Salty, I dont know about SA, I am seeing some pretty liberal backing here. Gore, Daniel Patrick, Robert Reich, all big Dems. We all know about Gore and how crazy he is and they list him at the top of their most honored writers.
|
|
|
|
|
Salty, I dont know about SA, I am seeing some pretty liberal backing here. Gore, Daniel Patrick, Robert Reich, all big Dems. We all know about Gore and how crazy he is and they list him at the top of their most honored writers.
http://www.sciam.com/Originally Posted by dhussdawg
Not sure what you are talking about. Here is a link to SA web site. Sure didn't see any political leanings, although they might have published their articles at one time. Certainly not recently. I know the magazine is pretty much devoid of left or right identications although it accepts advertisements from just about anyone.
Perhaps you could provide a link?
I got it from that web site, I went to the about us category adn all of the distinguished politicians that wrote for it were Gore and his comrades. That might be because Gore invented the InterNet, I dont know. I was just saying that they are proud of Dem writing for them if that means anything.
Yeh, pretty much. Most WSJ-types are financials, obviously, and they dont pay too much attention to deficits as much. If it gets too out of hand they will. For the most part, economic types are concerned with deficits. They know it is not sound policy and worry about these things. Most financials dont worry until the ship is crashing, so they dont concern themselves with the deficit too much.
You're good at finding the needle in the haystack. Here is the complete history:
Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S., has been bringing its readers unique insights about developments in science and technology for more than 150 years.
In 1845, Rufus Porter founded the publication as a weekly broadsheet subtitled "The Advocate of Industry and Enterprise, and Journal of Mechanical and Other Improvements." A restless inventor, Porter soon turned to other ventures, and after 10 months sold Scientific American - for the sum of $800 - to Orson Desaix Munn and Alfred Ely Beach.
In an era of rapid innovation, Scientific American founded the first branch of the U.S. Patent Agency, in 1850, to provide technical help and legal advice to inventors. A Washington, D.C., branch was added in 1859. By 1900 more than 100,000 inventions had been patented thanks to Scientific American.
For a century, Munn & Company retained ownership of the magazine, which chronicled the major discoveries and inventions of the Industrial Revolution, including the Bessemer steel converter, the telephone and the incandescent lightbulb. Edison presented the prototype of the phonograph for inspection by the editors, and Samuel Morse, father of the telegraph, and Elias Howe, inventor of the sewing machine, were frequent visitors to the offices in downtown New York City.
Back to Top
Milestones
At the turn of the century, vehicles were of particular interest, and in 1899, a special issue was devoted exclusively to bicycles and automobiles. The editors took great delight in reporting new speed records, including a land speed record of a mile in 39.4 seconds set in 1904 by Henry Ford while driving across the ice of Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
By this time, the magazine had established its hallmark for pinpointing emerging trends before news of them reached the general population. Articles on Marconi's experiments appeared two decades before the advent of radio. Scientific American published photographs of the Wright Brothers' plane nearly two years before the successful Kitty Hawk flight. Robert Goddard contributed an article in 1921 defending and explaining his work on developing a rocket capable of reaching "interplanetary distances." In 1927 Scientific American reported on a practical demonstration of television that sent the voice and moving image of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover over telephone wires from Washington, D.C., to New York.
In 1948 Gerard Piel, Dennis Flanagan and Donald Miller purchased Scientific American from Munn & Company and founded Scientific American, Inc. In their quest to increase the immediacy, timeliness and authority of the magazine, they insisted that the majority of the articles be written by the people who actually did the work described - a unique distinction among consumer magazines that still applies.
With ahead-of-the-curve reporting, Scientific American continued to cover groundbreaking events in science and technology. An article prophetically entitled "Computers in Business" was published in 1954. From the successful launch of Telstar to a single-topic issue that identified "Key Technologies for the 21st Century," the magazine has alerted its audience to the expanding possibilities of communications. Medical coverage included Jonas Salk writing on the development of his polio vaccine, Robert Jarvik detailing the creation of the Jarvik-7 artificial heart, and single-topic issues on AIDS and the immune system. New technologies that revolutionized the automobile industry were explored.
Back to Top
Renowned Writers
More than 120 Nobel laureates have written for Scientific American, most of whom wrote about their prize-winning works years before being recognized by the Nobel Committee. In addition to the likes of Albert Einstein, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk and Linus Pauling, Scientific American continues to attract esteemed authors from many fields:
World leaders
: former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, former United Nations Secretary-General Trygve Lie
U.S. Government Officials
: former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin
Economists and Industrialists
: John Kenneth Galbraith, Lester Thurow, Mitchell Kapor, Michael Dertouzos, Nicholas Negroponte
In 1986 Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, a German-based publishing group, bought Scientific American, Inc.
Today, under the leadership of Editor in Chief John Rennie - who at the age of 43 is just the seventh editor in Scientific American's history--the magazine continues to identify and deliver the latest developments in science and technology across a broad range of fields. Rennie received the 2000 Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science, which is given annually "to honor those who have become concurrently accomplished as researchers and/or educators, and as widely recognized magnifiers of the public's understanding of science."
Scientific American is a truly global enterprise. The magazine publishes 15 foreign language editions and has a total of more than 1,000,000 copies in circulation worldwide.
I think it means that Reagan, the Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc have not submitted an article worthy of publication.
That is what needs to be found Salty. If you cant pick up on the subtle things, it is hard to deduct if something is biased or not. I am not saying they are, I am just saying that I find it odd that they have all of Clinton's chronies as their distinguished politician publishers.
Well, they have been in existence for 150 Years, where is FDR, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy, Wilson, TR, Ike, etc? I am getting tired of listing them.
Maybe you are being too hard on those Old Democrats, perhaps they didn't have time to write articles for SA or didn't have anything worthy of publication. I would think that you would be proud that at least some US gov't officials were published in that magazine. I think your charge that the magazine has a political bias is way off-base. Pick up a copy someday and I doubt you will find any political slant.
Not to mention the fact that Rennie (Editor In Chief of SA) is a huge anti-Creationist, and that is not that big of a deal for a scientist I guess, but when you publish articles titled answers to Creationist's Nonsense, it make you seem like you are anti-religion, but I guess that is all besides the point. He is probably unbiased. (hint: that was sarcasm for the peole on this Website that struggle with that.)
Note, not everybody is a Dem president over the last century and a half. I was pointing out that only Clinton's cronies were put on there. It makes you wonder if someone had some friends in Clinton's cabinet. I am not being hard on Dems., Nixon and Reagan dont ahve articles either.
I am one of the people that gets all of my news from Fox. I believe most of what I hear there because you do get both sides. As far as global warming, if I was interested in that or any other topic, I am smart enough to go do the research. I don't think you will find out much about global warming on any new channel. I think I will be able to live through the night if I don't hear about it though.
You too funny. Of course the guy is against the religious doctrine of creationism. It's a religious belief, and it is not hard to understand that a scientist would not want religious beliefs being past off as science in our public schools. Science is science and religion is religion. Is that too difficult to understand?
What has me worried is that some people want to impose their religious beliefs on others. Does that have you worried too?
Yes, but will your grandchildren have that luxury?
Her children won't even watch Fox News - of course, that may have a bit to do with their advanced ages of 2 and 4. And, I can vouch for their genious - they'll definitely be able to do whatever research they need. And, I'm fairly certain they'll be conservative. She's already got the older one trained to know that Bulldogs are good and Tigers are always evil!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote