Adurentibus Spina wrote:mockbee wrote:I'm really pissed at Gawker/NYTimes today.
I appreciate online investigative journalism but some of the things they do take out legitimate intellectuals, who just don't share their point of view,
This particular case was a genomics blogger, a friend of mine, who happens to be referenced on a supremacist (yes nasty) site . Tough, there are multiple points of view out there. Science isn't always pretty. Fight science with science, not smears.
NY Times recently hired 20 op-ed writers and then dropped him from their full editorial status, went back to contributing editor because they couldn't handle a potential smear campaign.
Nice 'journalistic excellence' guys.
....maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
The Gawker article suggests that the issue isn't "fighting science", but rather that your friend published numerous blog entries -- wasn't just "referenced" -- on a racist website (this "taki" site...) A NY-Times editorialist isn't being paid to produce "science", strictly speaking, but to editorialize in an area (presumably of expertise or interest). It's not merely a smear campaign to suggest that your friend's affiliation with a racist blog ought to be taken seriously in the context of producing editorials for the NY Times.
The co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, James Watson, said some pretty ridiculous racist things about black people and intelligence a few years ago, and as a result, the scientific community condemned his statements and he lost his posting. That doesn't invalidate his scientific work, but it does mean that he probably shouldn't be in a position of authority over people where he can act on racist impulses (or even that his employer should tolerate these). Incidentally, when asked about his comments, Watson recanted and had a hard time believing he had actually said what he said -- suggesting, imho frontal lobe atrophy might have led him to blurt out things that the better part of his brain doesn't believe, but also that he's probably too old to continue in a direct supervisory role in scientific research.
So your friend might not be racist, but it's difficult to tell -- and we can't just ask -- people tend to say "No!" when you ask that question, even if they are racist. And it's not a matter of disagreement about actual science, since that's what peer review is... publications speak for themselves. Blog entries are not respected scientific articles, but they also sometimes speak for themselves.
This "taki" site appears to be a paleoconservative/libertarian blog site that he has contributed to. This was not the "supremacist" site I was referring to (I must have picked that up in some comments made at Gawker), but does appear to have what can definitely be considered objectionable content; maybe there is racist content but I didn't scour the site and certainly didn't feel like doing so. But there you go, that was the smoking gun by Gawker that got him canned from the NYTimes. BTW - There are other current editors at NYTimes who have been published at that taki site.
Mr Khan, the referenced fellow relieved of full editorial status at NYTimes, is regularly published in over a dozen legitimate publications; eg NYTimes, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Discovery Magazine, etc. The NYTimes Senior Editorial staff already vetted him and wanted Mr Khan on board, it was when the Gawker "smoking gun" came to light to senior brass at NYTimes when this went down, no new information was uncovered.
Just FYI here is a sample of his writing in Discover Magazine (pretty mainstream science mag.......)
Why Race as a Biological Construct Matters
My own inclination has been to not get bogged down in the latest race and IQ controversy because I don’t have that much time, and the core readership here is probably not going to get any new information from me, since this is not an area of hot novel research. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the world isn’t talking, and I think perhaps it might be useful for people if I stepped a bit into this discussion between Andrew Sullivan and Ta-Nehisi Coates specifically.......................
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... Q-mnWYkihz
I think it is interesting and worth trying to extrapolate for the masses. Yes, I realize this can get messy pretty quickly, and I would not back him if he wrote racist content, I just don't think that applies to him though. And surely, the
possibility of something is not a reason for condemnation.
Gawker and NYTimes can investigate, hire, fire, expose whomever they please. I don't have a problem with that. In this case, though, I think they were feeble.
If you want to debate further, I would be on board, and actually interested in what you have to say, but maybe we could make a new thread.
thanks, I think he thinks he should be famous, he's such a ham!
And he absolutely knows words, all I have to do is say the word "vacuum" and he heads for the hills--it's not facial expressions or tone because I tested it facing away from him in just a steady tone of voice and he still runs away. 
