For the first time in its history, the American magazine “Scientific American” makes recommendations before the US election. The magazine advertises the Biden candidate. Acting Trump has caused serious damage to the United States.
For the first time in its 175-year history, the scientific journal “Scientific American” has issued recommendations for the presidential candidate. The editorialed spoke for American Democrat Joe Biden. Internal support for the policy could not be said, said Laura Helmuth, editor-in-chief of a respected publication.
“Evidence and science show that Donald Trump has seriously harmed the United States and its people – because he rejects evidence and science,” the October editorial said. The most devastating example is the “dishonest and inappropriate” reaction of the American president to the corona pandemic, which has so far killed almost 200,000 US citizens. The authors also called his denial of climate change and attacks on the health care system irresponsible. Biden, on the other hand, is known for monitoring data and following science.
“Timing was pure coincidence”
Founded in 1845, the magazine is said to be the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States and reaches ten million people worldwide. The election recommendation was published on the Scientific American website on Tuesday, the day after Trump questioned scientific evidence of climate change, in the wake of the California fires. The US president declares that the Earth will cool down.
However, the timing was pure coincidence, Editor-in-Chief Helmuth assured. The main article was written in the last two months. She also pointed out that the magazine had taken political positions several times over the past few years. For example, in the 1950s, the medium turned against the hydrogen bomb, and in 2016 the newsroom questioned Trump’s suitability as president.
Criticism of journalists
Trump’s campaign initially declined to comment. However, from its point of view, the magazine has also received criticism from journalists and scientists. Conservative publicist SE Cupp tweeted that he agreed with the arguments of “Scientific American” and also wanted to vote for Biden, but she looked at the decision of the magazine’s creators with mixed feelings. Cupp added that she was not sure if this was a good use of scientific influence and credibility.
Psychologist and author Geoffrey Miller accused the editors of betraying 175 years of principled bipartisanism for cheap, short-sighted, and opportunistic manifestations of moral values.