[ad_1]
For the first time in its history, the American magazine “Scientific American” gives a recommendation before the American elections. The magazine advertises candidate Biden. The current Trump did serious damage to the United States.
The American science magazine “Scientific American” has issued for the first time in its 175-year history a recommendation for a presidential candidate. An editorial was in favor of the American Democrat Joe Biden. Internally, it wasn’t about supporting the politician, said Laura Helmuth, editor-in-chief of the respected publication.
“The evidence and science show that Donald Trump has caused serious harm to the United States and its people, because he rejects the evidence and the science,” reads the editorial in the October issue. The most devastating example of this is the US president’s “dishonest and inappropriate” reaction to the crown pandemic, which has so far killed nearly 200,000 American citizens. The authors also described their denial of climate change and attacks on the healthcare system as irresponsible. Biden, on the other hand, is known for following data and being guided by science, he said.
“The time was pure coincidence”
Founded in 1845, the magazine claims to be the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States, reaching ten million people around the world. The election recommendation was posted on the Scientific American website on Tuesday, a day after Trump questioned the science on climate change taking into account the California wildfires. The President of the United States declares that the earth will grow cold.
However, the timing was pure coincidence, said editor-in-chief Helmuth. The main article was written in the last two months. He also noted that the magazine had taken political positions several times in recent years. In the 1950s, the outlet turned against the hydrogen bomb, and in 2016 an editorial questioned Trump’s suitability as president.
Criticisms of journalists
The Trump campaign initially declined to comment. But for his point of view, the magazine has also received criticism from journalists and researchers. Conservative columnist SE Cupp tweeted that she agreed with the arguments of “Scientific American” and also wanted to vote for Biden, but viewed the decision of those responsible for the magazine with mixed feelings. She’s not sure if this is a good use of scientific influence and credibility, Cupp added.
The psychologist and author Geoffrey Miller accused the publishers of betraying 175 years of principled non-partisanship for the sake of a cheap, short-sighted and opportunistic display of moral values.
