From the editors at New Scientist:
So yet again we find ourselves criticising Trump, even though we know that some readers are tired of it. Some are his supporters; others simply do not wish to see politics in a science magazine.
Hint: If you know your readers are tired of something, stop doing it.
The US prez has a genius for living rent-free in the heads of people who hate him and you are living proof. But why inflict the problem on your readers?
We make no apology for covering global political issues. Science does not exist in a bubble. It is influenced by, and influences, the wider world. It also underpins an enlightened world view that we strongly advocate. More.
“an enlightened world view that we strongly advocate” Oh dear. That kind of prose is a symptom of the onset of deadly dullness. Take heart! There is surely an Anonymous group for the addicts of politics.
Better still, there is a lot of science out there to cover, even now…
See also: Marchin’, marchin’ for Science (Hint: the problems are back at your desk, not out in the streets)
If they were thinking like scientists, they’d see instantly that the hologram of “Trump” has no connection to the concrete actions of the Trump administration. The behavior of the Trump administration, as measured by budgets and workforce and wars, is identical to Bush and Obama.
Scientists are supposed to observe measurable behavior, not observe their own delusions.
The editorial is about the response to the opioid crisis. Don’t you think that is worth a science magazine commenting on? Or would you rather public health decisions not be informed by evidence?
polistra – you should read the editorial. These are the first three partagraphs:
So they are commenting on “concrete actions of the Trump administration”. This actually is measurable behavior, not their own delusions.
Bob O’H t 2: It will be easier to believe that it is a science-based response to the opioid crisis when the US Prez’s name doesn’t keep coming up monotonously. (Trump! Trump! Trump!). My guess, to judge from the editorial: That’s what readers are reacting to.
US ’45 will be gone in seven years no matter what. The opioid crisis won’t be. There is still too much we don’t know about addiction anyhow, for which science offers a better handle than politics.
Anyway, hint from the media trenches: When your readers are reduced to actually telling you they are bored, they usually mean it.
These stats are rather alarming. Here’s a graph showing numbers of drug-related deaths in B.C. in recent years.
(From an article entitled “B.C. on pace for more than 1,400 overdose deaths in 2017”) Population of B.C.: ~4.8 million.
Thanks, DaveS at 4. Here’s a recent news link to the problem in BC.
Donald Trump is not the head of state for the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). Hint: ERII
If science media and marchers obsessed less about him and focused more on the problems, it would be welcome. I believe that that is what New Scientist’s readers are trying to say.
Put your p*ssyhats on, everyone.
Andrew
I doubt the members of “New Scientist” understand evidence