At some point in the 2010s, the media and popular culture thought it would be a good move to get political and stake out a place between the left and far-left. Late night entertainment, movies, comics, gaming to name a few. Media that were already on the left like Rolling Stone and Newsweek decided to go full gonzo, abandon their primary missions and dive into left-wing advocacy.
The worst, however, was the hijacking of scientific journalism. Why? Because of what science represents. It is a structured process and a tool that has served humanity for thousands of years. Science is a means to expand our knowledge through a process of hypothesizing, collecting data, analyzing it, testing and reaching a theory.
Science has gifted us an understanding of life, cosmology and the very fabric of existence. And when we reach the end of what is measurable, say the core of a proton or the edge of the observable universe, the scientific model helps us create theoretical hypotheses.
Then there's Scientific American - a popular science journal once meant to bring science to the masses but now perverted by woke ideologues who believe science starts with a conclusion (trans-women are women), brings data that supports their conclusion then browbeats us as fact.
So when Laura Helmuth, the Editor-in-Chief decided to step down, there was much rejoicing. Science is too important to be a slogan on a liberal's yard sign.
🚨BREAKING: Laura Helmuth has resigned as Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American after over four years in the role. During her tenure, she transformed @sciam from a widely respected, objective popular science magazine into a science-themed, woke political publication. pic.twitter.com/5nMNp79lSF
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) November 14, 2024
Yes, that.
Good job turning a once respected institution into an international laughingstock, Laura. https://t.co/T0a822w6iw
— Yore Friend Whig 🇮🇱 (@WhigJust) November 14, 2024
Recommended
And more of that.
Before we get to the sweet, delicious snark, let's review how Ms. Helmuth earned this scorn.
Scientific American is a leading "science" magazine pushing sex spectrum pseudoscience. pic.twitter.com/AfJDXkdr70
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) November 14, 2024
The pseudo-science.
She once absurdly claimed that white-throated sparrows had 4 sexes. When I corrected her on this point, she blocked me. pic.twitter.com/oqaEKLAFxQ
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) November 14, 2024
You can say that the sky is green and we'll all snicker at you and pat you on the head. But if you say the science proves the sky is actually green, we'll look at you all funny and tell you we're just going to refill our drinks, never to return.
Helmuth is lauding the work she did spreading medical misinformation about "gender-affirming care."
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) November 14, 2024
She claims that "gender-affirming care for trans kids is good health care," despite every systematic review stating otherwise.
She dismisses the notion of "rapid onset gender… pic.twitter.com/ecis6kcIze
Then you tell us that the sky is green and you'll be using your influence and power to involve government in helping everyone understand the sky's greenness. Add to that Scientific American's wading straight into non-scientific issues such as the campus Gaza protests.
From Scientific American:
— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) November 14, 2024
"Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports."
This level of biological illiteracy from a magazine purporting itself to be scientific is… pic.twitter.com/6qJWYnp8tz
Yes, a magazine dedicated to science said this.
The “terrifyingly ordinary” nature of football’s violence disproportionately affects Black men https://t.co/qpQB8Veppb
— Scientific American (@sciam) January 7, 2023
This gem of political and racial activism actually got Tony Dungy's attention.
As a black man and former NFL player I can say this article is absolutely ridiculous.
— Tony Dungy (@TonyDungy) January 7, 2023
Now remember, Laura Helmuth is a scientist, and yet she responded to criticism with an argument you'd expect from a middle schooler.
The aforementioned white overeducated woman. Take note of the commitment to logic and reason.
— Dave Gordon 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 (@D_Gordzo) January 8, 2023
Oh sorry I meant "confirmation bias and name calling". pic.twitter.com/E99onp8lkL
Please forgive the self-reference. We know it's tacky and frowned upon, but the screenshot is the only way to show the response. Recall that her Twitter account is locked down.
Laura Helmuth. A three-part story. pic.twitter.com/YqX9h5DqBI
— Blargeaux (@blargeauxite) November 14, 2024
Which brings us to the current moment, where she lost it on election night and locked down her account.
If Springer Nature, the company that owns Scientific American, has any sense, they'd return the publication to its roots and hire a new Editor-in-Chief who rejects woke pseudoscience and embraces objective reality.
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) November 14, 2024
To be fair, Helmuth was symptom. The problem is Springer Nature, a "progressive" company fully committed to DEI.
This is welcome news. But if its parent company, Springer Nature, wants to save the magazine, it's going to have to sweep deeper. The politcal capture at @SciAm started even before Helmuth arrived, as I covered in @CityJournal: https://t.co/9bSTDqTTjM https://t.co/8IXkMBVpZs
— Jim Meigs (@jamesbmeigs) November 14, 2024
Your homework assignment.
So without further ado, let's go to the People's Free Speech platform and get some of the best reactions.
This is legitimately one of the best days for Scientific Education in I don’t know how long. Goodbye, Laura Helmuth, I hope you’re pleased with your legacy of leading Scientific American into becoming yet another over politicized mediocrity. Hopefully whoever takes over can fix… https://t.co/pNMVHBfQky
— Enguerrand VII de Coucy (@ingelramdecoucy) November 14, 2024
"resigns" is doing a lot of work here, as in she was obviously "fired" https://t.co/xRKaYakXpn
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) November 14, 2024
Don't know about that, she could actually be choosing to spend more time with her cats.
So being a social justice warrior and an editor of a science publication don’t go hand in hand? 😂 🤭 https://t.co/yXv2y34HBe
— Jose Antonio PhD (@JoseAntonioPhD) November 14, 2024
Hopefully not for much longer. This is just a small sampling of the reactions. It appears that there is a massive group of people who were disgusted at what became of Scientific American.
I would just like one of these publications to hire someone who doesn't come in on day one and declare, 'Teen Vogue.' https://t.co/hiu8X8CMzx
— Chad Felix Greene 🇮🇱 (@chadfelixg) November 14, 2024
Yes, this! History should remember this as the "Teen Voguing of Scientific American".
Thank you, Laura Helmuth, from stepping down from making a Scientific American yet ANOTHER woke Democrat propaganda zine that everyone now hates.
— Based Latinos 🇺🇸🇮🇱 (@BasedLatinos) November 14, 2024
MAYBE, just maybe, it can go back to actually being about science again. https://t.co/1BCI0RXHhX
This pretty much says it all.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 50% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member