![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Pharyngula: What is wrong with journalists?:
Liberal philosophers in America have long rejected post-modernism, particularly the idea that all viewpoints are valid, realizing (once again) that there is such a thing as objective fact and arguable truth, and that while things may have to be individually translated through a personal frame of reference, that does not make the object of discussion inherently "unreal" nor "the result of all unique perspectives combined" as was argued decades ago.
Instead, now, conservatives have embraced post-modernism, along with hijacking the catch-words of the Enlightenment like "fairness" and "freedom", where it has become the only means by which they can challenge scientifically-supported world-views that have repeatedly discarded "box" after "box" of God-driven explanations for natural phenomena, including social and psychological behaviors. The "all viewpoints are valid" is the only argument method they have left to keep their tiny, limited version of God on the table of discussion, and by that, maintain the political control they have created in the last 40 years of lies and deceptions. (Along with this, they continue to push the idea that they speak for all "Christians" - Dobson got very annoyed this week when Obama called him on that particular lie.)
Post-modernism is now no longer the progressive, somewhat radical method of understanding the differing views of aesthetics (which is what it was developed for), but instead the reactionary means by which many long-discarded and discredited ideas continue to thrive among populations ill-equipped in education to recognize the lies for the truth. That the same factions are also actively involved in systematically destroying the educational system to keep it that way is even worse, but a different issue.
By assuming that the "fairness" doctrine philosophically fits with "all viewpoints are valid" post-modernism, the "liberal" media has continued to give the conservatives far more credence and has been manipulated by them to the point where they are now the leaders of the media.
The media does not need to follow their lead, because it is absolutely a lead backwards, every step they take.
Here's another example of godawful stupid journalism, this time from the New York Times. Academics in Philadelphia have done a wonderful thing: they have organized a Year of Evolution to celebrate the Darwin year; I praised this before, and it really is an excellent, positive way to celebrate and inform about science. (I should also mention that I've been invited to come speak in November. This is not necessarily why it is such a good event.) This is a fantastic opportunity for people in that region to learn about the amazing progress science has made in the last century and a half.[emph mine] It gets worse - the article writers decided to get a comment from "the other side", by picking downright insane Ken "6000 year old earth" Ham - yeah, in order to get the "ID" side they actually go to a pure-hack ignore all evidence ever creationist who doesn't even like the ID idea 'cause it's not "god" enough for him. Sheesh...
How does the NY Times article start? "In the long-running culture war between evolution and creationism, Philadelphia is firing the latest shot."
What?
I'm wondering…when St Patrick's Cathedral opens its doors on Sunday morning, will there be journalists there covering the latest assault in the war on reason? Would they even think to phrase it that way? When scientists gather, though, and try to present their work to the community … that's fighting a war.
If the newspaper was writing an article on the serious sociological and political issues of creationism, evolution, and education, then sure — bring in many sides, explore them, and weigh them, and try to come to a conclusion. Unfortunately, there are two observations that invalidate the editor's defense.Anyone who calls The Times "Liberal" media has no clue what the hell they're talking about. They may take a liberal bent in personality politics, but in matters of science and religion, they're perfectly willing to give the self-proclaimed speakers for religion all the unchallenged privilege in the world.
One is that even in those instances where the topic warrants the inclusion of these multiple perspectives, journalists tend to just let them lie there, limp and unresolved. We have scientists and we have creationists, they disagree with one another, we can't resolve this issue, we can't suggest that maybe one side is the province of insanity and ignorance, we're just reporters for the NY freaking Times. There is no investigation, only the bland, blinkered recitation of each side's position.
The other problem is that in both the cases of the Philadelphia Darwin celebration and the discovery of Tiktaalik, the creationist side had nothing of substance to contribute, other than sullen, unfounded disagreement. Denial is not an argument. The newspaper does a disservice to work that has heft to it, that has a solid foundation of serious evidence behind it, when they take any event on the side of reason and reflexively pair it with some cretin who has nothing but a dogmatic denial of science and reason as his credentials.
It seems to me that that is not what a serious paper would do.
Liberal philosophers in America have long rejected post-modernism, particularly the idea that all viewpoints are valid, realizing (once again) that there is such a thing as objective fact and arguable truth, and that while things may have to be individually translated through a personal frame of reference, that does not make the object of discussion inherently "unreal" nor "the result of all unique perspectives combined" as was argued decades ago.
Instead, now, conservatives have embraced post-modernism, along with hijacking the catch-words of the Enlightenment like "fairness" and "freedom", where it has become the only means by which they can challenge scientifically-supported world-views that have repeatedly discarded "box" after "box" of God-driven explanations for natural phenomena, including social and psychological behaviors. The "all viewpoints are valid" is the only argument method they have left to keep their tiny, limited version of God on the table of discussion, and by that, maintain the political control they have created in the last 40 years of lies and deceptions. (Along with this, they continue to push the idea that they speak for all "Christians" - Dobson got very annoyed this week when Obama called him on that particular lie.)
Post-modernism is now no longer the progressive, somewhat radical method of understanding the differing views of aesthetics (which is what it was developed for), but instead the reactionary means by which many long-discarded and discredited ideas continue to thrive among populations ill-equipped in education to recognize the lies for the truth. That the same factions are also actively involved in systematically destroying the educational system to keep it that way is even worse, but a different issue.
By assuming that the "fairness" doctrine philosophically fits with "all viewpoints are valid" post-modernism, the "liberal" media has continued to give the conservatives far more credence and has been manipulated by them to the point where they are now the leaders of the media.
The media does not need to follow their lead, because it is absolutely a lead backwards, every step they take.
