The producers of these shows have an agenda and they will cherry pick their subjects and edit the content to advance that agenda. This does not give a true picture of what scientists do.
You freely submit that there are a few who are "intellectually dishonest" and that these are the ones you will likely see on these programs. Add to that the known history of these shows to take people's statements and edit them to misrepresent what the subjects actual position is if it suits their purposes.
You're submitting that this should be the basis that the scientific community needs to be judged on, rather than published works that present a complete picture. There is no way you can convince me this is going to result in a fair assesment.
Good golly tactic- You have absolutely convoluted what I was getting at even though I’ve attempted to strighten out hte misconception on your part several times now.
My gosh- I agree with BOTH you and Coyoteman that the journals contain intellectually honest articles that present BOTH sides in a somewhat fair and balanced manner AND I AGREE that people SHOULD go to those instead of going to shows with a bias. I am NOT- repeat NOT- suggesting people go to shows- I made a sarcastic statement that the shows were fair and balanced- it was sarcastic in the highest order tactic- Again- You’ve completely misread/misinterpreted what I was saying-
you said [The producers of these shows have an agenda and they will cherry pick their subjects and edit the content to advance that agenda. This does not give a true picture of what scientists do.]
Agreed- what’s the confusion?