Consumer Reports Goes Political

I quit reading "Scientific American" because they decided, stated in a 'letter from the editor', that on certain issues they are going to take a more political view, specifically global warming (now call climate change) even though the science doesn't support it. Other issues were stated. I quit reading "Time" many many years ago because when founder Luce died, a 'letter from the editor' stated they would approach reporting from a decidedly liberal point of view.

Now "Consumer Reports" has jumped on the band wagon, deciding to let political views trump reporting. Health care is the issue. Publisher Jim Guest: "Health care has been a top priority of Consumers Union since we started back in 1936. In the pages of Consumer Reports and the advocacy work we do for consumers, we've long argued for better health care that's more affordable and reliable." "While working for better health care is not new for our organization, today we are doing something that we've never done before. For the first time ever, Consumers Union is weighing in with a TV ad that calls on lawmakers to find a solution for health reform."

Another chapter in 'we worship, you don't get to decide'. These information and news sources at one time may have had particular world view and reported from that, and that's okay, but just becoming an advocate when they are supposed to inform? Lacks as being a credible source for me on every issue. If they're willing to do that for one issue, how do we know they aren't hedging on other issues?

"Scientific American" the Un-Science Mag

A couple years ago I canceled my subscription to "Scientific American" because the editor wrote they were going to become proponents of Statist ideology. He didn't word it that way, but his intent was clear. I had subscribed to keep up with scientific news, and was now being told that only science that supported the Statist agenda would be covered.

In the June edition of the mag: "After eight long years in exile, scientists have been enthusiastically welcomed back into the White House." Our Dear Leader was mentioned as being one of ten people "who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity." This all has to do with 'climate change' previously known as 'global warming' (which had to be changed because of increasing scientific evidence that temperatures are static or cooling).

The praise went on, "He wiped away science-averse policies." No, Scientific American, he wiped away science based policies.

I also quit reading "Time" magazine in the eighties when it's founder Henry Luce died. They too had a editorial stating they were going to present news through the Statist filter. I was just beginning my shift from being a Marxist at that time, and even then I was interested in straight reporting, not editorialized reporting.

Is a society really free when most of the media, even science media, deliberately filters and even lies to maintain, even grow an ideology? When it refuses to report and inform and let the people determine for themselves how to read, accept or reject what's reported? Keep the people ignorant, they'll be easier to rule.