←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: 0.217s | source
Show context
Bhilai ◴[19 Nov 24 15:47 UTC] No.42184762[source]▶
Don't be mistaken, Science and politics are intertwined and have been for a long time. Talk to any lead scientist who has to secure funding for their project and they ll tell you how its all political. So I dont see a problem with science magazine editors taking a political stance.

The Right tends to harp on this purist view from time to time while ignoring their own house of glass. For them, it's ok for for example, WSJ to be a completely biased in one direction. They dont complain about skewed viewpoints then. They will also defend famous podcasters for providing a platform pseudo science people with agendas. But as soon as a science magazine editor takes a stand, they flip out.

replies(2): >>42184859 #>>42187514 #
FredPret[dead post] ◴[19 Nov 24 15:56 UTC] No.42184859[source]▶
[flagged]
Bhilai ◴[19 Nov 24 16:01 UTC] No.42184923[source]▶
SciAm is allowed to be wrong and is allowed to be opinionated as well. The Bro however pretends to ignore proven science in order to have "interesting conversations." The dissonance here is astounding.
replies(2): >>42185098 #>>42187645 #
FredPret[dead post] ◴[19 Nov 24 16:16 UTC] No.42185098[source]▶
[flagged]
ben7799 ◴[19 Nov 24 17:12 UTC] No.42185751[source]▶
I think most of the Anti-Rogan sentiment is mostly people attributing things to him that he does not actually do or say.

People from the far left are so opposed to listening to him their opinion of him is almost completely formed by hearsay and taking small snippets of what he or his guests say out of context.

I fell victim to this. After the recent talk about just how important his show was in the election I listened to the Trump, Vance, and Fetterman interviews. His show is nowhere near as bad as the left says it is, and he is hardly "far right" just because he decided to endorse Trump this time.

replies(3): >>42186283 #>>42186431 #>>42186827 #
1. genewitch ◴[19 Nov 24 18:50 UTC] No.42186827[source]▶
See also Limbaugh[0] et al on AM. IF you actually listen to their (not rogan) shows they follow the art bell and phil hendry style of broadcasting. Repeat something inflammatory, maybe add a bit of opinion, go to commercial, wait for the calls to come in, then let the callers go off. Their mechanism for entertainment is common man.

Rogan has uncommon men (afaik), NdgT, etc. I don't like long-form content in general so i catch clips and replays of sections but i don't care enough about long-form to ever listen. i don't have anything against the guy, personally.

[0] limbaugh was replaced by other people and i can't remember their names because i only listen to AM during the day when i am somewhere without cell coverage and i'm out of USB stick tunes - the last time was 2018 or so and maybe it was hannity or something? Also the word "repeat" as i used it was explicit in "repeating what someone else said" - not repeating to belabor. I could give examples, maybe. Further, Alex Jones isn't this type of broadcaster, either. He is outside the diagram i've already drawn between our comments.