Wednesday, April 11, 2012

The LA Times’ David Zucchino Just Committed the Cardinal Sin of Journalism

It is what every journalism student learns not to do. From obtaining multiple sources to developing a writing style there are many do’s, but yellow journalism is the big don’t. The phrase conjurs up images of manipulation and sensationalism from days long gone. Today’s journalists would never engage in such a thing. Right?

Unfortunately David Zucchino’s piece in the LA Times today on Tennessee’s new Academic Freedom bill is proof that yellow journalism is alive and well. The bill states that the Tennessee education system:

shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education. …

shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education as it addresses scientific subjects that may cause debate and disputation.

And that the system will not:

prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education.

And finally that evolution’s religious dogma, thankfully, is not allowed:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Plenty clear right?

Wrong, not for evolutionists who cannot stand the light of day. So how does Mr. Zucchino inform his readers of this new law? If there was any doubt it was gone with the headline:

Creationism discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools

The academic freedom bill is not about creationism. In fact it is difficult to imagine how the bill could have been any more clear. It is about objective evaluation of the “scientific subjects required to be taught” so students can understand “the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”

In fact, the headline could have stated: “Evolution discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools.” Which is precisely why evolutionists have been so vociferously opposed to this new bill.

Could it be that the headline was written by an editor who forgot to read the article and knew nothing about the story?

Hardly.

Zucchino’s piece is just as yellow as the headline. He discusses the anti-science governor who opposed the bill. He discusses a group of religiously-motivated evolutionists who sent a letter against the bill. He mentions unnamed “critics” who disparaged the law and who predicted gloom and doom for the state of Tennessee. He quotes the anti-science director of government relations for the Tennessee Education Association, Jerry Winters. And he quotes Barry Lynn, a well known religiously-motivated, evolutionary mouthpiece who wants the religious theory of evolution to maintain its bogus legal protection while hypocritically labeling scientific criticism as “religious”:

This has always been a way for teachers to interject their religious viewpoints if they contradict evolution.

And finally, Zucchino literally fabricates his own bizarre and fictional version of bill:

The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life. … The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class.

Incredible.

And strangely Zucchino forgot to talk to anyone who could speak in support of the bill. Funny how journalism works.

So what has happened to the LA Times? Of course journalism is not perfect, and it is no secret that political bias can seep into even the best publications. But this is nowhere close to a minor mistake or a lack of objectivity. This is jaw-dropping silliness. It might serve as an example of yellow journalism in a freshman undergraduate class. Except that the professor would never use such an obvious, ridiculous example. Even William Hearst never misrepresented a story and lied like this.

What has happened to the LA Times? What has happened is that this time it’s different because this time it is evolution that is threatened.

19 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter

    The academic freedom bill is not about creationism


    Yes it is. It's 100% about trying to find yet another way to sneak Creationism in the science classroom door.

    "Creation science" didn't work.

    "Teach the controversy" didn't work.

    "Intelligent Design" didn't work.

    The latest dishonest ploy hit on by the Creationists is "allow academic freedom". After all, who can be against academic freedom? But there is no need for a bill to force that, as the academic freedom to teach honest strengths and weaknesses of any scientific theory is already allowed.

    The professional scientific community knows this bill is the worst kind of lie. Science teachers know it is the worst kind of lie. The Creationist hope the weasel-worded language will sway enough gullible lay-people to get passed. That will open the door to all sorts of crap pseudo-science from the Creationist camp.

    Sorry CH, but the ACLU is going to be all over this steamer like white on rice. You and you fellow clowns at the DI just didn't learn your lesson at Dover, so you're going to have to learn it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Thorton, I applaud both the Democrats and the Republicans of Tennessee who had the courage to stand up against the Darwin steamroller.

      You claim that the professional scientific community is all against this. you might as well rephrase that to say what you mean - The Darwin Only crowd.

      Sure, they are against this because they know there are a lot of problems with evolution when you begin to look at it closely. They don't want those things brought out. They would rather have evolution taught as established scientific fact. The fact that they are not willing to face the problems but just want to teach it as fact is a problem for many people. I agree with Dr. H. Religion does drive science - the religion of materialism.

      You guys may have control of the courts and so you may win if it is contested, I don't know, but we're not going to make it easy for you. We truly believe in academic freedom and will fight for it until the end. I doubt a balanced jury would take your side, but if we get another judge in cahoots with the ACLU like the last time, yup, you will win.

      Delete
    2. Hey Thornton, let me get this straight. Leftists like yourself who always pretend to be so FOR freedom of speech, are for shutting down a high school kid in biology class that demands to see proof that the caterpillar's ability to spin a cocoon just sort of randomly happened. By Darwinian means of course. The kid wants to discuss the logic of the scenario and how Darwinian logic is likely useless in the scenario and in others too. Suppose the kid wants to see the science that addresses the scenario in detail. You telling me that you are behind the State in silencing the kid? And silence the teacher too who cannot find any DETAILED PROOF of random mutation somehow "teaching" the caterpillar how to do this?

      Delete
    3. MSEE

      Hey Thornton, let me get this straight. Leftists like yourself who always pretend to be so FOR freedom of speech, are for shutting down a high school kid in biology class that demands to see proof that the caterpillar's ability to spin a cocoon just sort of randomly happened.


      Of course not. I'm against having Creationists push their unsupported anti-science BS on unsuspecting and defenseless students.

      By Darwinian means of course. The kid wants to discuss the logic of the scenario and how Darwinian logic is likely useless in the scenario and in others too. Suppose the kid wants to see the science that addresses the scenario in detail.

      Then you direct him to the appropriate scientific literature, and explain that there are still many unknowns about the history of the process which are still being investigated.

      evolution of metamorphosis in insects

      You don't lie to him and make up a fairy tale about your Magic Designer poofing it into existence. That's what this bill would allow, letting teachers lie and push their personal religious beliefs onto their students.

      You telling me that you are behind the State in silencing the kid?

      More stupidity not worthy of an answer.

      And silence the teacher too who cannot find any DETAILED PROOF of random mutation somehow "teaching" the caterpillar how to do this?

      Science doesn't offer DETAILED PROOF of anything. Science offers POSITIVE EVIDENCE. ToE has it. Not enough to cover every last detail, but plenty enough for the big picture. Creationism has none. Zip. Nada.

      Delete
    4. Well I looked at the search results. Most were not about evolution, and the ones that were came with words like 'hypothesis', 'possibly' etc. etc. I didn't see anything referencing a specific random mutation and how it was selected. I saw nothing about a chrysalis that didn't get spun right and was "deselected". I saw nothing about catastrophic metamorphosis events that were "deselected" as were the responsible genetic mutation that didn't get it right. In short its not that "there are still many unknowns about the history of the process", its that what is known is like knowing about a grain of sand in the Grand Canyon is why you went to see the canyon. NOTHING IS KNOWN. Its all tentative hypotheses about trivial aspects of a gigantic puzzle.

      More stupidity not worthy of an answer. Oh yeah? You think a classroom oral report or valedictory speech at a Boston or San Francisco high school, incorporating the words I just wrote, would not possibly be interrupted?

      Science doesn't offer DETAILED PROOF of anything. Then I suggest you read Shannon's "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" (1948) and get on with the debunking. Or find a thesis that does just that. Engineers have just in the last 20 years been able to approach what was predicted by Shannon, and the CDMA phone in your pocket is the result. I've spent that last six years on a proof and am fairly confident of its validity.

      Delete
    5. MSEE

      Well I looked at the search results. Most were not about evolution, and the ones that were came with words like 'hypothesis', 'possibly' etc. etc. I didn't see anything referencing a specific random mutation and how it was selected. I saw nothing about a chrysalis that didn't get spun right and was "deselected". I saw nothing about catastrophic metamorphosis events that were "deselected" as were the responsible genetic mutation that didn't get it right.


      Tell me MSEE, how does a Creationist get so clueless as to demand science be able to recreate events that happened hundreds of millions of years ago down to the molecular level? Did you have to work at it?

      Here's a good idea: why don't you supply some details on how your magic designer created metamorphosis. Where did the design happen, and when? What tools, materials, and mechanisms were used?

      When you clowns supply any detail of your magic poof claim it will be the first.

      Oh yeah? You think a classroom oral report or valedictory speech at a Boston or San Francisco high school, incorporating the words I just wrote, would not possibly be interrupted?

      I know if a high school senior in SF or Boston applies to a science oriented college and who tells the admissions office "my science teacher taught me a magic designer poofed butterflies into existence" they don't have much chance of being accepted.

      Then I suggest you read Shannon's "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" (1948) and get on with the debunking.

      Which has nothing to do with evolutionary biology or any natural science.

      It's hard to judge which is bigger - your "I'm an ENGINEER!!" ego or the amount of your scientific ignorance.

      Delete
    6. @Thornton Tell me MSEE, how does a Creationist get so clueless as to demand science be able to recreate events that happened hundreds of millions of years ago down to the molecular level? Did you have to work at it?

      Well I don't know what creationist it is to which you refer, I don't hang with that crowd. As to which events happened so far back you are absolutely right, science will never know how metamorphosis came to be. My verbal use of specific simplified contingencies was not to challenge you as to details but to illustrate the complete breakdown of Darwinian logic as to how mutations/selections could even begin to make sense in metamorphosis; you obviously don't care to understand or address the point, and avoid the challenge as usual. One more time: want to give it a shot?

      When you clowns supply any detail of your magic poof claim it will be the first.
      Your urge to avoid gentlemanly debating style speaks volumes about your personality and I am glad that it is on display every time you come here, especially for the students to witness. As for us debaters it is indication of frustration at seeing your paradigm demolished. So far as the cartoonish "magic poof" might we apply that to the creation of the 2-300 year old materialist mindset, created by humans?

      "my science teacher taught me a magic designer poofed butterflies into existence"

      Do you think this likely verbiage? "Poofed"? Has this EVER been uttered? Hundreds, thousands of retired M.D. 's and biologists and related professionals feel free to criticize Darwinism, aspiring young life scientists know such will hurt their careers. You have refused to contradict my scenario of ANY student possibly being shut down or retaliated against for not subscribing to scientific materialism, and its handmaiden, Darwinism.

      Regarding Shannon:
      Which has nothing to do with evolutionary biology or any natural science. You so sure of that? Applied mathematics describing what is physically realizable has nothing to do with natural science? Try telling that to a physicist in reference to the Fourier transform or a probability wave function. Be prepared for the response. I suggest you learn about a subject before you utter a conjecture as if a truism.

      It's hard to judge which is bigger - your "I'm an ENGINEER!!" ego or the amount of your scientific ignorance.

      Another failure in the gentlemanly category. You think vituperation wins you points or hurts someone else. Says much about the ego, what a turnabout! And this whole attitude says much about the solidity on which you stand. Again, I'm OK with it all because it undermines your position in view of the students. Who will soon be free to check out these two new books from Oxford Press by a couple of world class philosophers, lately persuaded to massively attack scientific materialism and its favorite handmaiden: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations/the-tide-is-turning-nagel-and-plantinga-at-oup/

      Delete
  2. BTW Cornelius, do you have even the slightest inkling just how ridiculous your continuous chanting of the Creationist catchphrase "evolution is a religion!!" makes you look?

    I suppose by now you don't care, as long as those checks from the DI keep clearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bonobo face,

      LOL. You're the biggest lying psychopath on this forum. Your holier-than-thou, fire and brimstone accusations would be funny if you weren't such a pathetic psycho.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHAH... ahahaha...

      Delete
    2. Louis,

      Come on. You're worse than Thorton himself!

      Don't stoop to his level!

      Delete
    3. They're two sides of the same coin. Makes all of us look bad.

      Delete
    4. Don't stoop to his level!

      LOL. I have to. It's the only way I can smack the jackass. Even David had to stoop down to cut Goliath's head.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHAH... ahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Been curious,why is the second laugh in capitals?

      Delete
    6. Been curious,why is the second laugh in capitals?

      Just sound effects. LOL. It is calculated to drive bonobo face and company up the wall.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHAH... ahahaha...

      Delete
  3. And which coin would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's certainly an improvement over the "Civic Biology" textbook that John Scopes used in Tennessee a century ago.

    His Civic Biology book said...

    ‘The Remedy’,....

    ‘If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.


    Scopes' book used in his Tennessee classroom was attempting to apply another gem from Darwin's Origin of Species....


    ‘At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.’

    ---

    And these people wonder why their horrific theories need to be critically talked about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So it was for love of their fellow man which caused the original law banning the teaching of evolution. Did the time traveling Darwin also create the institution of slavery? Slavery,I could be wrong,seems to have considered some races as less human. So I am thinking maybe the belief that some races were subhuman wasn't the problem that caused the antagonism towards evolution.

      Delete
    2. velikovskys:

      "So it was for love of their fellow man which caused the original law banning the teaching of evolution."

      Actually it was. William Jennings Bryan was a populist, and opposed teaching the evolutionary origins of man (he didn't care about animals) *because* of its degrading effect on human nature. He was ambivalent about evolution until he realized what teaching kids about evolution was doing to them.

      Delete