Science Media Still Overwhelmingly Leftist

Try to find a conservative point of view in the following secular news stories. We found one in the long list.

Last week, we illustrated the disease of misconduct and unreliability in Big Science. And yet Big Science and Big Media continue their onslaught against Christian values, conservative politics, and Donald Trump. Here’s a rapid-fire list to prove it; these titanic conglomerates are juggernauts of leftism, not pure-hearted seekers of truth. They stray far outside their domain of natural knowledge into politics, ethics, and philosophy. Can anyone find any article in the major journals or secular science media that support conservative views? The following examples are not 100% wrong in everything they say, but they display an overwhelming bias against conservative ideas and a strong undertone of leftist ideas. There is one article supporting religious values in the list. See if you can find it.

(Note: Articles from amalgamating news sites like Science Daily and Phys.org come originally from universities, labs and other academic science institutions.)

Gay marriage: A pseudoscientific study on PLoS One concludes that when a husband comes out as gay, it’s the wife who must learn to change her attitudes. No fault should be directed at the man who violates his marriage vows, and his biology.

Space Force: If an idea comes from Donald Trump, the media treat it as bad by default. That’s the sense of this Space.com article that finds ‘issues’ and ‘knotty problems’ with the his Space Force plan. Any guesses how the tone of the coverage would change if Obama had thought of it first?

Free markets: Phys.org gives favorable coverage to eggheads at Michigan State who don’t think the “invisible hand” controls markets, contrary to conservative market principles.

Health care: How to pay for national pharmacare, Medical Xpress asks? Simple: more government, the leftist answer to everything. “We believe there is a compelling argument for the federal government to raise the incremental revenues needed to implement this long-recommended expansion,” as if government money grows on trees instead of coming from hard-working taxpayers’ wallets. Recommended by whom, by the way? Passive voice is the refuge of scoundrels.

Climate change: The title sounds great: “Nature needs people, and here’s why” (Phys.org). But here’s the why: because people need to advocate for climate change.

Science media: In PNAS, Iyengar and Massey worry about “scientific communication in a post-truth society.” It’s surely a legitimate worry, because bots and trolls can distort what scientists say. But they treat “truth” as that which comes from scientists. To them, the only “politically motivated reasoning” goes on outside the ivy walls. That’s not truth; it is scientism – and elitism. Too much of their advice could quash healthy debate. But where did science get its truth? Like Pilate, materialists can only ask disdainfully, “What is truth?”

Renewable energy takes 1,000 times more area than fossil fuels, notes Phys.org. But that’s not a point in favor of coal, oil, and gas, which have higher energy density. It’s a reason to put more solar panels on rooftops, this article concludes.

Fake news: President Trump complains about overwhelming bias against him in the media, but that cannot be true for the left-leaning science reporters. “Trump says” there is bias, but Phys.org makes sure everyone knows that Google and Twitter deny the charges.

Movie bias: “First Man” is supposed to replay the Apollo 11 moon landing. When conservatives complained about the movie’s “unpatriotic” omission of Neil Armstrong planting a US flag on the moon, this article on New Scientist charges them with being ‘stuck in 1969’ – i.e., not hip with these progressive times of globalist values. Space.com published another article defending the omission of the flag.

Energy policy: The state of California is a disaster area, not just because of wildfires, but because of its leftist government’s policies. You wouldn’t know that from Phys.org‘s biased coverage, “California leads on sustainability innovation while Trump digs coal.” Nothing about corruption, irresponsible construction, or cost-benefit analysis in this biased report.

Climate change: A study on whether social media can get people to change their views on global warming, posted on Science Daily, while appearing to try to be neutral, has a distinct undertone of needing to find ways to get climate skeptics to get with the consensus program.

Gender confusion: The goal of this piece by Medical Xpress is how to get people to become more accepting of LGBT situations. Is it science’s responsibility to “serve” the LGBT community? Example:

As sexual and gender minorities experience higher rates of physical and mental health issues than do their heterosexual counterparts, the research may provide crucial insights into resiliency development within the LGBT community. It could also help lead to improved programs and policies to better serve the community, Calzo said.

Doctor-assisted suicide: Oh, the distress caused by the overturn of California’s “End of Life” law. That’s what Phys.org focused on. A poor man wanted to kill himself. “I am literally dying for my last rights,” he complained. Not a word about the ethics of this issue.

Again, not all these articles are 100% wrong. Some say good things. Some report facts apparently with neutrality. Pervading them, though, you hear a leftist-progressive undertone, sometimes loud, sometimes soft. It’s everywhere, like a background buzz. You almost never hear a conservative refrain in the din. Why do you never hear reports like “Blacks make up 13.4% of the population, but 36% of abortions” except on conservative sites like CNS News? Why do only conservative news sites like Breitbart News talk about the human rights abuses in North Korea that have gotten worse since Kim Jong-un took power?

Science doesn’t have to be that way. There is absolutely no reason for a leftist slant in science. Many of the founders of science were highly religious or conservative politically, and did great work. Those who are conservative today often have to keep quiet, lest the PC police end their careers.

Note, please, that this commentary is not overturning the tables. It’s about balance. The situation would be just as bad if conservatives controlled Big Science and Big Media and persecuted its dissenters. A scientist should be free to vote Democrat if it wants to, and believe in liberal views unrelated to its scientific work. But in the same way, a conservative should be allowed to work as a scientist in a university or lab without fear of being shunned or dismissed, and a reporter should be allowed to speak of research that supports traditional values. Debate is essential for good science. The news is impoverished without a conservative voice.

The bias in science and media is a great evil that must be rectified. Most academics, studies have shown, are Democrats who voted for Clinton and despise Trump. Some departments at universities are 100% Democrat, or even radical socialist. You know this is going to infect their research. The same bias pervades media, and it odorizes their reporting.

The solution is balance. So let’s use a progressive tactic against the leftists: advocate for affirmative action for conservative scientists and reporters, until 50/50 parity is reached. Who would complain about that, except a totalitarian?