Disco. Inst.: We're like O.J. and Michael Jackson

Surely the Disco. Inst.'s Rob Crowther doesn't want to cast ID in the role of a murderer or a pedophile, but the parallel is inescapable in his latest whinge about NOVA's Judgment Day (airing next Tuesday on PBS):

First they dramatized the O.J. Simpson trial. Then they acted out Michael Jackson’s courtroom drama. This time around we have NOVA reenacting parts of the 2005 Dover intelligent design trial presided over by Judge John E. Jones.

Later, Crowther complains that the DI wanted to be in the show, but couldn't because, well, let's let them explain:

Initially, when we agreed to sit for interviews, as long as we could monitor and record the interviews, NOVA agreed. …

[NOVA offered to provide a copy of the interview, with these conditions]

DI agrees that any use of such recordings will be limited to DI's commenting upon or reviewing the NOVA program or other related internal DI uses, and shall not be used for purposes unrelated to commenting upon the specific NOVA program, such as but not limited to, fundraising, lobbying, general advocacy, or in any publicly exhibited media.

Crowther concludes that:

Clearly, NOVA didn’t want to be held accountable. If they weren’t planning to slice and dice the interviews, then why not let us record them? If you've nothing to hide, why refuse to allow complete transcripts to be made available?

Of course, if Crowther just intended to be able to review and comment on the show, there would be no problem. It's only an issue if the Discoers wanted to be able to use the NOVA video in fundraising, lobbying or other publicity. NOVA clearly didn't mind being held accountable, they just don't want to give free B-roll to culture warriors.

More like this

There's a Simpsons episode where Bart manages to make tons of cash off of Homer by betting on the outcome of (IIRC) the chariot race in Ben Hur. "He has to lose eventually," is roughly Homer's response when asked to explain why he'd keep betting on the losing horse. I keep thinking of that scene…
Mike has some astute observations about the Disco. Inst.'s Dissent from Darwinism List. Noting that Rob Crowther claims: Signers of the Dissent List have signed the list because it is their professional opinion that the evidence is lacking for the claims for the ability of random mutations and…
I want to add a point to my response to the Disco. Inst.'s claim that TFN's survey of Texas biology teachers is a "push-poll" and "jackbooted thuggery." That language is unbecoming and unprofessional, but we have all come to expect that from the Discovery Institute. It is also hypocritical. I…
"If it does not fit, you must acquit" Circumstances can create consequences. If Homer Simpson happens to be opening and closing his mouth in a chewing motion and happens to run into a lemon meringue pie, and thusly happens to eat said pie, it is not Homer Simpson's fault that the pie is eaten…

I'm beginning to suspect these people doublespeak in their sleep. "NOVA offered to supply us with the unedited interview footage, so clearly they didn't want to be held accountable."

Their explanation for why they didn't want to be interviewed is quite analagous to their whole stance on (not) doing and publishing science. They won't play by the rules everyone else has to, because clearly the rules are always specifically rigged to screw them.

Sometimes I'm amazed anyone falls for their garbage. Then I'm not. And then I'm sad.

It would be easy for someone watching Judgement Day and seeing Bill Buckingham's and Alan Bonsell's dishonesty to conclude that lying is common practice among Creationists. Spokesmen for the DI would prove them right. I don't recall any of those clowns whining when PBS aired that atrocity Unlocking the Mystery of Life a while back; yet that show didn't merely slice and dice, it played Manson Family with the facts.