Intelligent Design Media News

Someone else discovers why legacy media are dead

Spread the love

Okay, so you are all on your palmtops and tablets and aren’t even listening.

But consider suggesting to your great aunt that she is not getting value out of her subscription to Correct Local Times and her voting booth support for government-protected TV and radio:

Over at Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin offers a familiar complaint:

With some reporters, facts count for little or nothing. They’re not interested in reporting on a situation objectively. They have their minds made up, and they are going to promote their agenda no matter what. I’ve had this experience numerous times since I started working at Discovery Institute in 2005. Well, it’s happened again.

Response: The guy who quoted me a price on a summer paint job at an Ottawa (Canada) townhouse told me that almost no one in the journalism school at his local U was actually working in journalism. Might be useful to ask, then, who IS?

Agenda isn’t necessarily the point. The remainders may not even be people with much brain. The people with brain have long since left, and the people who remain may be living off the avails of institution.

That they would go with an agenda, no question. But don’t expect original thinking from those who just hope to be eaten last.

13 Replies to “Someone else discovers why legacy media are dead

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: God, Science & the Big Questions: Leading Christian Thinkers Respond to the New Atheism – Jan 31, 2015 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpJm-qX3rW0
    Join John Lennox, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, and Hugh Hewitt for this fast-paced, wide-ranging and supremely stimulating discussion among some of the finest thinkers in the Christian world. Nothing is off the table as they discuss science vs. Christianity, arguments for God, the decline of Darwinism, radical Islam and the Gospel, responding to skeptics, the problem of consciousness, mathematics and the cosmos, the nature of knowledge, and much, much more.
    Originally broadcast live from Biola University on Friday, January 30th, 2015.

  2. 2
    velikovskys says:

    news:
    Response: The guy who quoted me a price on a summer paint job at an Ottawa (Canada) townhouse told me that almost no one in the journalism school at his local U was actually working in journalism. Might be useful to ask, then, who IS?

    I heard the guys quoting price on summer paint jobs in Toronto feel entirely different, no word from Calgary yet

    Agenda isn’t necessarily the point.

    Don’t underestimate to ability of an agenda to distort

    The remainders may not even be people with much brain

    I guess you have to make a living even if you were designed without much of a brain.

    The people with brain have long since left

    Someone has to paint houses

    But don’t expect original thinking from those who just hope to be eaten last.

    I wouldn’t put much faith in those who hope to be eaten first either.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    News, my problem is that, long term, it is going to seep into the public’s consciousness that — for cause — too many journalists and/or editors cannot be trusted to be responsible with facts, truth, issues or people they don’t like. That will do a lot of damage to the role of the media as watchdogs in a democracy. But then, on a priori evolutionary materialism, such ethical principles are deemed as without foundation, so we reduce to might and manipulation make ‘right.’ Exactly what is hotly denied by objectors when it is raised, but we are seeing it on the ground far far too often. KF

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    VS, Pardon, but I don’t buy the claim or implication that journalists are generally dumb or ill-informed. The matters at stake in this case are quite plain and simple listening and fairly presenting the views of Mr Luskin and easily found facts on the matter in hand would have sufficed to stop the writing or editorial approval of this article. For instance to dismiss CL, the journalist referred critics of a law in Tennessee but he or his editor should have fact checked to see what that law actually says, which gives no foundation to the critique presented as decisive. What we are seeing here is patently something else, willfully writing and publishing in disregard to the truth, in hope that what is said or suggested will be taken as true. All in service to an obvious ideological agenda and narrative. And, in a context where in my view an underlying problem is that libel law in the US has been allowed to go to a terrible state so that journalists can easily get away with defamation. KF

  5. 5
    velikovskys says:

    Kf
    That will do a lot of damage to the role of the media as watchdogs in a democracy. But then, on a priori evolutionary materialism, such ethical principles are deemed as without foundation,

    Nice theory, what is your explanation for non materialist engaging in the same behaviors?

  6. 6
    velikovskys says:

    KF:
    VS, Pardon, but I don’t buy the claim or implication that journalists are generally dumb or ill-informed.

    Talk to news, I just said that even those designed to be stupid have to make a living, not that it was exclusive to one profession.

    The matters at stake in this case are quite plain and simple listening and fairly presenting the views of Mr Luskin and easily found facts on the matter in hand would have sufficed to stop the writing or editorial approval of this article

    Once the can of skepticism is opened why should Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute be exempt? Why should we believe either is truthful in their protestations?

    Perhaps it is the reporter who is attempting to resist the manipulation

  7. 7
    JWTruthInLove says:

    Luskin: With some reporters, facts count for little or nothing. They’re not interested in reporting on a situation objectively. They have their minds made up, and they are going to promote their agenda no matter what.

    kf: What we are seeing here is patently something else, willfully writing and publishing in disregard to the truth, in hope that what is said or suggested will be taken as true.

    News @Uncommon Descent: Not only is there no scientific method, but biology does not need math – says prominent evolutionary biologist

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    VS, the Tenn law — I recall reading it when it came out — is short. And it very explicitly locks out teaching religion under colour of science education, and by implication ID is not to be taught either as it is not on established syllabi etc. What the law protects is the right of critical analysis, in a climate where undue controversies and polarisation have been stirred up and entrenched institutionally. KF

    PS: You tell me how this would teach religion under guise of teaching science etc:

    HB 368 TN, Sect 1 . . . (c) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education. [–> ID is not being taught, nor is it in the curriculum]

    (d) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

    PPS: For comparison, when I have had occasion to draft an academic freedom provision for a charter of good government [in a Westminster style jurisdiction where teachers are Civil Servants], these are the terms I used to promote reformation:

    That, to protect professionals and those in sensitive roles in the civil service, especially medical doctors, nurses and other health specialists, engineers and other technical professionals addressing matters where safety may be a consideration, educators, journalists and the like, the Public service law and regulations will be reviewed and amended as advisable:

    (a) to protect, foster and promote professional integrity,

    (b) to recognise and protect freedom of responsible professional opinion and dissent, and

    (c) to protect academic freedom (especially the right of educators and students to study, state, discuss and teach the well-grounded facts and significant issues or views on matters relevant to reasonable educational objectives without retaliation).

    Point (c) shows where I think a reasonable position would stand in a jurisdiction not in a state of hysteria whipped up by ideologues.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    JWT, As the just above in context shows, CL’s view was seriously distorted by making reference as though decisive to critics of the TN law. Those critics patently distorted the TN law. KF

    PS: Feyerabend long since said there was no one size fits all sci method that reliably demarks sci from non-sci, and good from bad sci. He has a point, though I would suggest that the “method” as taught in grade school and as traceable to Newton in Opticks Query 31 also has a point. Cf my remarks here.

  10. 10
    velikovskys says:

    Tennessee enacted a law Tuesday that critics contend allows public school teachers to challenge climate change and evolution in their classrooms without fear of sanction.

    Republican Gov. Bill Haslam allowed the controversial measure to become law without his signature and, in a statement, expressed misgivings about it. Nevertheless, he ignored pleas from educators, parents and civil libertarians to veto the bill.
    KF

    VS, the Tenn law — I recall reading it when it came out — is short. And it very explicitly locks out teaching religion under colour of science education,

    Not exactly, it forbids the state from interfering with teachers who wish to teach religion as science.

    and by implication ID is not to be taught either as it is not on established syllabi etc

    Again not really, the teacher can discuss alternative ideas to evolution ,climate change and abiogenesis without any guidelines for those discussions

    The law does not require the teaching of alternatives to scientific theories of evolution, climate change and “the chemical origins of life.” Instead, it aims to prevent school administrators from reining in teachers who expound on alternative hypotheses to those topics.
    The measure’s primary sponsor, Republican state Sen. Bo Watson, said it was meant to give teachers the clarity and security to discuss alternative ideas to evolution and climate change that students may have picked up at home and want to explore in class.

    What the law protects is the right of critical analysis

    We have no idea if it is critical analysis or not, it just allows a teacher the unfettered right to teach interesting mix of topics.

    in a climate where undue controversies and polarisation have been stirred up and entrenched institutionally. KF

    You have that backwards , it is not the institution of science that is stirring up controversies but entrenched factions whose religious beliefs are being challenged by science and resent having anything challenge the primacy of their beliefs.

    Those factions are the same as those responsible for the Bulter Act, which of course took the opposite view of teaching the controversy. My how times have changed.

    If critical analysis is the goal of the law why such a prescribed topics, much of American history is rife with controversy, sex education would be a similar issue for letting teachers teach the controversy, but of course we know that academic freedom is not the point. That is objectively self evident.

    The purpose is to bypass the law from the bottom up, the state can therefore disavow any participation. ” I am shocked,shocked to see gambling going on”

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    Vs, I actually cited the law at 8 above. It says the opposite of what you just claimed. Please get your facts straight. KF

  12. 12
    Robert Byers says:

    Amen. I think also that the demographics in the media has skewed dumb. its not prestiges anymore to be in journalism for the reason that viewers have skewed toward the elderly etc. its not cool. I also see affirmative action, in deed and spirit, affecting competence. However it was always left wing but smarter before.
    they always had a upper class/liberal agenda. I think watergate started it.
    In reality they should just be middlemen to truth/information.
    I think one can handle them if one sees them as just a conduit. Ignore the attitude or picture distortion tricks.

  13. 13
    velikovskys says:

    KF:
    Vs, I actually cited the law at 8 above. It says the opposite of what you just claimed. Please get your facts straight. KF

    Which facts are in error?

    Neither the state board of education……. shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education. [–> ID is not in the curriculum

    So only those theories which are in the curriculum are subject to critiques ,is there a prohibition from introducing non curriculum materials in order to facilitate those critiques?

    Is there a requirement to analyze that material used in the ” objective” analysis?

    Since the administration is prohibited from interference is the teacher to sole judge of what is objective?

    If say a Discovery Institute published a book which contained an guide for discussing the weakness and strengths of evolution among other topics any prohibition for its use?

    This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine,

    Shocked I say

    promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs

    If the scientific evidence contradicts a religious belief, is that evidence removed?

    What if teaching certain scientific theories discriminates against the teachers set of religious beliefs? Are those theories not taught?

Leave a Reply