Women ruined Scientific American
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
I'm not convinced that it'd be any less partisan if its entire editorial board were hard science PhDs
In the early 00s scientists were decrying the "awful" state of science journalism. As a result online outfits like ScienceBlogs hired academics in their various scientific fields to write about current events and publications in their fields, with the goal being to improve the quality of science writing and reduce the sensationalism of the science journalism at the time.
Instead a lot of the scientists hired to write about these things thought it more fun to write about their trash politics and opinions on social and religious matters, and instead of improving the quality of science writing we all just found out how dogshit all these peoples' views on those topics were.
At the time they had enough respect to confine their trash opinions to blogs, but respectability for institutions hasn't exactly gone up since then; and with declining readership for print media they'd almost certainly be tempted by the same sorts of incentives to sensationalize as this editorial board is. And they all have the exact same views on Trump as this creature does.
If I had the clout to be lead editor of Scientific American, I would immediately commission a special multi-issue edition over the replication crisis, the sad state of peer reviews and the influence of special interest groups on scientific journalism. And I would personally proofread and verify every article for objectivity and accuracy.
This would probably cause a wave of people quitting in protest, which is also part of my plan to replace them with editors who can put their politics aside.