Here’s an illuminating comment from journalist friend on the media’s increasing attention to ID:
This is actually a major moment. Media people are beginning to ask the right questions.
It takes a while, but some eventually tumble to it.
For example, not “Why would anyone doubt Darwin?” but “Are there legitimate reasons for doubting Darwin, even if the establishment totally support him?”
Not “What would motivate anyone to doubt Darwin?” but “What is the strength of their evidence?”
Above all, NOT “Please, oh please, establishment boffins, convince me that there is no story here, so I can go back to my usual circuit!” but “Hmmm. This is still around, and it was supposed to have died, like, 27 times. Let’s get in there and scan the horizon in detail. There’s a story there, and it can’t be the one the establishment is telling us.”
Remember that media originally gained the title “the fourth estate” because they were not supposed to be part of the other three estates (elite, church, peasants).
They were not supposed to have a vested interest in merely trumpeting the interests/claims of any of those groups.
Media’s major use in society is still to fulfill that “fourth estate” role, which can only be done via constructive skepticism of the establishment, in the context of a free press.
Where media fell down, with respect to the ID controversy, is that they did not maintain skepticism, but acted as a PUBLIC RELATIONS AGENCY for the current science establishment, which is heavily conflicted in this area.