Comments on: Things Atheists Hate #1: Media Coverage of Polls http://www.pinponpun.com/blog/2008/10/01/things-atheists-hate-1-media-coverage-of-polls/ Thoughts on atheism, separation of church and state, philosophy and more. Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:24:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Dan M. http://www.pinponpun.com/blog/2008/10/01/things-atheists-hate-1-media-coverage-of-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Dan M. Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:11:00 +0000 http://www.pinponpun.com/?p=32#comment-4 The marketplace of ideas gets seriously corrupted when the confluence of financial incentives (we need to sell papers/advertising!) mixes with a non-critical public (we don't have time/don't care to look beyond the headline!). I believe this is fundamentally behind the resurgence of creationism. The media believes both creationists and scientists deserve "equal time," and fostering heated arguments between them only serve to attract ratings or sell papers. Meanwhile, the public is not provided with sufficient context to recognize that one side is making claims with no basis in fact while discounting the other side's scientific facts as "claims," thus creating a false parity between the two. All of this serves as an argument to me for increased funding for public media. On the BBC, a creationist would not be able to get away with "intelligent design" arguments without being held to task by presenting proof. The marketplace of ideas gets seriously corrupted when the confluence of financial incentives (we need to sell papers/advertising!) mixes with a non-critical public (we don’t have time/don’t care to look beyond the headline!). I believe this is fundamentally behind the resurgence of creationism. The media believes both creationists and scientists deserve “equal time,” and fostering heated arguments between them only serve to attract ratings or sell papers. Meanwhile, the public is not provided with sufficient context to recognize that one side is making claims with no basis in fact while discounting the other side’s scientific facts as “claims,” thus creating a false parity between the two.

All of this serves as an argument to me for increased funding for public media. On the BBC, a creationist would not be able to get away with “intelligent design” arguments without being held to task by presenting proof.

]]>