This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now
gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if
I was sick and home from school. I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic
books. I preferred Scientific American. The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the
science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of
scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly
accessible. It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific
discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every
critter in between. But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific
American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth
non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted
source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it
destroys trust in science, trust in s…
After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito. Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it.
But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating?
The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation. Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis. Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness.
From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems.
Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.
The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to. People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible.
But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists.
Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim. I'm actually is screaming empowerment. I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check. Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right.
This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy. Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging. It…