"Objective" Journalism about Science
A Republican Congressman, Representative Dr. Paul Broun, Jr. is a medical doctor. In addition to having a science background, he is the Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee". He spoke at a church function. He referred to evolution as "lies from the pit of hell".
This set evolution propagandists into a frenzy. After all, what business does someone knowledgeable in science have badmouthing a state-sponsored belief system? He should keep his views to himself, because freedom of speech is only allowed if it is acceptable speech!
That bulwark of unbiased journalism known as CNN did a piece on this story. They interviewed "scientist" Bill Nye (funny how someone whose only earned science degree is a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering is referred to as a scientist, but PhD scientists who believe in creation are not "real" scientists, go figure). CNN also interviewed Dr. Jason Lisle. Well, they kept a few sound bites, anyway. Evolution must be protected.
The video segment is here. Note the loaded terminology, conflation of "evolution" with "science", straw man arguments, appeals to emotion and other misleading "reporting". Dr. Lisle gives his account of the interview:
You can read Jason Lisle's account in context and in it's entirely, here: "The Rest of the Story".CNN opted to do a short segment on the reaction to Dr. Broun’s comments. And being ever vigilant in its journalistic obligation to present the truth in as unbiased fashion as possible, CNN interviewed both a creationist and an evolutionist to get their respective reactions. They interviewed Bill Nye to give his evolutionary perspective. And CNN requested a representative from ICR to present the creation view. I was happy to accommodate their request. Lisa asked very good, appropriate questions, and interviewed me for somewhere between 5-10 minutes.But when the story aired, not all the facts were presented accurately. Indeed, many of the things that were claimed were things that I had specifically refuted in the interview. It’s almost as if the story had already been written, and they just wanted a short sound bite from a token creationist. (I know you’re probably thinking, “Not CNN! That would be journalistically irresponsible!”) Apparently, it’s always a shame when inconvenient facts get in the way of a perfectly good story. Anyway, I will here respond to some of the specific claims made in this news segment.