Here's an article that points up a major failing of the news media in this country. The subject is the reporting on the controversy around the birth-control mandate of the ACA, but the problem extends to just about everything the media touches:
The Reuters piece is egregious, but what can you expect from a piece titled "U.S. top court case highlights unsettled science in contraception"? As Lin-Wang Fang points out in the main article, the science is very clear:
In light of the facts, it's worth taking a look at the NYT piece, which is really an op ed by the director of a "pro-life" organization -- the comments really rake her over the coals.
Another group that is constantly trying to conflate religious belief with scientific evidence is the creationist contingent:
OK, it's Janet Mefferd's show, so we know we're dealing with the fringe, but notice the bald assertion that "there are so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution." That's at best a misrepresentation -- I have no doubt that Mefferd is including engineers, mathematicians, what-have-you as scientists. They have no chops when it comes to evolutionary theory.
And it's the "equal time" mantra again, and of course, the real question is Why should a program devoted to science be including religious belief? RightWing Watch sums it up:
But you won't find the mainstream news media pointing that out. Blame Fox News, with its specious "fair and balanced" meme, which it seems just about everyone has bought into. News flash: "balanced" is not necessarily "fair," and these days it's seldom accurate.
Footnote: It's worth looking again at Judge Bernard Friedman's take-down of Mark Regnerus' "study" in the Michigan marriage ban trial. That's called "critical thinking" and it's another thing that the religious nuts want to do away with -- for good reason.
When it comes to women’s health issues like contraception and abortion, why does the press so often present opinion and fact side by side? Recent pieces in Reuters, the New York Times and SCOTUSblog, to name just a few, made an attempt at “balance” by presenting what they see as “both sides of the issue” on contraception. But do facts have two sides? When reporting on medical issues, weighing a religious belief as equal to scientific and medical evidence is disingenuous and confusing to the reader.
The Reuters piece is egregious, but what can you expect from a piece titled "U.S. top court case highlights unsettled science in contraception"? As Lin-Wang Fang points out in the main article, the science is very clear:
FACT: The ACA requires new health insurance plans to cover the full spectrum of FDA-approved forms of birth control. It does not require coverage of abortion or abortifacients.
FACT: No FDA-approved forms of birth control – including emergency contraception pills or the IUD – cause abortions. Emergency contraception pills and IUDs prevent pregnancy, not disrupt pregnancy.
FACT: Pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants into the uterine lining. After implantation, that’s when a pregnancy test turns positive. Even among women not on birth control, not every fertilized egg implants. Therefore, the possibility that the copper IUD could inhibit implantation does not make it an abortifacient. This is not an opinion. This is the shared consensus of the medical and scientific community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
In light of the facts, it's worth taking a look at the NYT piece, which is really an op ed by the director of a "pro-life" organization -- the comments really rake her over the coals.
Another group that is constantly trying to conflate religious belief with scientific evidence is the creationist contingent:
Creationists are accusing astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's reboot of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" of being scientifically unbalanced because it doesn't represent their beliefs.
Right Wing Watch posted audio of Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum speaking Thursday on "The Janet Mefford Show,” in which he blasted deGrasse Tyson for ignoring the creationist point of view.
"Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all," Faulkner told host Janet Mefford.
"But when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution, it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there," Mefford said. "You know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed."
OK, it's Janet Mefferd's show, so we know we're dealing with the fringe, but notice the bald assertion that "there are so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution." That's at best a misrepresentation -- I have no doubt that Mefferd is including engineers, mathematicians, what-have-you as scientists. They have no chops when it comes to evolutionary theory.
And it's the "equal time" mantra again, and of course, the real question is Why should a program devoted to science be including religious belief? RightWing Watch sums it up:
Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.
But you won't find the mainstream news media pointing that out. Blame Fox News, with its specious "fair and balanced" meme, which it seems just about everyone has bought into. News flash: "balanced" is not necessarily "fair," and these days it's seldom accurate.
Footnote: It's worth looking again at Judge Bernard Friedman's take-down of Mark Regnerus' "study" in the Michigan marriage ban trial. That's called "critical thinking" and it's another thing that the religious nuts want to do away with -- for good reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment