Cornell's Intelligent Design Club Protests Infiltration by Magazine Reporter under guise as student

Cornell University IDEA Club ^ | 10/04/2006

[SirLinksalot]

Letter to the New Scientist

October 4, 2006

Ithaca, NY

Dear Editor of New Scientist,

I am the president of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at Cornell University. In late September, 2006, we were contacted by someone writing us saying “I am a student at Cornell and am interested in coming to an IDEA meeting” and identifying herself as “Maria.” This person subsequently wrote us via e-mail using the e-mail address “Cel Biever < XXXXX@gmail.com>.” At the time I was surprised at the incongruency between her assumed name and email, and later discovered that Celeste Biever is a New Scientist reporter who is presently interviewing numerous people for a story about intelligent design.

As a club, we promote a civil and informed discussion of intelligent design where all viewpoints—whether hostile or friendly—are always welcome. Therefore we are happy to have anyone come to our meetings, including hostile reporters. But it appears that your reporter acted unethically and lied to us about her identity and falsely claimed she was a Cornell student in an unnecessary ruse to obtain information from us. Is it your policy to have your reporters misrepresent their identities?

Sincerely,

Hannah Maxson, President, IDEA Cornell

[camle]

how well did misrepresentation work for HP?

[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 Cornell’s 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.

[theDentist]

I wonder if he'll receive a reply?

[peyton randolph]

Celeste Biever is a New Scientist reporter

---

Don't worry. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will punish her.

[theDentist]

I wonder if she'll receive a reply?

* *I really was thinking "she" in my previous post.

[Coyoteman]

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

[GSlob]

"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.

[dbehsman]

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.

[Cicero]

So in other words unethical behavior is OK with you as long as it's in the Darwinist cause?

[Gingersnap]

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.

[Tax-chick]

how well did misrepresentation work for HP?

Harry Potter?

[RogueIsland]

Why should they complain?

Probably embarrassed at having their stupidity revealed to the public.

[dbehsman]

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?

[SirLinksalot]

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 ?

[GSlob]

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.

[dbehsman]

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.