If you needed a case study on loaded language driven slanted reporting, here is a case study that deserves to be headlined: For context, see the de-spin chart: Remember, this has been with lives on the line. END
Here’s what resistance to the anarchy means in Canada: The Convoy was peaceful compared to most demos. We just want to COVID Crazy to end. It’s not doing anything but harm. But GoFundMe has now seized the $10 million dollars Canadians contributed to the support of those camped in Ottawa aiming to end the destructive lockdowns and will give it to charities instead.
COVID-19 has been used as the rationale for an extraordinary expansion of government power in the name of science… COVID has shown government officials how to do an end-run around the normal system of checks and balances. They simply need to invoke “science” and declare an emergency — and then extend their emergency orders time and again.
Asaronaon: Ashutosh used to write regularly for Scientific American, until he was fired seven years ago over a column in which he advocated acknowledging Richard Feynman’s flaws, including his arrogance and casual sexism, but also understanding those flaws within the context of Feynman’s whole life, including the tragic death of his first wife Arlene.
In a still-free society, Wokeness will create a space for a new popular science magazine. Lots of Woke-weary folk who value evidence over ideology would likely support it. That magazine should allow evidence-based criticism of Darwinian theory — which is treated with considerable skepticism anyway once you get outside the venue of the people who blew up SciAm with their Wokeness.
Ivan Oransky: Many in the media, as well as some scientists, quickly labeled it a conspiracy theory, designed to shift focus away from the missteps of their own countries. But, like everyone else involved in the discussions about the lab leak theory, scientists have something at stake: If SARS-CoV-2 did escape from a lab, it could further shake trust in research, and threaten funding…
Look, Reuters, if you really think the guy has a message worth hearing, quit calling him “the Darwin of the 21st century.” Unless, of course… naw, that’d be a conspiracy theory…
From the show’s description: He contends that Darwin-doubting scientists are hounded out of academia, schools refuse to acknowledge peer-reviewed science that contradicts the standard evolutionary paradigm, and Big Tech obscures accurate information about intelligent design.
Discussing the recent essay by medical statistician John Ioannidis on the was politicization and shoddy research around COVID-19 are corrupting science, philosopher Edward Feser focuses on a couple of his points, including this one, “the deleterious role that social media have played.”
Much that happens in media today is not about what happened. It’s about Hot Hair and Big Lipstick posing as news. Readers, they don’t need you. And you don’t need them. We all have the internet.
It surely shows what people could get away with in 2013 by way of poorly sourced evolution claims. Could they do so as easily today?
The reason COVID-19 matters in our discussion of issues at UD News is that it may be the first time many people begin to understand one of the things we have been trying to talk about here for years: The way “science” can just become a club of people who front (and maybe even believe) certain things and suppress others irrespective of evidence, misusing their authority.
For example: When universities no longer want you to know controversial ideas, you have a problem.
I have recently posted a new video presentation on my YouTube channel. In the video I talk about some of the reasons why I think the debate over Intelligent Design and biological origins is of great significance. Aside from just being a fascinating area, it has many implications in several areas of life. This video, Read More…
I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, Read More…