Scientific American Since the magazine began in 1845, it has become a reader-friendly purveyor of hard science, a respected, slightly intimidating presence at the supermarket checkout line. But judging by the recent ridiculous trend of stories and editorials, it’s been captured perfectly by The Walk Blob.
The monthly still does what it says on the label in providing long articles, short reviews and great photographs for the discerning audience, along with an almost comprehensible story of black hole physics for science buffs and stunning photos of the deep. Sea creatures for the rest of us.
But then there’s the ironically left-wing ideology that seeps into every issue. A look at the content of a Newsbuster 2022 regular-release monthly issue revealed 34 stories based on liberal estimates and beliefs, about three per issue. It also excluded stories with liberal themes that were science-based — for example, a cover story on the melting of Antarctica’s glaciers was not included.
Of course, the Covid pandemic has particularly drawn the magazine to government interventionism and the smug rule of health “experts”.
Some of the weirdest “wook” material is online-only, with a wide potential reach. The most notorious recent example is an opinion piece from January 6, 2023, cynically seizing on the on-field collapse of a Buffalo Bills player to label the NFL racist: “Damar Hamlin’s collapse highlights the violence black men experience in football — the alarmingly common nature of “football violence.” disproportionately affects black men.” It was written by Tracy Canada, who is, not surprisingly, an assistant professor of cultural anthropology.
So what is the solution? Surely Canada wouldn’t recommend banning blacks from the National Football League for their own protection?
But plenty of weird pieces fill the print edition. Here’s a headline from the July 2020 issue of this so-called science magazine: “The Racist Roots of the Fight Against Obesity.” Still a June 2019 on The article argued that the nation’s “biggest health problem” is obesity. so it is scientific american, for Being concerned about obesity, by its own eccentric standards racist?
Here are a few more examples of slanted stories and editorials published in this “science” magazine in 2022:
- January 2022: inside In “Inside America’s Militias,” Amy Cooter rants anti-scientifically about “whiteness and masculinity” and characterizes Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) hell as a “civil rights protest zone.”
- February 2022: Editorial “American History Should Teach Reality – Lessons About Racism Are Essential to a Truth-Based Education.” The movement against teaching critical race theory in schools was dismissed in hysterically biased terms: “This regressive agenda threatens children’s education by promoting a false view of reality in which American history and culture are the result of white virtue. It’s part of a larger program of avoiding any truth that makes some people uncomfortable, which sometimes allows active delusions like creationism.”
- March 2022 was a special COVID issue with left-wing rhetoric “How a virus debunked the myth of dysfunctional personality.”
- A column by Northwestern University professor Aldon Morris, “Pandemic Dependent Fault Lines in American Society,” was more whimsical. Beyond asserting that “racial inequality and racism were alive and well in America that the toll revealed in a very stark way,” Morris somehow tied to Kyle Rittenhouse: “The Kyle Rittenhouse case, which was a vigilante who shot white people who mostly participated. . Black protests were completely decriminalized in 2020, which is also troubling. In the 1960s, segregationists attacked white participants in CRM, describing them as race traitors. Rittenhouse’s attack has similar overtones. Now whites know that only conservatives are theirs if they participate in protests. cannot attack, the courts may also side with the attackers…”
Scientific American Edited by Laura Hellmuth, who came on board in April 2020. He told Poynter that year that “we knew we had to improve diversity and inclusion.” But Hellmuth’s decline began before that.
An infamous September 2017 magazine story with graphics and text by Amanda Montanez apparently enabled the most biologically ignorant trans-activists to pretend that the clear binary of male and female is actually a spectrum of sexual development disorders (DSD), “which, broadly defined, is about one in the population. can affect percentages — presents a strong, evidence-based argument for rejecting strict assignment of sex and gender.”
So much for basic reproductive anatomy knowledge on (Testes produce sperm, ovaries produce eggs; no “spectrum”). Montanez concluded: “I am hopeful that increasing public awareness of intersex, including transgender and non-binary identities, will help align policies more closely with scientific reality, and by extension, social justice.”
Actually, a lot Scientific American The articles boil down to “social justice,” not science.
Click “Expand” to read the full list of liberal stories for 2022, with explanations added in parentheses where necessary:
“Inside America’s Militias.”
“American history should teach reality—lessons about racism are essential to a truth-based education.”
“Breaking techno-promises – we don’t have time for nuclear power to save us from the climate crisis.”
“Generational climate change – young people will suffer the most from warming.”
“Health Sciences.” (Pushing abortion pills.)
Category of Covid:
“A germ proves that individualism is a myth.”
“Lockdowns Show Promise of Cities with Fewer Cars.”
“Attention to Chronic Illness in Long Carriers.”
“Covid’s Uneven Toll Capture Date.”
“Fault Lines Deepen in American Society.”
“Vaccine inequality shuts vulnerable people out of plan to save planet.”
“Conspiracy theories make it harder for scientists to find the truth.”
“Protect voting rights – they promote voting rights, not fraud.” (Editorial)
“Fake-news sharers – those with conservative leanings are the most emotional people to pass along fake news.”
“The Shadow of Colonialism in Paleontology.”
“The female bird sings, too – science is better when it’s involved.”
“A million dead form covid is not normal – news media and policy makers are normalizing a staggering death toll.”
Special Report on Health Equity:
“An untold cost.”
“The disparity is heartbreaking.”
“The great divide in mental health care – the stress of Covid has fractured a system that was already fractured.”
“Profile of Health Equity – Four Innovators Seeking New Solutions to Problems of Inequity.”
“Men are not from Mars, and women are not from Venus – most personalities mix traits traditionally associated with both sexes.”
“Power on Trial – In a future where people hold climate crisis perpetrators to account, what has changed?” (Novel review.)
“Unequal Diabetes Care – US Screening Guidelines Miss Too Many People of Color.”
“Scientists as Public Advocates” (On climate change.)
“Vote for Science” (includes subheadings “Reproductive and Gender Rights,” “Health and Epidemiology,” “Gun Safety” and “Climate”)
“A tentative partnership — Stanford University mistakenly acts as if the fossil-fuel industry will help it — and the rest of us — address the climate crisis.”
“Gas stove concerns.”
“In schools, talking about racism can reduce prejudice – new law bans these conversations, but conversation eliminates bias and stress.”
“Slowing the Pace of Arctic Warming.”
“Costs of Climate Change.”
“The opioid epidemic among black people is growing because of unequal access to treatment — clinics and the most effective types of therapy are harder to find in communities where people of color live.”