Posted on 02/14/2003 5:41:19 PM PST by Remedy
The president of a Christian apologetics ministry says there is a bias within the mainstream media to present anything that seems to support evolution or undermines the Bible.
When evolutionists claimed they found a meteorite from Mars with life in it, the report received front-page headlines around the world -- and even then-President Clinton got involved. Yet when even secular scientists agreed that there was no evidence of life in that rock, the story received little attention from the press.
Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, says that was not an isolated case of bias. He explains that the secular media -- which he describes as atheistic and anti-Christian -- publishes most anything it can that appears to indoctrinate people and "hits against the Bible."
"It's very hard for us to get anything in there because coming from a biblical, creationist position and worrying about biblical morality [and believing] that the Bible's true, the secular world by and large doesn't want to hear it -- and secular media certainly don't want people to hear it," he says.
Ham says II Peter 3 tells us that men are willingly ignorant, deliberately reject, or choose to disbelieve. Certainly, Ham says, that is being exhibited in the media. And according to Ham, that even extends to scientific journals.
He explains that his ministry, which defends the biblical account of creation, has had to produce its own scientific journals because of censorship by evolutionists. He says it is nearly impossible to have creation research papers published in magazines like Nature or Science.
"They say [our articles] are not scientific [because] they have the creationist philosophy," Ham says. "It doesn't matter how scientific our scientists are, if they come from a creationist perspective, they won't publish them.
"And then they turn around and tell the public [it] can't trust creationists because they don't publish reputable papers in scientific journals," he says. "In fact, they won't let us publish the papers."
Ham says when this occurs, he is often reminded of the passage in scripture which says: "The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)
Discerning Media Bias in reporting on the creation versus ...
1. Those who promote either of the following two approaches are in reality trying to sneak religion into the public school science curriculum and/or testing standards:
2. Mischaracterization of the debate as one between science and religion.
3.The media will turn a blind eye towards, or is completely ignorant of evolution's religious roots.
4 The line between what is actually taught and tested on in the public schools, and what several individuals have added to it or subtracted from it on their own will be blurred.
5. The media will be quick to point out the religious biases of those who oppose evolution, but will ignore how the religious biases of evolutionists impact the way they interpret the observable evidence, whether they be scientists or journalists.
6. The media will attempt to discredit or will ignore scientists who hold the creation view of origins.
7.Claiming that Intelligent Design and all its proponents support an old earth and universe. America's attitude towards the media
A Gallup poll in December, 1998 asked this question: "In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, TV., and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?"
Only 11% said "A great deal". 88% respond said from a "fair" amount to "none at all". In June, 1999, another Gallup poll was conducted that asked this question: "Now I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one -- a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?"
When asked about "Newspapers", 66% said "some", "very little" or "none". This was among the lowest ratings of all the institutions asked about.
Looking at the backgrounds of one group of journalists may give some insight as to why this kind of biased reporting seems to be widespread in the media. In one poll, 240 journalists were surveyed from several major outlets comprising the 'media elite,' including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the three television networks. One finding was that "50% claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. Only 8% go to church or synagogue weekly, and 86% seldom or never attend religious services". Mainstream America clearly is not well represented in the profession of journalism if these numbers are typical.
Another poll framed the problem in a slightly different, but similar way. It found that "Sixty-nine percent of the national journalists said the "distinction between reporting and commentary has seriously eroded," and that is up from 53 percent in 1995." Commentary is the expression of one's personal opinions. It is not the kind of investigative reporting that is needed to properly cover an issue like creation versus evolution.
This link (a PDF document) from the Center for Reclaiming America provides this insight in the section titled "Controlling the media" (homosexuals), "The tenth annual National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention hosted over six hundred attendees. Speakers openly questioned whether they should report any viewpoint that disagrees with theirs. Joan Garry, Director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said, "It’s time to stop the whole issue of the fringe opposing view. Richard Berke, the national political correspondent for the New York Times, added, there are times when . . .literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals."
Prodigal Press by Marvin Olasky - Index American journalism is one of Christianity's prodigal sons. Until the mid-nineteenth century American journalism was Christian. But as the first part of this book will show, journalists influenced by anti-Christian humanism and pantheism abandoned their Christian heritage and ended up wallowing among the pigs. The situation is not completely analogous because the Biblical prodigal son soon was starving, while prodigal reporters of the present are well-fed.
News from Agape PressNational Public Radio was sitting in the crosshairs of angry conservatives yesterday during a hearing on Capitol Hill. The subject of the hearing? NPR's airing of an inaccurate story linking a high-profile Christian organization to anthrax letters sent to two Democratic senators.
Bozell's News Column -- 09/23/1999 -- Suddenly Clueless In Fort ... The left created the phrase "hate crimes," to elevate homosexuals, primarily, as a special category. Rape and murder a woman, it's a crime. Murder a gay man, it's a "hate crime," for he was murdered for his beliefs. So why, despite mounting evidence from Fort Worth, and Paducah and Littleton before that, are Christians not now victims of "hate crimes"? Some media outlets -- such as CBS, CNN, and Time -- apparently believe, to paraphrase Orwell's "Animal Farm," that some "hate crimes" are more equal than others.
Bozell's News Column -- 07/04/2000 -- Bryant Gumbel and the ... It looks like CBS has officially sanctioned anti-religious bigotry on its network.
Media Research Center -- Press for Best Notable Quotables of 2001 It's different with lots of the big boys. I hesitate to assume malice, but I have no explanation other than hatred of Christ for some stories generated by CBS's 60 Minutes and The New York Times in particular. That hasn't changed in the aftermath of Sept. 11, and I shouldn't expect it to. As we celebrate the birth of Christ this month, it's vital to remember that Herod and his courtiers wanted to kill Him, and they still do.
The Salt Lake Tribune -- KELLY: Media's Liberal Voice Comes ... Fox News has surpassed CNN as the news leader on cable, with, as of last week, 800,000 viewers to CNN's 600,000. The evening broadcasts of NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS were viewed last week by, respectively, 11.4 million, 10.5 million, 8.8 million and 2.7 million people. In addition, there are the tens of millions who weekly watch the networks' morning shows and news magazine shows. The Washington Times has a daily circulation of 109,000. The top 10 newspapers in America -- USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The (New York) Daily News, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Post and Newsday -- reach roughly 9.8 million people daily. The second 10 largest newspapers reach another 4.3 million readers a day.
Rush Limbaugh's radio show reaches upwards of 14.5 million listeners a week. (Fellow right-wing talker Sean Hannity reaches upwards of 10 million). The news magazine programs of National Public Radio draw a combined total of almost 17.2 million people a week. With 714 member stations, NPR can reach 99 percent of the population with its two most carried programs, "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered."
The news organizations listed above comprise the heart of the national news media, to which could be added the Associated Press, with 6,700 subscribing news organizations in America, weekly newsmagazines, with their combined circulation of 9.3 million, and the "serious'' and "thought-leader" magazines, with a few more million subscribers. Gore's "major institutional voices'' are in fact minor (although frequently loud) voices in a very large symphony.
And this symphony has long been considered to be liberal -- that is, first of all, largely populated by liberals and, second, often presenting the news from a liberal point of view. Has this been true? Is this still true?
As to the first, there is no question that journalists as a group are much more liberal than conservative and much more so than the general public. The independent media analyst S. Robert Lichter looked at 10 major surveys on the political beliefs and voting patterns of mainstream print and broadcast journalists from 1962 to 1996. As Lichter writes, "the pattern of results is compelling.'' The percentage of journalists who were classified as "liberals'' were, survey to survey: 57, 53, 59, 42, 54, 50, 32, 55, 22 and 61. The percentage classified as "conservative,'' survey by survey: 28, 17, 18, 19, 17, 21, 12, 17, 5 and 9. Voting patterns and findings on specific issues (for instance, regarding abortion, gun control or taxes) have consistently mirrored these general attitudes.
Surveys since have shown no overall change in this dynamic. A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as "Democrat or liberal" or "lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican. A 2001 survey of 301 "media professionals" by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as "liberal," 59 percent as "moderate," and only 6 percent as "conservative."
Nature and Science have a bias against publishing papers by incompetent, biased morons, it seems.
Actually, you'll find that pretty much all the scientists arguing there WASN'T evidence of life in the rock were evolutionists as well.
And the assertion that this is evidence of bias against creationidiots is extra-stupid for a variety of other reasons. First, I didn't know part of creationidiocy was a blanket assertion there's no life outside of Earth, and I don't remember a single person presenting the case that there was life in the Mars Rock dancing around saying it was evidence of evolution.
And secondly, it's blatantly obvious that the media is more interested in a story about life being on Mars than a story about life not being on Mars; has nothing to do with creation or evolution. It's just based on which side is more interesting. NOBODY is excited to read an article about how there's no evidence of life in the moon rock. Also, the people presenting the case there was life went first. That in and of itself got them more coverage.
Oh, I can't imagine why. Don't people enjoy staring at blank sheets of newsprint??
...the excuse given by every crank who can't get his nonsense published -- "it's a conspiracy to hide the truth!"
He says it is nearly impossible to have creation research papers published in magazines like Nature or Science.
Because it's nearly impossible to find any "creation research" that meets minimum standards for those journals.
"They say [our articles] are not scientific [because] they have the creationist philosophy," Ham says. "It doesn't matter how scientific our scientists are, if they come from a creationist perspective, they won't publish them.
Nonsense. Creationist papers get rejected not for their conclusions but because they're usually rubbish, wishful thinking, or try to deny established principles of biology, physics, geology, etc. without laying the meticulous groundwork necessary to justify such cavalier rejection of accepted methods and observations.
Example: Any paper which starts with the presumption that radiometric dating methods are a priori unreliable deserves to be laughed into the trashcan no matter *what* conclusion it might be trying to reach.
But I'll be glad to make a demonstration for any True Believer out there -- point me towards any "research" published on a creationist website which you think is of high enough quality to qualify being published in a scientific journal, and I'll tell you where it fails and why it would rightly be rejected.
I've read all the "scientific" papers by creationists that I could get my hands on. Without exception, they've either been shoddy pieces of claptrap, or solid scientific observations which don't actually "prove" what the creationists presume of it.
Until then, flame away, but don't hold your breath waiting for me to reply, it would be a waste of bandwith.
[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]
LOL
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (Scientific American).
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.