![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Admitting it and not realizing its a problem...
I'm not naming names here, neither of the paper nor the reviewer, but one of the Expelled reviews focused on the factual claim by PZ and others about how they were told the film was an objective study called "Crossroads" when in fact the film was released as Expelled, and that name had been chosen LONG BEFORE the interviews actually took place (with the interviewees still being told it was called "Crossroads".
The author gave the movie's screenwriter the last word on the subject, "The best they can come up with is that we changed the title? Gosh, let's get real and talk about the issues."
Naturally, this was 1) an attempt to spin the subject and make it seem like the scientists hadn't addressed the issues (a quick google search could show that to be false), and 2) a direct lie, because they hadn't "changed the title", they'd lied about the title to the scientists involved from the beginning (also verifyable by checking PZ's and Dawkin's blog entries on the subject).
So I wrote to complain about the way it was presented in the article and how it "shouldn't just end on a note that gives a side that is obviously lying an impression of credibility, which your article did".
The reply:
"I was trying to be fair and let both sides make a few points"
Needlesstosay, this is once again BULLSHIT JOURNALISM. Journalism and objectivity does not mean "both sides get equal time". Journalism, even in a film review as brief as that, should still weigh the claims against verifyable facts and call bullshit when it sees it dammit.
Hiding behind "both sides" is sheer professional lazyness.
Seriously, the reason why it seems like Scientists and Historians hate "debating" denialists (be it evolution, holocaust, vaccination, whatever), is that its impossible to keep up when they can tell a new lie every 5 seconds that each take 5 minutes to point out why its a lie. As long as each is given "equal time", its inherently unfair and favors the liar.
Only when all the time in the world is granted can we actually systematically show every single lie for what it (isn't) worth, hence the victory in Dover and every other court case yet.
The author gave the movie's screenwriter the last word on the subject, "The best they can come up with is that we changed the title? Gosh, let's get real and talk about the issues."
Naturally, this was 1) an attempt to spin the subject and make it seem like the scientists hadn't addressed the issues (a quick google search could show that to be false), and 2) a direct lie, because they hadn't "changed the title", they'd lied about the title to the scientists involved from the beginning (also verifyable by checking PZ's and Dawkin's blog entries on the subject).
So I wrote to complain about the way it was presented in the article and how it "shouldn't just end on a note that gives a side that is obviously lying an impression of credibility, which your article did".
The reply:
"I was trying to be fair and let both sides make a few points"
Needlesstosay, this is once again BULLSHIT JOURNALISM. Journalism and objectivity does not mean "both sides get equal time". Journalism, even in a film review as brief as that, should still weigh the claims against verifyable facts and call bullshit when it sees it dammit.
Hiding behind "both sides" is sheer professional lazyness.
Seriously, the reason why it seems like Scientists and Historians hate "debating" denialists (be it evolution, holocaust, vaccination, whatever), is that its impossible to keep up when they can tell a new lie every 5 seconds that each take 5 minutes to point out why its a lie. As long as each is given "equal time", its inherently unfair and favors the liar.
Only when all the time in the world is granted can we actually systematically show every single lie for what it (isn't) worth, hence the victory in Dover and every other court case yet.