←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
473 points Bostonian | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.242s | source
Show context
insane_dreamer ◴[19 Nov 24 01:09 UTC] No.42179137[source]▶
I clicked on the links of the articles linked to by the author as "egregious" examples of Helmuth's editorial bias, and they're both clearly labeled _OPINION_. (Opinion articles are not scientific articles because they are __opinion__.)

May need to choose some better examples if the author wants to support his point.

replies(4): >>42179278 #>>42179479 #>>42183053 #>>42183149 #
leereeves ◴[19 Nov 24 02:12 UTC] No.42179479[source]▶
"Editorial bias" and "opinion article" aren't mutually exclusive.

Is there bias in what opinions SciAm chooses to print?

replies(1): >>42183858 #
1. insane_dreamer ◴[19 Nov 24 14:35 UTC] No.42183858[source]▶
If that was the point the original article was trying to make then they should have provided evidence of that, rather than selecting a couple opinion articles to try to build a case for their own very clear ideological leanings.

There may or may not be editorial bias at SciAm -- no idea since I don't read it, and not really interested either way -- but that article was a shoddy piece.