes), but in general, NO.
Posted by: Shadow
|
September 27, 2010 4:34 PM
@20:
In a public school system, there usually isn't a religion class. When Shadow-ling was in High School, there wasn't a culture class either. The HS was structured on Maths and Science, so perhaps other schools had a culture class.
Social Studies at Shadow-ling's HS was history oriented, and they didn't teach creationism. They did cover the branches of government so, maybe, you could use the Kitsmiller vs Dover trial as an example of the Constitution trumping a popular fad.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 27, 2010 4:37 PM
Of course, there's a few keen intellectual nitwits fond of ranting on this blog that will stupidly drone about some distorted aspect that has a passing similarity to the facts of the situation. They're fun, and usually provide enough input to allow a pretty good mental health assessment.
Projection.
You suffer from it.
Posted by: James F
|
September 27, 2010 4:39 PM
NPR covered the recent PLoS ONE paper PZ blogged about:
Study: Wind May Have Helped Moses Part Red Sea
Is this The Onion?
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 27, 2010 5:01 PM
re 19:
No, that isn't only what ID teaches, it teaches that science does not work. It teaches that there are things (that exist) that are impossible to figure out. It teaches that there are things "Man is not supposed to know". It teaches not to inquire, to give up if a problem seems too hard. It teaches to accept without question whatever an old book read by an old man tells you. It is far worse than just being wrong it is destructive.
Posted by: radioactivegirl
|
September 27, 2010 5:38 PM
I blogged about this quite a while back, in the context of vaccines and the lack of an association with autism: NFID meeting
I like to think that science writing in the average newspaper or online equivalent will get better. Science writing hadn't been invented when I was in j-school; now there are a few programs.
The reality is that with shrinking revenues, science writers were among the first casualties at the few news outfits that even had designated science writers. It's wrong but all too common for reporters with no science background to field science assignments.
Posted by: seanpboyd
|
September 27, 2010 5:58 PM
Not just that, but many media outlets put profit before accuracy (hence firing journalists while CEO salaries skyrocket and marketing departments grow.) A dispassionate, correct analysis of someone's research doesn't generate page loads or paid subscriptions like good old fashioned sensationalism. In that sense, there's little or no motivation for either the writers or publishers to be accurate.Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
September 27, 2010 6:47 PM
From the side panel in the article PZ linked to, the Disco Institute spin:
WTF? OK... if I.D. isn't supernatural, then exactly what *is* 'goddidit'? Fucking lying assholes. How come people can't see through this obvious smoke and mirrors bullshit?
Posted by: raven
|
September 27, 2010 7:01 PM
So, we are supposed to teach that UFO aliensdidit in science classes?
In point of fact, the DI has given up pretending they are anything but a xian Dominionist front group. Except for tossing out the occasional lie.
Their latest fellow is a fundie xian missionary.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
September 27, 2010 8:25 PM
I actually think that ID should be taught in school, alongside Astrology and Homeopathy in a class designed to help kids recognize horseshit. I'm concerned that people aren't trained to think critically often enough in primary education.
Posted by: eNeMeE
|
September 27, 2010 8:28 PM
That parody wins one (1) internets.
The parody itself was just awesome, but the links just made it win.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 27, 2010 8:36 PM
Yes is does. Still no evidence for their designer/deity. Still lying losers, not getting past Kitzmiller v. Dover....Posted by: monado
|
September 27, 2010 9:19 PM
The poll has fewer than 200 votes for either side, but "Yes" is winning. Do we care? Or do we not want to reward them with hits?
Posted by: tedhohio
|
September 27, 2010 9:31 PM
Lauri Lebo discussed this in her excellent book "The Devil In Dover" with a quote from Science Magazine's Donald Kennedy:
She also quoted Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book "Elements of Journalism":
Nan Austin of the Modesto Bee made the error of consensus. Oh I am sure she means well, but by giving the impression that the NCSE and the DI have the same degree of credibility, or that Evolution and Intelligent Design are on equal footing in the scientific community is just plain wrong!
Posted by: monado
|
September 27, 2010 10:11 PM
If you've ever had anything to do with a news story, you'll be privately dismayed that the reporters do not get it right. Short and snappy is preferred over true.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
September 27, 2010 10:55 PM
Why does journalism suck today? Because those now who laughably call themselves "journalists" went to "journalism schools". Journalists today who cover economics didn't study business or accounting, they studied journalism. Those who cover politics didn't study philosophy or law or poli-sci, they studied journalism. Those who cover science? The same ignorant bunch. These so-called "journalists" almost never know anything about the field of which they write, and have no ability to question or evaluate who they are talking to - they give air time to idiots like Dumbsky or Behe because they don't know any better.
In decades past, journalists (first newspaper, then later radio and TV) never studied journalism. Most often, they studied other fields such as English, law, business, etc. or in the cases of many prominent writers, they never went to college at all and learned on the job as apprentices once did. Rembemer the term, cub reporter? These people learned how to write on the job, and they came to the job with the ability to think.
"Journalism schools" don't teach thinking, they teach editing and presentation. They teach people to be stenographers and filmmakers, not intelligent people asking probing and adversarial questions. Is it any wonder the media and politicos wanted to run Helen Thomas out of the White House press corps on any pretext they could? The only people wanted are those looking to be careerists, those unwilling to ask tough questions.
.
Posted by: tedhohio
|
September 27, 2010 11:05 PM
No dismay, but that's why I made a similar post on the Modesto Bee's story site as well. Maybe, just maybe, a reporter will see it and think about it. I mean Lauri Lebo is a reporter and she is the one who made that point. She is also the one who wrote
Sounds like at least one journalist has learned that lesson and will be doing much more standing up for what she knows to be true.
If you haven't read it, I recommend it. It also discusses the treatment of two other journalists who wrote the truth about the behavior of certain Dover School Board members and then who [the board members] subsequently lied about it under oath.
Ted Herrlich
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com
Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD
|
September 27, 2010 11:43 PM
@ Crystal, #21 and Steve LaBonne #24,
That's a major problem not only with journalism, but with fields such as business. Students learn about journalism or business, not about (for instance) science journalism or the auto industry. As a result, we have people who know how to mechanically write articles about anything (but not about particular topics) or how to run the mechanics of a business (but not any particular industry). We wind up having journalists and businesspeople who don't know anything about what they're working with. The net result is that we have "science" articles like this, and massive auto recalls.
I can't tell you how many times I've had journalism or business majors in my geology, oceanography, or earth science classes who complain about having to take science classes. They simply cannot conceive of how these science classes just might be useful to them in their chosen fields. Yet they might become science journalists, or wind up in the environmental, fossil fuels, mining, shipping, or building industries, all of which would benefit from a knowledge of these sciences. A lot of tunnel vision, there.
Posted by: Lou
|
September 28, 2010 12:41 AM
“WHO IS THIS ALIEN?” This Higher Power In The Universe.
“It seems like many individuals in the world want nothing to do with the Creator of the Universe as if He is some sort of kill-joy, some sort of Tyrant, some sort of myth, or some sort of Alien..........This Higher Power in the Universe.”
There is a book about this Supreme intelligent being titled,
Who Is This Alien ? This Higher Power in the Universe...This Supreme Intelligence.
The book's about Intelligent Design concepts that are based on scientific discoveries. Hence, it is science and logic blending together forever to support the existence of a Supreme intelligent being, somewhere in the heavens. It’s great reading. It's very informative, very enlightening, including the author's personal experiences and visitations with this Supreme Intelligent Being.
The book’s author brings up the subject of evolution. “Concerning evolution, scientists at the Genome project and other scientists have concluded that there is an element of design built into creation that cannot be explained by evolution. No life form, be it a single cell, multiple cells or even evolutionary cells can exist without DNA. Genome scientist and other scientists have concluded that every life form is a product of DNA and the DNA molecule is a product of an intelligent source, a Supreme intelligence.”
Genome scientist, Professor Francis Crick, and other scientists have come to a conclusion that the DNA molecule originated from some alien source in the heavens, some extra-terrestrial source, not from evolution, according to History channel documentary, “The Universe.”
Yes, there is an intelligent life form beyond our galaxy, the 3rd Heaven...Many scientists and individuals are searching the heavens for extra-terrestrial beings; believing by faith that something is out there in the heavens. They will be surprised when this Supreme intelligent being reveals its identity to every scientist at the same time from east to west, north to south ...including every human being on this planet-yes at the same time……….It will not be a secret.
Check out this new book, written in layman’s term, titled, "Who is this Alien? It’s all about this Intelligent being, this supreme intelligent being, creator of the DNA Molecule with all of its genetic instructions and intelligence “ to build you- a product of DNA, a product of the Creator.”
Check it out on Ingram, Amazon, Barnes or
http://www.kingdomcomeforever.ecrater.com
Pass this link to your friends….Let them be enlighten…..Let them be informed….
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkR9tY0etgSW5Xr0ubG_7O6dbShcNd2vQk
|
September 28, 2010 1:40 AM
Speaking of Science journalism - whats happened to the New Scientist here in the UK?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727795.300-beyond-god-and-atheism-why-i-am-a-possibilian.html
This weeks cover story (surely a thinly veiled ID argument?)
http://www.newscientist.com/special/cosmic-accidents-10-lucky-breaks-for-humanity
Sad - it used to be a great magazine...
Posted by: ElitistB
|
September 28, 2010 2:23 AM
This whole "Science cannot tell us who or why" really pisses me off.
Science can answer this question, and it does in remarkable detail. It tells us who created evolution (nobody) and why it happens (biochemistry and population dynamics).
Posted by: captainblack
|
September 28, 2010 5:42 AM
But then as Giordano Bruno tells us:
and we know what happened to him
Posted by: raven
|
September 28, 2010 6:12 AM
That is false a lie. As is everything else in your advertisement. Stringing lies together does not prove god exists and drives Fords. It just proves you are a liar.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
September 28, 2010 10:09 AM
I'm going to make the effort and translate this quote by Russian journalist Leonid Kaganov:
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
September 28, 2010 10:31 AM
I just read all 15 pages of comments in oldest first order. I recommended anything halfway reasonable.
There are creationist twits writing full on essays over multiple posts in there. More real thought and critical comments needed by far!
Posted by: mmelliott01
|
September 28, 2010 10:54 AM
IMO, the *comments* just made it win.
Posted by: radioactivegirl
|
September 28, 2010 12:46 PM
tedhohio: I made the same argument in a blog post last year on the manufactured vaccines-autism "controversy".
In fairness, there are some great science reporters out there; they just don't write for mainstream media.
Don't write off the value of journalism school either. Anyone who has ever tried to explain very complicated and jargon-laden scientific research can appreciate how incredibly difficult it is to translate it into simple ideas and to do that well. A j-school education does help to communicate complicated ideas well (assuming that you understand the science in the first place).
Posted by: tedhohio
|
September 28, 2010 3:09 PM
Dear Radioactive girl,
I know there is some journalists with both expert knowledge and ethics, I just wish there was a more appropriate balance when covering something like Evolution and Creationism. The problem, as you stated is assuming the reporter understands the science in the first place! It's a shame when someone like Jenny McCarthy or Andrew Wakefield receive any coverage at all under the mistaken idea that the two sides of any story are equivilent.
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com
Posted by: Cobolt
|
September 28, 2010 3:17 PM
It's not just the science media, it's all media that put their own spin on any story, simply by using the right/wrong tone, and quoting "sources" that feed the controversy.
My pet peeve with the media is political journalism. Unless the politician has a good report with the journalists every thing they say gets quoted with a sneer or air of disbelief. Instead of stating facts we get barely disguised opinion.
In this regard I believe the media are far too powerful but then how could it be policed?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 28, 2010 8:16 PM
"Two sides"? Many stories have, like, five sides. Many others have only one.
He's lying.
No, really, I mean it. He says what he knows to be false. He's lying.
What Crick suggests is panspermia: the idea that life originated elsewhere, then arrived here in a form that was already Life As We Know It, and then evolved. The reason is that Crick believes, for no good reason, that there wasn't enough time on Earth for life to originate between the origin of the Earth and the oldest known fossils.
What Crick does not suggest is creationism: the idea that life originated no matter where and has not (or almost not) changed since.
To put words into people's mouths is... really not a good idea.
To cite the History Channel when talking about science is... really not a good idea either.
I'm trying to say you should be embarrassed. Deeply embarrassed.
That's actually a good thing. Imagine if journalists credulously believed everything that even only half of all politicians told them! All media would look like Faux Noise.
Posted by: elzoog
|
September 29, 2010 12:00 AM
The problem is, even if I believed in Christianity it doesn't really tell me why. Sure God in the form of Jesus may have created the world. But why create this one as opposed to one that is populated by Vulcans or Klingons? Why is there an Earth with people as opposed to an all water planet with intelligent squids? Christianity doesn't really answer that question. Because of God's love? Well, if God can love human beings, why couldn't he love squids?
It seems the only answer Christians have to this sort of question is, "Because God did it."
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 29, 2010 1:23 AM
Francis Crick (and Leslie Orgel) did not believe that. They suggested that there might be a problem with life originating on Earth, and that directed panspermia would be a reasonable possibility in that circumstance.
Crick, F and Orgel, L. Directed Panspermia. Icarus, v19, 341-346 (1973)
They were indulging in extreme speculation, and they were both aware of this, especially later in the context of reviewing purely terrestrial abiogenesis research.
Posted by: Triskelethecat
|
September 30, 2010 8:24 AM
Well, Lou, #43, the author is very wrong in another statement:
Viruses do not have DNA. They have RNA and they are life forms.
Sorry. Fail. Bye.