2 ms·
> Watson had been increasingly 'a pariah' over the last few decades because of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It was not due to "one failed joke."
by kitd 11y ago
> Watson had been increasingly 'a pariah' over the last few decades because of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It was not due to "one failed joke."
I assumed he was talking about Hunt (although strictly speaking he's a biochemist).
You're right that journos have always had quick access to the public ear, but the internet makes this available to pretty much everybody else at zero cost. "Everybody else" outnumbers "journos" thousands to 1, with no editorial oversight or regulatory control. The Hunt story blew up because of Twitter. Imagine what Twitter would have looked like during Krakatoa, or the contemporary Jack-the-Ripper murders.
- dalke 11y agoThe article uses the plural in 'recent scandals involving Nobel biologists'. There are only two such cases I know of. If the essay is only referring to Hunt, then it should 1) be clear about the distinction, and 2) describe why the reaction to Watson's well-known racist and sexist remarks, including those printed in The Times, which caused him to lose his chancellorship of the Cold Springs Harbor Lab, were not due to a 'shame mob'. By "editorial oversight", do you include the yellow journalism of the 120 years ago as example of how editorial oversight in the newspapers helped keep things from being blown up? Or the many publications of the xenophobic nativist presses? Page 3 girls? The influence of people from Hearst to Rupert Murdoch on politics? Because I don't see why the newspapers as a category deserve special praise for good 'editorial oversight or regulatory control'.