The PhD who authored this thread is a little too snide in his appraisals of these peoples' appearances, but he does highlight glaring deficiencies behind the facade of the "Scientific American" magazine.
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE? Thread Exposes Woke Leftists Behind 'Scientific American' (This Explains SO MUCH!)
http://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2024/09/19/thread-behind-fall-of-scientific-american-mag-n2401149
The other day, we told you about 'Scientific American' the magazine that purports to be about ... well ... "science."
They recently endorsed Kamala Harris because -- even though she's from the party that thinks there's 57 different genders -- she understands science. Or something.
Someone should ask Kamala to define what a woman is.
Anyway, how did we get here? How did we get to a place where 'science' became another religious sect of the Democratic Party? It certainly didn't happen overnight. It's the result of the Left's politicization of everything.
And here's a thread that explores who is running 'Scientific American' these days, and it's a list of progressive liberals who are less interested in science than their agenda.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ How did a formerly respectable, once excellent publication focusing on high quality popularization of cutting edge scientific research turn into a cut rate political rag?
Forget about the masthead. Let's look at the people hiding behind it.
First up: the editor in chief, Laura Helmuth.
Helmuth is actually a scientist (PhD cognitive neuroscience), although she prefers to be known as a Woman In Science. From her bio, "She speaks frequently on ... ways to use social media effectively and fight misinformation."
Oh. "Misinformation."
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ Next up, the managing editor Jeanna Bryer.
Bryer has an English BA, an MSc in biogeochemistry, and a graduate degree in journalism. Not really a scientist, though apparently she did some wetland conservation work.
"She is a firm believer that science is for everyone". Does 'everyone' include Trump voters? Rhetorical.
Yikes, that haircut though. Just screams 'bitter middle aged shrew with penis envy.'
Not really a scientist.
But an English major.
Does 'everyone' include Trump voters?
We're going to guess Trump voters are excluded from all the science.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ Next up, senior news reporter Meghan Bartels. From her bio she doesn't seem to have any actual scientific training - she's worked exclusively as a "science reporter" and has master's in journalism.
This is a face that despises ethics in gaming journalism.
Another journalist pretending to understand science. Peachy.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ Next we have Sunya Bhutta, the "Chief Audience Engagement Editor", which sounds like she runs social media or something, and is in fact precisely that. Once again she has absolutely no scientific training - she's an English BA, which appears to be her highest qualification.
Look, this writer has a BA and an MA in English.
She is not a scientist.
These people are cosplaying as scientists.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ The first male we find is Lee Billings, senior editor for space/physics. Billings doesn't appear to be a scientist either (journalism degree), but the American Institute of Physics gave him an award for a book he wrote about astrobiology, so there's that.
This face is screaming to be soyjacked.
We're noticing a trend here: white progressives.
Explains so much.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ The senior graphics editor is another middle aged woman, Jen Christiansen. The problem glasses and chainsaw haircut immediately inform you that she has Strong Opinions on politics, and that she will take every opportunity to inform you about those opinions, despite it being wholly unnecessary as a glance at her is sufficient to determine what those opinions are.
Once again, no actual scientific training. Her job is to make the graphs look pretty.
The other trend: next to no scientific background or education.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ Jeffery DelViscio is the Chief Multimedia Editor. He's a former NYT reporter, but does actually have some scientific experience, having worked on an oceanographic research vessel.
As an aside, it really jumps out that what small amount of scientific training the editors have seems to be top-heavy with climatology-adjacent fields. I wonder why that might be.
A New York Times reporter, with a tiny bit of scientific experience.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ Arminda Downey-Mavromatis is the Associate Engagement Editor, i.e. the social media intern. There's an even chance she wrote the tweet the OP QT'd. Hi, Arminda!
To her credit, she has a BA (not a BSc?) in biochemistry, but seems to have worked exclusively in publishing.
A science degree, but no scientific experience.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ This smarmy-looking character, straight out of central casting for "middle management", is Mark Fischetti, Senior Editor, Sustainability. "Sustainability" is apparently a scientific field now.
He does, however, have a physics degree - the first hard scientist in the pressroom - and has a pretty impressive publication record, having co-authored a book with Tim Berners-Lee.
That he isn't the editor in chief is remarkable, until you consider the politics, which he certainly supports. Though I can't help but wonder how he feels about not being editor in chief because of his chromosomal disability (XY, yuck).
Finally! A degree in physics. An actual hard science.
But he works in sustainability, which is not a scientific field.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ There are dozens more in the pressroom to get through, but the point has already been made.
Scientific American isn't Scientific American. It's a skinsuit being worn by a cabal of overpromoted head girls and their housebroken soy-boys, for whom science is only interesting insofar as it can be used to bolster propaganda imperatives for their side's political goals - "sustainability", "equity", and so on. If those goals require "science" to be redefined as "supporting a cackling social-climbing prostitute with the verbal IQ of a parakeet", then that's what The Science means.
Science journalism is desperately in need of a Gamergate.
Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) ~ There are 28 individuals listed in the SciAm pressroom. Of these, 17 are women, 10 are men, and 1 is a "they".
Ctl-F 'physics' yields 3 with physics degrees, of whom 1 has a PhD.
Ctl-F 'Ph.D.' yields a whole 3 hits.
A dearth of scientific background and experience.
Climatography (@climatographie) ~ The Scientific American publisher is Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.
Wokeness has ruined science, including 'Scientific American', and these are the faces of people directly responsible for destroying the reputation of a much-needed field of study.
So keep this in mind when they 'endorse' candidates like Kamala Harris. It's not science. It's a political agenda.
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence
| 
