On Wednesday's CNN Newsroom, CNN's John King could hardly contain his excitement as he proclaimed that Scientific American magazine is endorsing Joe Biden for president, as if Science was opposed to Donald Trump. "Another first in this year of new challenges and new normals. The magazine Scientific American endorsing a president first time in its 175-year history, Democrat Joe Biden gets that honor."
King also read a tweet from the magazine that said that if you want to live, vote for Biden: "The 2020 election is literally a matter of life and death. We urge you to vote for health, science and Joe Biden for president."
King brought on the magazine's new editor-in-chief Katie Helmuth, who has worked at The Washington Post and the leftist website Slate. That might explain the sudden decision to endorse a presidential candidate for the first time.
Helmuth, who in 2014 ripped Ronald Reagan's AIDS policy in the 1980s as "hateful, homophobic, racist," said that:
we took the decision seriously. You don't break a 175-year tradition without a really good cause. But, we went around to the editorial staff, it was unanimous and not that long a discussion. We all agreed that all the evidence shows Trump has been catastrophic for science and for public health and for the environment and Joe Biden has, you know, really, smart policies that should make the world better. So we felt it was our duty to speak up.
King then encouraged the audience that everyone "should read the editorial whether they agree or disagree, they should read it, because you talk about COVID, you talk about climate change, you also talk about the EPA, you talk about a whole number of issues there, and what the president has done versus what Joe Biden says he would do."
Taking his own advice, King then read passages: “The evidence and the science show Donald Trump has badly damaged the [United States] and its people because we rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
By contrast, they argue Biden "'comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making."'
King left out the hypocritical passages such as when they condemn Trump on masks, even though Biden campaign has been forced to rescind its mask mandate over constitutional issues.
Nor did he mention that the magazine hailed Biden's allegedly great plans involve wanting "to spend $2 trillion on an emissions-free power sector by 2035... partly paid by eliminating Trump's corporate tax cuts."
Finally, King left out that some of Scientific American's allegations against Trump have nothing to do with science, "Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote."
King also lamented "we have to have a conversation in the middle of a pandemic, with [Hurricane] Sally making landfall, with the wildfire out west, a conversation whether climate change is real and we should follow science in a pandemic. That’s kind of nuts." Helmuth agreed: "It's ridiculous," and that "science shouldn't be a political issue."
Of course, science does not actually tell you why raising taxes is better for the environment, but such logic could be expected from a magazine whose editors are Democratic donors.
This Science-favors-Biden segment was sponsored by Sandals Resorts.
Here is a transcript of the September 16 show:
CNN
CNN Newsroom
11:56 AM
JOHN KING: Another first in this year of new challenges and new normals. The magazine Scientific American endorsing a president first time in its 175 year history, Democrat Joe Biden gets that honor. The Scientific American explaining its decision this way on Twitter, “The 2020 election is literally a matter of life and death. We urge you to vote for health, science and Joe Biden for president.”
Laura Helmuth is the editor-in-chief of Scientific American. Laura, thank you for joining us. I want to get into some of the reasons why in a minute, but first I want to get into the idea, so you’re breaking a 175-year tradition when you went around the room with your team. Maybe done virtually, in the new normal we live in, was there any resistance to get getting a magazine that’s rooted in science and data involved in politics?
LAURA HELMUTH: Yeah, we took the decision seriously. You don't break a 175-year tradition without a really good cause. But, we went around to the editorial staff it was unanimous and not that long a discussion. We all agreed that all the evidence shows Trump has been catastrophic for science and for public health and for the environment and Joe Biden has, you know, really, smart policies that should make the world better. So we felt it was our duty to speak up.
KING: And people should read the editorial whether they agree or disagree, they should read it, because you talk about COVID, you talk about climate change, you also talk about the EPA, you talk about a whole number of issues there, and what the president has done versus what Joe Biden says he would do. Here's a piece of the editorial endorsing Joe Biden, “The evidence and the science show Donald Trump has badly damaged the [United States] and its people because we rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”A bit later you say “Joe Biden, in contrast, comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making.” It is interesting that we have to have a conversation in middle of a pandemic, with Sally making landfall, with the wildfire out west, a conversation whether climate change is real and we should follow science in a pandemic. That’s kind of nuts.
HELMUTH: It’s ridiculous. I mean, science has never more important and it’s never more clear science is important and shouldn't be a political issue yet it is. This time it really is.
