Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Will the war on objectivity in news media spread to science? Has it already?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Law prof Jonathan Turley explains:

“Objectivity Has Got To Go”: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism”

We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.

Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” – February 1, 2023

If social juicest — as understood by the professor — is in conflict with objectivity, perhaps it is also in conflict with reality.

But now, will objectivity come to be seen as a constraint in science too? If so, trust will deteriorate too.

Public trust in media is way down: See Polls: Trust in mainstream U.S. media still in free fall:

A Canadian commentator has noticed a little-publicized fact about last week’s New York Times–Siena College poll of 792 registered voters. While the poll focused on the US mid-term elections next month, the information about how typical voters view mainstream media was most revealing. A majority not only don’t trust media but see them as a threat to democracy: … Media have come a long way since 1969 when an archived poll showed that Americans had strong trust in the press. – October 20, 2022

Perhaps the critical question isn’t whether traditional media are trusted but whether their model can even survive the tsunami of the internet.

You may also wish to read: In Big Tech World: the journalist as censor, hit man, and snitch. Glenn Greenwald looks at a disturbing trend in media toward misrepresentation as well as censorship.

Comments
Relatd writes:
Unless someone knows where to go, and how to evaluate the information for credibility, the internet has generally muddied the waters.
Translation: anything I disagree with is useless but anything I agree with is credible.Ford Prefect
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Advertising dollars and getting more eyeballs is the goal. The internet is 90% junk. Unless someone knows where to go, and how to evaluate the information for credibility, the internet has generally muddied the waters.
True, but inevitable. There was never really an alternative.PyrrhoManiac1
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
An essay by Nicholas Wade on the origins of the C19 virus. Don’t recommend purchasing because it costs $15.
Where COVID Came From NICHOLAS WADE Did the Covid virus jump naturally from an animal species to humans, or did it escape from a laboratory experiment? In this essay, science writer Nicholas Wade explores the two scenarios and argues that, on present evidence, lab escape is the more likely explanation
https://www.encounterbooks.com/authors/nicholas-wade/ But it’s about news control of science. An interview on Substack about the essay with Wade. https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/nicholas-wade-on-the-lab-leak-covid An article about this topic. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/02/where-covid-came-from.php Maybe UD will someday discuss Wade’s book “A Troublesome Inheritance” for its implications.jerry
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Seversky states, "The ideal should be to strive for objectivity in news reporting alongside freedom to advocate for whatever causes one is passionate about in opinion pieces." LOL, Seversky, you do realize that your Darwinian worldview can support none of those things do you not? As to "objectivity in news", or 'objectivity' in anything else for that matter,,,
ob·jec·tive 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. fact a thing that is known or proved to be true.
,,, Seversky, exactly how is an 'objective fact' suppose to be established within your Darwinian worldview in the first place?,, especially when Darwinists themselves hold that our perceptions, and/or beliefs, about reality are unreliable?
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." - Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
And Seversky, as to "reporting alongside freedom to advocate for whatever (social/moral) causes one is passionate about in opinion pieces." Exactly how are 'freedom' and social/moral 'causes' to be grounded within your Darwinian worldview Seversky? Within Darwinism you simply are a meat robot with no more control over whatever moral causes you may choose to advocate for than a leaf blowing in the wind has control over the trajectory of its fall. Moreover, the altruistic morality that drives the 'passion' behind these social causes is itself antithetical to the 'let the weakest die' morality that is the 'one general law' of Darwinian evolution. (In fact, Darwinism is 'systemically racist' , and it is even biased against women, at its core)
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” - Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species Noah Carl: I’m a sociologist who got canceled – and I fear CHARLES DARWIN might not survive this purge of science & history - 13 Jun, 2020 Excerpt: Up until now, Darwin has been considered something of a hero on the political left,,, However, it is quite possible there will soon be a reckoning. For Darwin’s writings contain ample statements that would put him far beyond the pale of what is now considered acceptable. First, differences between the sexes. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” And in an 1882 letter, he states that “women though generally superior to men to moral qualities are inferior intellectually,” and that “there seems to me to be a great difficulty from the laws of inheritance… in their becoming the intellectual equals of man.” He also observes in The Descent of Man that “the male sex is more variable in structure than the female.” This observation has since become known as the greater male variability hypothesis, and has been applied to a variety of human traits including, mostcontroversially, intelligence. Second, differences between the races. Referring to some natives he encountered in South America during the voyage of the Beagle, Darwin observes, “one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures.” He dedicates a whole chapter of The Descent of Man, to his study of “the races of man.” In that chapter he states, “There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other… Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.” And in an earlier chapter of the book, he contrasts the “civilised races of man” with “the savage races,” noting that the former will “almost certainly exterminate, and replace” the latter. Third, eugenics. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states, “We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination… Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.” He then observes, “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” However, he also notes, “Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature… We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491673-sociologist-got-canceled-darwin-purge/
Shoot, to see the 'systemic racism' that is built into the core of Darwin's theory, you have to go no further than a natural history museum. Specifically, the 'artistic reconstructions' in natural history museums are overtly racist in their portrayal of how humans supposedly evolved from some ape-like creature.
Human Evolution as a “Path to Whiteness” - November 24, 2021 Excerpt: Do Your Own Google Search I had never thought of this before. In contemporary museum displays and other evolutionary depictions, just as in Darwin’s Descent of Man and in the notorious Civic Biology textbook that was at issue in the 1925 Scopes Trial, human origins are portrayed as an upward progress from dark to white. Neanderthals, however otherwise “primitive” (which is questionable in itself), are shown as light-skinned. And maybe they were, but modern man — Homo sapiens — is almost invariably white and European, not African or Asian. Check out some examples from around the Internet, here, here, here, here, and here. (links on site) Do a Google image search for the phrase “human evolution” and you’ll see many others. Just a coincidence? Or is Darwin’s racist legacy still with us today? You tell me. For a deeper exploration of that legacy, see John West’s documentary Human Zoos. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/human-evolution-as-a-path-to-whiteness/
Of related note to these 'systemically racist' portrayals of human evolution,,,, there turns out to be far less 'hard science' behind the racist 'artistic reconstructions' for Human evolution than is believed by the general public.
Ancestor bias - Museum depictions of ‘human ancestors’ challenged—by evolutionists by Philip Robinson - Nov. 2022 Excerpt: A team of researchers recently looked at artistic renderings of humans’ alleged ape-like ancestors. They openly discussed a wide range of issues of concern in how these are depicted.1 The team noted that there have been very few ‘hominin’ fossils ever found. In fact, they highlighted that the total number of finds is less than the number of anthropologists active today. So, comparing reconstructions of the small number of individual hominin finds is relatively easy. Lead researcher Ryan Campbell wrote, “I expected to find consistency in those reconstructions displayed in natural history museums, but the differences, even there, were so severe that I almost thought all previous practitioners had never encountered a single hominid reconstruction before commencing their own.”2 ,,, In addressing their original question about museums they suggested that while their artistic renditions are technically impressive, “There are potential educational harms in presenting unscientific reconstructions of hominins under the shroud of presumed validity.” They suggested that the reasons for museums doing so “can most likely be attributed to factors outside the control of science”.3 In wanting to appear to present a coherent and convincing story of evolution, a great deal of ‘scientific/artistic licence’ is inappropriately used in ‘hominin’ reconstructions.,,, In fact, australopithecines in many respects “clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.”4 Also, they did not, as many believe, walk upright in the human manner.5 https://creation.com/museum-apemen-challenged-by-evolutionists
So thus in conclusion Seversky, you may claim that, "The ideal should be to strive for objectivity in news reporting alongside freedom to advocate for whatever causes one is passionate about in opinion pieces", but the fact of the matter is that your Darwinian worldview can't ground any of those things. i.e. You have your epistemological feet planted firmly in mid-air! In fact, your Darwinian worldview is actually antithetical to social causes in general, and is especially antithetical to social causes that are based on race and sex. In short Seversky, If you want any of those things that you mentioned to be objectively true for your life, then you ought to become a Christian.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
bornagain77
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Relatd, those issues show the importance of education in first principles, including those of logic and in first duties as reasoning is morally governed. KFkairosfocus
February 11, 2023
February
02
Feb
11
11
2023
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Sev, there are other considerations also, duties to respect truth, innocent reputation [and wider duties to neighbour], honestly acquired property [including intellectual property], protection of especially minors from tainting or grooming opening up exploitation and abuse, responsible national security, and more. Striving for objectivity reflects duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, also. KFkairosfocus
February 11, 2023
February
02
Feb
11
11
2023
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
The ideal should be to strive for objectivity in news reporting alongside freedom to advocate for whatever causes one is passionate about in opinion pieces.Seversky
February 11, 2023
February
02
Feb
11
11
2023
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Model? What model? Advertising dollars and getting more eyeballs is the goal. The internet is 90% junk. Unless someone knows where to go, and how to evaluate the information for credibility, the internet has generally muddied the waters.relatd
February 11, 2023
February
02
Feb
11
11
2023
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply