Skip to comments.
Cornell's Intelligent Design Club Protests Infiltration by Magazine Reporter under guise as student
Cornell University IDEA Club ^
| 10/04/2006
Posted on 10/11/2006 8:59:19 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
To: SirLinksalot
how well did misrepresentation work for HP?
2
posted on
10/11/2006 9:02:35 AM PDT
by
camle
(keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you)
To: SirLinksalot
Here is another report on this :
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/celeste_biever_secret_agent_ne.html
Celeste Biever, Secret Agent? New Scientist Reporter Caught Impersonating a Cornell Student to Get Story on ID
Celeste Biever, a reporter for the viscerally anti-ID New Scientist magazine, seems to have been caught trying to impersonate a Cornell University student in order to ingratiate herself with pro-ID students there. The fascinating story is recounted here on the blog of Cornells IDEA Club. Evolutionist Allen MacNeill, who teaches biology at Cornell, calls Biever's tactic "Pretty sleazy."
Biever and her editors apparently don't subscribe to the Code of Ethics issued by the Society of Professional Journalists, which clearly states:
"Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public."
The New York Times imposes an even stricter standard on its employees:
"Staff members should disclose their identity to people they cover (whether face to face or otherwise), though they need not always announce their status as journalists when seeking information normally available to the public. Staff members may not pose as police officers, lawyers, business people or anyone else when they are working as journalists."
Since the students in question were happy to talk with reporters, there seems to be no justification for Ms. Biever's impersonation.
To: SirLinksalot
I wonder if he'll receive a reply?
4
posted on
10/11/2006 9:04:06 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: SirLinksalot
Celeste Biever is a New Scientist reporter
Don't worry. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will punish her.
5
posted on
10/11/2006 9:04:38 AM PDT
by
peyton randolph
(No man knows the day nor the hour of The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief.)
To: theDentist
I wonder if
she'll receive a reply?
* *I really was thinking "she" in my previous post.
6
posted on
10/11/2006 9:05:23 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: SirLinksalot
Why should they complain? ID is a misrepresentation from start to finish.
It is religion masquerading as pseudo-science in a blatant attempt to force a particular narrow interpretation of scriptures into science
7
posted on
10/11/2006 9:06:09 AM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
"an unnecessary ruse to obtain information from us"
Pretty bad logic for a Cornell student. From them no information is obtainable as they do not have anything worth the name of "information". But about them information is obtainable.
8
posted on
10/11/2006 9:14:09 AM PDT
by
GSlob
To: Coyoteman
It is religion masquerading as pseudo-science in a blatant attempt to force a particular narrow interpretation of scriptures into science
According to YOUR definitions that you like to post, Intelligent Design would have to be classified as a theory. It would be nice if you'd play by your own rules.
9
posted on
10/11/2006 9:21:38 AM PDT
by
dbehsman
(NRA Life Member, and loving every minute of it!)
To: GSlob
So in other words unethical behavior is OK with you as long as it's in the Darwinist cause?
10
posted on
10/11/2006 9:22:09 AM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: SirLinksalot
The issue here is whether or not the reporter acted ethically. Not whether or not you agree or disagree with the purpose of the club.
This is unethical since the club is clearly willing to meet with even "hostile reporters. The woman was apparently attempting to form some type of person relationships within the club under a false pretense.
To: camle
how well did misrepresentation work for HP?Harry Potter?
12
posted on
10/11/2006 9:22:18 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(If you believe you can forgive, you're right. If you believe you can't forgive, you're right.)
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: Coyoteman
Why should they complain? Probably embarrassed at having their stupidity revealed to the public.
To: GSlob
From them no information is obtainable as they do not have anything worth the name of "information". But about them information is obtainable.
Why didn't the reporter simply ask them for information? Why did the reporter automatically assume that she would be compelled to work undercover and have to sneak into a meeting under an assumed name? Does the reporter suffer from intellectual bigotry? Did the reporter expect to find some holy roller Christian sermon going on there in secret?
16
posted on
10/11/2006 9:31:18 AM PDT
by
dbehsman
(NRA Life Member, and loving every minute of it!)
To: DaveLoneRanger
This piece of news really intrigues me. Given that the IDEA club is open to all inquiring minds, why is there a need for going incognito ?
What on earth was this New Scientist reporter hoping to find ? A prayer meeting ? a secret ceremony where an image of Charles Darwin was being desecrated ?
To: Cicero
Since I do not see a [for example] police undercover agent working as a "plant" in, say, the Gambino family as unethical [the Gambino family is, or could plausibly believed to be, harmful], I reject your argument. The same "is, or could plausibly believed to be, harmful" applies to this misnamed "idea" as well.
18
posted on
10/11/2006 9:32:49 AM PDT
by
GSlob
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: GSlob
I think the reason why the reporter went "undercover" (this gal is about as stealthy as Valerie Plame) was so that when she wrote the story, she could give it a sinister spin.
I think she wanted to start off the story about how she "had" to sneak into the Intelligent Designers meeting. And then she'd reveal something about Intelligent Design, which is openly discussed, as if it was something that the IDer's were intentionally hiding. I can well imagine that she'd throw in a couple of out of context quotes for flavor.
20
posted on
10/11/2006 9:42:23 AM PDT
by
dbehsman
(NRA Life Member, and loving every minute of it!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson