“Incredible as it sounds,” reports CEH with tongue slightly in cheek, “the science news media seem to have a liberal bias. This is astonishing, considering the vast majority of science professors in academia are Democrats.”
President Eisenhower spoke of a military-industrial complex that could work against the imperatives of democratic government. Evidently a media-science establishment complex has evolved over time, as well, subverting the will of the people in multifarious ways.
(1) The “science” journal Nature “excoriated President Obama for backtracking on his promise to bring more ‘integrity’ to science (meaning, acquiescing to the views of the scientific establishment). What, in particular, were they complaining about? They were appalled that he would cave in to pressure from conservatives to backtrack on plans to distribute the ‘morning after’ pill to schoolgirls under 17.”
(2) “The news media uniformly supported the NCSE’s [National Center for Science Education] decision to add climate skeptics to their targets, along with evolution skeptics. New Scientist portrayed Eugenie Scott’s organization that fights for Darwin-only education as ‘US science education advocates,’ ignoring the fact that Scott has not only interfered with the voice of the people through their legislatures for years, but has also praised the institutions that have destroyed careers of evolution skeptics.”
(3) “What’s a science news site [PhysOrg] doing reporting a decision by the Huffington Post, the anti-conservative website, to go French? . . . If anyone has an example of a science news site celebrating the success of a conservative enterprise in such glowing terms, it would be an interesting search.”
(4) If you don’t believe all change is good, then you might be either a redneck or a borderline psycho: “Psychologist Aaron C. Kay of Duke University got a one-way megaphone to portray those not wanting ‘social change’ as victims of irrational, psychological forces.”
(5) The National Science Foundation underwrote what can only be generously termed a “research project” that characterizes “evolution skeptics as hapless pawns of gut feelings instead of rationality. . . . ‘Research in neuroscience has shown that when there’s a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins,’ [the lead researcher] opined, speaking of those who have not yet gained the enlightenment that leads to ‘acceptance of evolution’.”
(6) Are there “psychological benefits” to being religious, such as higher self-esteem? A “new study” says: “In countries where most people aren’t religious, religious people didn’t have higher self-esteem.” CEH demurs: “This [conclusion] assumes that people embrace their faith only for what they can get out of it. It also assumes their highest value is self-esteem. If self-esteem happens to be low on the priority list among the millions of persecuted believers around the world, many who have been willing to die for their faith, these psychological experts did not seem to be aware of it or concerned about it.”
(7) The media-science establishment continues its relentless assault on traditional values: “It is well known that conservatives support traditional marriage and abstinence from sex outside marriage. They don’t get very good press among science reporters, who seem to be on a campaign to portray alternative lifestyles as blessed by science.” Among them:
(a) One media organ reports: “Same-sex marriage laws reduce doctor visits and health care costs for gay men. Gay men are able to lead healthier, less stress-filled lives when states offer legal protections to same-sex couples” — which provokes “the question [of] whether a stress-free life is the arbiter of morality.”
(b) Another “study finds few well-being advantages to marriage over cohabitation” — which, says CEH, “presumes that societal decisions about marriage are to be made entirely on the well-being of those choosing to engage in ‘other forms of romantic relationships,’ while ignoring the well-being of children, family members and society as a whole – points conservatives would undoubtedly rush to express, had they the reporters’ ear.”
Other like-minded “news” outlets touted this report, “calling the study on the blessings of cohabitation ‘extremely valuable.’ Experts were quoted describing those holding to traditional marriage as having ‘an extremely naïve view'” — and concluded with this hardly objective exhortation: “Pass it on: Cohabitation may be just as good as marriage in promoting happiness and well-being.”
(c) As for Catholic nuns benefitting from contraception: “. . . two Australian ‘researchers’ speaking with the imprimatur of science . . . ended [their article] with this promotion: ‘Pass it on: The pill may reduce the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer in nuns . . .'”
CEH‘s conclusions regarding these developments are worth quoting in their entirety:
“Many scientists and science reporters, as these examples show, betray a liberal bias. Let us count the ways: (1) never giving equal time or emphasis to conservatives, (2) portraying conservative viewpoints, if even acknowledged, as out of step with the times, (3) portraying conservatives (especially those of religious faith) as irrational pawns of psychological urges, (4) using loaded words, (5) employing unargued assumptions embedded in suggestive euphemisms (like ‘marriage equality’), (6) assuming that ‘researchers’ are infallible, (7) assuming that any scientific ‘study’ is authoritative, (8) rushing to sanctify the liberal viewpoint with the authority of ‘science,’ (9) considering all sciences, including psychology, as equally authoritative, and (10) never dealing with thorny issues of philosophy of science – i.e., what science is capable of knowing, proving, or preaching.” — CEH, “Liberal Bias Detected in Science Media”, January 19, 2012
As CEH has advised elsewhere: “Don’t be a dupe and merely assume that someone who calls himself or herself a scientist has a corner on objectivity. Scientists can be very adept at math, jargon and specialized fields of inquiry, but at the conclusion of any paper, every citizen has a responsibility to weigh evidence, evaluate reasoning, and consider influences that led to the conclusion.” — CEH, “Objectivity of Science Undermined”, October 24, 2011
