Defund PBS

[Dr.Who]

No doubt there is controversy. There is always controversy when the theory of evolution is being discussed.

I didn't take time to follow all of the links, but did the second one. It is about the "Theory of intelligent design". Of course, anyone who refers to ID as a "theory" is going to be uncomfortable with an objective discussion of evolution.

Whether it is scientific or not it is still a theory. As long as they are actually calling it a theory they can't be dogmatic anyway.

 

[Dr.Who]

Let us suppose that NOVA were doing a show about some cool scientific areas of interest, like biofuels or vaccines and during the show they went off on a tangent about the scientists sexual preferences? Or should I have said "orientation"? What if the show discussed the scientist's social/sexual life and showed what a great gay man he is and how positive his homosexuality is?

Would that be a liberal bias?

 

[PLC1]

It really does not matter if the issues were conroversial or right or wrong.

It only matters if NOVA presented them in a balanced way or if NOVA had bias.

YOu say you did not read all the links then you conclude that NOVA is fair and the people complaining are wrong. That proves you have a bias at least.

Anyway, it could be that all those people who think it is biased are wrong and that you are right. Or it could be that nova is biased. We don't have clear proof from what has been said on this thread so far.

But imo they are biased. Less than many other programs.

I proved I wasn't willing to wade through any more links about creationism vs evolution. A couple of them that were about "creation theory" was enough. There is no such thing as a balanced presentation between creation and evolution, as the one is science, and the other is philosophy. It's like having a balanced presentation between apples and oranges, with claims being made that apples really are oranges and vice versa.

Again: There is no conflict between evolution and creationism. Both can be accepted. The problem starts when creationism starts to masquerade as science.

 

[Dr.Who]

I proved I wasn't willing to wade through any more links about creationism vs evolution. A couple of them that were about "creation theory" was enough. There is no such thing as a balanced presentation between creation and evolution, as the one is science, and the other is philosophy. It's like having a balanced presentation between apples and oranges, with claims being made that apples really are oranges and vice versa.

Again: There is no conflict between evolution and creationism. Both can be accepted. The problem starts when creationism starts to masquerade as science.

I wish the links I had found first were not all from IDer's. But when you have limited time you do what you can. Shrug.

What about post #32?

 

[PLC1]

I wish the links I had found first were not all from IDer's. But when you have limited time you do what you can. Shrug.

What about post #32?

Post 32:

Let us suppose that NOVA were doing a show about some cool scientific areas of interest, like biofuels or vaccines

which is what they do...

and during the show they went off on a tangent about the scientists sexual preferences? Or should I have said "orientation"? What if the show discussed the scientist's social/sexual life and showed what a great gay man he is and how positive his homosexuality is?

they don't usually go off on tangents. I suppose they could have aired a program about biology and homosexuality, but I haven't seen it if they did.

Would that be a liberal bias?

Only if showing that gay people can be "great" is considered a liberal position. Is the non liberal position that gays are second class citizens? I really don't think so. The gay bashing usually revolves around the basher's insecurity about his own sexuality, or about a religious conviction that being gay is a choice and is a sin.

 

[Dr.Who]

Post 32:



which is what they do...



they don't usually go off on tangents. I suppose they could have aired a program about biology and homosexuality, but I haven't seen it if they did.



Only if showing that gay people can be "great" is considered a liberal position. Is the non liberal position that gays are second class citizens? I really don't think so. The gay bashing usually revolves around the basher's insecurity about his own sexuality, or about a religious conviction that being gay is a choice and is a sin.

The conservative position is that all people can be great and on a science show it is irrelevant if the developer of a vaccine is gay or not.

Including the segment was very likely the result of an agenda. Agreed?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The conservative position is that all people can be great and on a science show it is irrelevant if the developer of a vaccine is gay or not.

Including the segment was very likely the result of an agenda. Agreed?

true, conservatives only think being gay is a issue when it comes to , getting married, adoption, marriage benefits, making sure its not discrimination to not hire , or to fire someone for being gay, if there are to many on tv for there taste, if tinki winki is gay, if they want to choose to serve our nation, or if they choose to have sex as some states have laws against them even doing that ( not saying they are always enforced) or if they want to go to prom together, or .......

but its nice they can create a vaccine...

 

[Rick]

REAL conservative issues about gays:

- Free company benefits for gays who shack up, paid for ultimately by other employees and shareholders

- A gigantic looting of the treasury to fund AIDS research so they can butt-f__K each other without using condoms

- Hijacking of the heterosexual institution of marriage to help them pretend they're normal

- Getting pro-homosexual propaganda put into childrens' books and TV shows

 

[PLC1]

The conservative position is that all people can be great and on a science show it is irrelevant if the developer of a vaccine is gay or not.

Including the segment was very likely the result of an agenda. Agreed?

The common sense position is that it is irrelevant if the developer of a vaccine is gay or not. So, was there in fact a NOVA episode in which the sexual orientation of a developer of vaccine was made out to be a big deal, or is that just a hypothetical?

 

[Dr.Who]

The common sense position is that it is irrelevant if the developer of a vaccine is gay or not. So, was there in fact a NOVA episode in which the sexual orientation of a developer of vaccine was made out to be a big deal, or is that just a hypothetical?

My sense is that it was neither a big deal nor hypothetical.

It was an actual episode in which the sexual preferences of the developer were highlighted with a slant that many people objected. I did not see the episode which I think was called the Next Big Thing, but apparently the show made points like "it is ok to be gay".

On their website when someone complained another person responded with:

"Speaking of hate groups, I don't feel a whole lot of love in your comments either. Seems like there is enough hypocrisy to go around.
Nevertheless, I found Nova's decision to highlight this information irrelevant to the theme, out of context to the forum, and in bad taste. And that is simply a matter of principle based on what I consider to be poor journalistic reporting and priority: what does homosexuality have to do with developing bio-fuels? If Nova wants to develop a platform for gay rights, perhaps they should leave science to those who can stay focused on the subject of science rather than lobbying for a liberal social agenda.
I think its a shame that they would even taint an otherwise great program with such controversy."

So it would seem that even NOVA's defenders had problems with the episode.

However, considering how little controversy I found on NOVA and how just about everyone puts their foot in their mouth sometimes I think I would prefer change my stance and to say now that NOVA is, on balance, not biased, but that they were maybe somehow influenced to make a mistake by their close association with PBS which is biased.

 

[PLC1]

My sense is that it was neither a big deal nor hypothetical.

It was an actual episode in which the sexual preferences of the developer were highlighted with a slant that many people objected. I did not see the episode which I think was called the Next Big Thing, but apparently the show made points like "it is ok to be gay".

On their website when someone complained another person responded with:

"Speaking of hate groups, I don't feel a whole lot of love in your comments either. Seems like there is enough hypocrisy to go around.
Nevertheless, I found Nova's decision to highlight this information irrelevant to the theme, out of context to the forum, and in bad taste. And that is simply a matter of principle based on what I consider to be poor journalistic reporting and priority: what does homosexuality have to do with developing bio-fuels? If Nova wants to develop a platform for gay rights, perhaps they should leave science to those who can stay focused on the subject of science rather than lobbying for a liberal social agenda.
I think its a shame that they would even taint an otherwise great program with such controversy."

So it would seem that even NOVA's defenders had problems with the episode.

However, considering how little controversy I found on NOVA and how just about everyone puts their foot in their mouth sometimes I think I would prefer change my stance and to say now that NOVA is, on balance, not biased, but that they were maybe somehow influenced to make a mistake by their close association with PBS which is biased.

That sounds about right to me. I didn't see that particular episode, but have seen several. The ones I've seen have uniformly been about interesting scientific questions and discoveries, not such social issues.

But, as you say, everyone makes mistakes now and again.