This blog is no longer being updated. I've moved on to The Accidental Weblog. Hope to see you there.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Why the media give slimy, lying con-men credibility

Timely for me, in wake of my own recent foaming over the subject, CSICOP does a piece on just why it is the slimesucking twits pushing 'intelligent design' get press:
In the article, we note that as school boards, state legislatures, and the courts pay increasing attention to the claims of the ID movement, journalists rely heavily on the agenda of these political venues to guide coverage decisions. As a consequence, there is a rise in media attention to ID, but perhaps more importantly, as science is debated within these policy arenas, there is a transfer across news beats, with coverage no longer dominated by context-oriented science writers, and instead the subject of stories contributed by political reporters, opinion writers, and TV journalists. We reached this conclusion after systematically reading through seventeen months of recent news coverage at national and local newspapers, conducting an analysis of opinion page content at the papers, and reviewing relevant TV news transcripts.
As this shift in news beats takes place, coverage de-emphasizes the type of technical backgrounder favored by science writers. These context-oriented articles typically highlight accurately the overwhelming scientific consensus in support of evolution. In contrast, political reporters and television news correspondents are more likely to cover the issue through the lens of political strategy and gamesmanship. Though these types of stories provide important details about the tactics, fundraising, and communication strategies of the ID movement, they often also ignore scientific background, and instead carefully balance arguments from both sides, thereby lending credibility to the claim by ID proponents that there is a growing “controversy” over evolutionary theory.

— CSICOP, Understanding Bias in Coverage of Intelligent Design

So who wants to spring for free remedial courses in evolutionary biology, comparative genetics and natural history for any political reporter stupid enough to even bother talking to Hovind?