Wednesday, February 18, 2004
"Political motives"?
James Glanz, in today's Times:
People have been screaming this stuff for three years and the media has ignored them. Now, finally, the world's top scientists come together to demand accountability, and the media feel obligated to ask if there are political motives for it?
Why is every criticism of the Bush administration, no matter how well documented, subject to this caveat?
We honestly suspect that if video footage of George Bush beating his grandmother were to fall out of his pocket during a press conference, the media would describe it as "election-year fodder for Democrats".
How about this: does the media ever ask the White House if their interpretation of scientific data--or intelligence--is "politically motivated"?
Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts"Political motives"?
By JAMES GLANZ
The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.
Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.
The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape, a day after Senator John Kerry won the Wisconsin Democratic primary and solidified his position as President Bush's likely opponent in the fall. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready.
People have been screaming this stuff for three years and the media has ignored them. Now, finally, the world's top scientists come together to demand accountability, and the media feel obligated to ask if there are political motives for it?
Why is every criticism of the Bush administration, no matter how well documented, subject to this caveat?
We honestly suspect that if video footage of George Bush beating his grandmother were to fall out of his pocket during a press conference, the media would describe it as "election-year fodder for Democrats".
How about this: does the media ever ask the White House if their interpretation of scientific data--or intelligence--is "politically motivated"?
