On Monday, we did a piece on a former columnist for Scientific American who explained the magazine’s “ideological capture.” As we noted, SciAm broke a 175-year streak of not endorsing candidates for president in 2020 when it endorsed Joe Biden. because the 2020 election “was literally a matter of life and death.” It’s fitting that a magazine called Scientific American endorses a guy whose Supreme Court nominee couldn’t tell what a woman was because she wasn’t a biologist.
So we’re not surprised that Scientific American has a new piece out on the pro-Hamas protests on university campuses across the country. If they really wanted to talk about science, they could have explained the physics of a protester with a trash-can shield bouncing off a police officer. Instead, they have a beef with the media and how they’re covering the pro-Hamas protests.
Media coverage of university students speaking up against the war in Gaza, just like coverage of other protest movements, has fallen prey to some serious weaknesses https://t.co/BhXw8un6rZ
— Scientific American (@sciam) May 8, 2024
mmmm, science-y https://t.co/sZz4munCmf
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 8, 2024
stay subscribed to Scientific American for our hard-hitting scientific hot takes on the Drake-Kendrick Lamar conflict
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 8, 2024
A lot of people in the replies to Monday’s post said they’d been subscribers for a long time but dropped it when they started doing “collectible” editions devoted to “science for social justice.”
Let’s see what their problem is. Danielle K. Brown, whose scientific credentials include being a professor of journalism at Michigan State University, writes:
… rather than focusing on the grievance of protesters — that is, concerns about the deaths, injuries and looming famine affecting Palestinians— in reports of the campus encampments it has been the confrontations between protesters and police that have become central to the news media coverage.
…
There are commercial reasons why some newsrooms focus on the spectacle and confrontation – the old journalism adage of “if it bleeds, it leads” still prevails in many newsroom decisions. For the initial weeks of the campus protests, this penchant for sensationalism has shown up in the focus on chaos, clashes and arrests.
But it is a decision that delegitimizes protest aims.
This delegitimization is aided by the sourcing routines journalists often fall back on to tell stories quickly and without legal consequence. In breaking news situations, journalists tend to gravitate toward – and directly quote – sources that hold status, like government and university officials. This is because reporters may already have an established relationship with such officials, who often have dedicated media relations teams. And in the case of campus protests, in particular, reporters have faced difficulty connecting with protest participants directly.
As a result, official narratives may dominate news coverage. So when officials like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott equate protesters to criminals with antisemitic intentions, that typically gets covered– certainly more than any rebuttal from protest participants.
What’s there to cover? A bunch of students and professional agitators building a tent city to protest a non-existent genocide and refusing to talk to journalists. If you’re lucky, they’ll point you to a media liaison who’s approved to speak to the press.
So … where’s the science?
Thanks, “science” magazine
— Billy Gribbin (@BillyGribbin) May 8, 2024
Another brand committing harakiri in real time.
— Bill Flashfrybuffalo McBride (@gilescorey) May 8, 2024
What does this have to do with science?
— Calamity Jen (@realjenx) May 8, 2024
Why don’t you stick to scientific issues instead of politics?
— The Major 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 (@saltymarine80) May 8, 2024
A once eminent publication now Teen Vogue for nerds
— Ed Maguire (@eemaguire) May 8, 2024
Maybe stick to science? Oh, wait…you’re failing there, too. I hear The Onion is looking for some “humor” writers.
— RedInDC 💐 (@RealRedInDC) May 8, 2024
The main takeaway from this article is that protests and demonstrations—especially violent or disruptive ones—are counter effective to achieving goals, unless the goal is social chaos.
— Daniel Knauf 👹🌎 (@daniel_knauf) May 8, 2024
Once a respected journal of science, SciAm is now just another woke rag among hundreds. Way to squander your legacy, SciAm.
— Tyrone Slothrop🇮🇱 (@JLimebrook) May 8, 2024
“Science”
— Will Collier (@willcollier) May 8, 2024
You have never recovered from that ridiculous “the so-called normal distribution” essay.
And I can see now that you are probably never going to.
— Mark Ryan 🌻 (@Mark_J_Ryan) May 8, 2024
Speaking of fallen prey to….
— 𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙪𝙨 𝘾𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙨 ✝️ (@KritHouse2021) May 8, 2024
To paraphrase the great Dr. Ian Malcolm, eventually you do plan to have science in your science magazine, right?
— Chim Richalds MD (@ChrisRo59191548) May 8, 2024
What a disgusting and disgraceful article. It quotes the governor of Texas pointing out the antisemitism of these ‘protests’ but doesn’t bother to quote the many, many Jewish students who have faced antisemitism on campus. Intentionally misleading.
— Charlie Court (@CharlieCourt504) May 8, 2024
Why does this article ignore the fact that most of the police and official university reports from the protests indicate a large majority of the protestors are well-funded, external players and not students? That’s just facts–no room for media bias there.
— Brian Gage (@bgage) May 8, 2024
The moment the mask comes off and everybody discovers the extremist left wing anti-intellectual activists from Teen Vogue took over Scientific America. https://t.co/Xp8IRz39lJ
— GoldenNittanyLion (@GoldenNittLion) May 8, 2024
You’re not scientific… Are you even American?
— Lee (@LCJS) May 8, 2024
The only science on display here, is seeing how many words it takes to twist yourself into a pretzel shaped umbrella of cover for leftists seizing property, vandalizing it, and terrorizing Jewish students.
— Magnus (@JacksonTDawes) May 8, 2024
Why do you continue to throw your reputation in the trash?
— Murtaugh (@Murtaugh0987) May 8, 2024
So they find a piece written by a pro-Palestinian journalism professor and republish it in the science magazine. Cover something scientific, like Hamas firing rockets blindly into civilian areas in Israel. Maybe the terrorists could learn something about trajectory and stop blowing up their own hospitals.
***