Mainstream science media have abandoned all pretense of objectivity when it comes to presidential politics.
We ask the obvious questions after the following articles display their bias, stressing once again that the issue here is fairness and balance. Readers are feel to support the candidate of their choice. They should, however, be able to expect fairness from journalists, especially those who should be reporting on natural science rather than politics.
Why Do Science Issues Seem to Divide Americans Along Party Lines? (Live Science). Laura Griffin [U of Florida] pretends to psychoanalyze America voters, but then engages in shameless card-stacking to favor one candidate: “At the top of the Republican presidential ticket is Donald Trump, who has called climate change a Chinese hoax and is on the record as supporting any number of other conspiracy theories,” Griffin says, unscientifically tossing out the phrase “any number” without documentation or metrics. But then she says, “Conversely, Hillary Clinton’s line at the Democratic National Convention — ‘I believe in science’— was met with resounding applause.” Griffin then portrays all Trump supporters as anti-science.
Fact-Checking Trump: Can Abortions Really Happen on the ‘Final Day’ of Pregnancy? (Live Science). Why does reporter Rachel Rettner “fact-check” Trump, but not Clinton? Hillary Clinton is under siege for a long record of overt lies, but Live “Science” never brings up those. Worse, she dodges the point of Trump’s remark in the third debate: that viable babies can be killed on their way out of the womb. Rettner tries to make this seem rare, saying that only 1.3% of abortions take place after the 21st week of pregnancy. But out of a million abortions last year, that would amount to over 10,000 abortions, Tony Perkins pointed out—hardly a rare occurrence. Rettner also fails to describe the ghastly, barbaric practice of partial birth abortion that Clinton supports. She fails to mention that Clinton believes an unborn baby has no constitutional rights up until the moment of birth. She fails to mention that Clinton wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment, forcing American taxpayers to pay for abortions, even those who consider it murder.
Why Trump’s male chauvinism appeals to some voters more than others (The Conversation). Academic prof Lynn Prince Cooke assumes chauvinism in her headline, and puts a ghastly caricature of Trump in the top photo. She is shocked that not all women hate him. Any opportunity for response by the Trump campaign? Zilch. Anything bad to say about Clinton? Not a word. If anything, Cooke is a female chauvinist, but the science news site PhysOrg reproduced this anti-Trump tirade without rebuttal, as if it is a matter of science news.
Advice for parents on body image amid 2016 campaign insults (Medical Xpress). Young girls might have hurt feelings after all the bad things Trump has been saying, Lauren Neergaard thinks, so she advises parents on how to ignore that mean old man. Her source for the advice is none other than gentle, kind Hillary Clinton. Anything about the way Hillary treated accusers of her husband? Not a word about that, even though Bill didn’t just say insulting things; he raped and harrassed women.
Hillary Clinton will make a fine US president (Nature). The journal’s editors add, sarcastically, “And not only because she is not Donald Trump.” The photo shows her waving and smiling to the crowd. Alongside a demeaning thumbnail photo of Trump, they show their disdain without mincing words—this from the world’s leading “science” journal:
Is there anything left to say about the unsuitability of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate? Even senior figures of his own party have disowned him. The latest revelations about his sordid attitude and behaviour towards women only confirm what was obvious to many from the very beginning: Trump is a demagogue not fit for high office, or for the responsibilities that come with it.
@ScientistTrump will make science great again (Nature). Lest anyone mistake this for an endorsement of Trump, the subtitle makes the sarcasm clear: “Florida ecologist uses a parody Twitter account as a way of highlighting issues in science and academia.” Writer Sara Reardon gives gentle coverage to Trump-attacker Emilio Bruna [U of Florida ecologist], who uses a Trump mask and satire to mock the Republican candidate. Does Nature provide equal-opportunity satire against Clinton? Crickets.
The scientists who support Donald Trump (Nature). In this piece, Sara Reardon once again puts Trump in a bad light as she covers, incredulously, the “minority” of scientists who support him. Her bias is clear; “Trump, a Republican, has run a brash, often divisive, campaign that has prompted some leading members of his own party to disavow him.” Is this Nature’s attempt at balance, portraying pro-Trump scientists as a timid bunch unwilling to show their faces? One Trump supporter asked Nature to refer to her by a pseudonym, worried that exposure could harm her job prospects. The lead photo shows a woman whose face is concealed holding a less-than-flattering Trump mask.
Threatened by diversity? (Science Daily). This piece coming from UC Santa Barbara launches uncritically from the Democrat meme that anyone who supports Trump must be a racist. “Psychologist’s study suggests the reason many white Americans support Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election,” the subtitle reads. It’s an unvarnished attack piece against the Republican candidate—nothing critical of Clinton. Trump has repeatedly reached out to minorities, blaming Democrat policies for leaving blacks and hispanics out of the American dream (e.g., see his speech Oct 26 at the new Trump hotel in D.C.). Unlike Clinton, Trump has also provided thousands of jobs to minorities and women in his businesses.
Donald Trump told ABC News today that the media are attempting to poison the minds of America voters (Breitbart News). Most Americans have come to expect liberal bias from the political media. They should expect better from those whose job is to report on birds, plants, stars, and fossils.
We’re doing the job they should be doing. We’re providing some balance. We’re the antidote to the poison. But to provide a truly level playing field, we would have to report on this 24/7 for a year, and get millions of readers.
Let’s use Live Science against itself. Stephanie Bucklin wrote a piece on Live Science that says, “Lies Breed Lies: Brain May Get Desensitized to Dishonesty.” Isn’t that exactly what has happened to the science reporters listed above?
Well, may the scientists, academics and leftist science reporters get what they want. When America becomes Venezuela, and science funding dollars become worthless because of inflation, and scientists scramble to find food on their shelves, maybe they’ll wish for making America great again.