Version User Scope of changes
Nov 21 2007, 12:23 PM EST (current) RachelMerkhofer 32 words added, 13 words deleted
Nov 21 2007, 4:02 AM EST RachelMerkhofer 120 words added

Changes

Key:  Additions   Deletions

by Rachel Merkhofer, postedNovemberposted November 21, 2007


Introduction

Evolution has been covered in the New York Times since at least 1878 (Gigantic), but two trials brought especially heavy media coverage to the issue. In the Scopes trial, Tennessee high school teacher John Scopes decided to challenge a Tennessee statute forbidding the teaching of evolution, after the American Civil Liberties Union said they would defend anyone who challenged the law. The trial became a public sensation that eventually ended with the case against Scopes being overturned on a technicality (Kemper). Evolution was in the news again in 2005, during the Kitzmiller trial. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, parents in Dover, Pennsylvania sued the school board after the board decided a statement must be read to ninth grade biology students saying that intelligent design is an alternate theory to evolution. The parents said that the statement violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Pennsylvania judge agreed, and the school board did not appeal because they were replaced in the next election (Lee). The parallels between the two trials are clear—evolution on trial over what can be taught in public high schools. One 2005 newspaper article even makesarticlemakes note of the similarities between the two cases, saying "Advocates on both sides of the issue have lined up behind the [Kitzmiller] case, often calling it Scopes II, in reference to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial that was the last century's great face-off over evolution" (Goodstein, A Web)Web). But while there are many parallels between the two situations, the New York Times covered the two events in very different ways, and the differences show how journalism has changed in the 80 years separating the two trials.

Methodology

16 New York Times articles about the Scopes trial, spanning from when preparations for the trial began on May 18, 1925, until a few days after the original judge's ruling on the case on July 18, 1925, were compared with 19 New York Times articles about the Kitzmiller trial starting with the announcement of the suit on December 15, 2004 and ending with the judge's ruling on December 21, 2005. These time periods were chosen because they comprise a similar number of articles, and both have a natural stopping point with the announcement of a ruling. The two are not perfect parallels, as the Scopes decision was appealed and the original decision was eventually overturned, while the Kitzmiller decision was not appealed due to the fact that the school board members who wanted to teach intelligent design were all replaced in the next school board election. For each article, the number of sources was counted, and the kind of source was also recorded. Sources were counted only if a specific quote or piece of information in the article was directly attributed to them.

Results

16 New York Times articles about the Scopes trial had an average of 1.88 sources. 10 articles (63 percent) had only one source, while one article had seven sources. The most common type of source was an attorney involved with the trial—attorneys were used as a source 11 times, making them 37 percent of all sources. Nearly as frequently used were ministers, who were used as sources nine times, making them 30 percent of all sources. Other less frequently used sources were court transcripts, anti-evolution activists, government officials, articles from other publications, the trial's judge, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Number of Sources (1925) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Articles 10 3 1 1 0 0 1

Type of Source (1925) Times Used
Attorney 11
Minister/Religious figure 9
Article 2
Court transcript 2
Anti-evolution activist 2
Government official 2
Judge 1
ACLU 1

In contrast, New York Times articles about the Kitzmiller trial had an average of 5.32 sources. The most frequent number of sources was six, with five articles containing six sources (26 percent of all articles). One article had only one source, and one article had 13 sources. The most frequent type of source was a Dover school board member or teacher—22 of 101 sources (22 percent). Also appearing frequently were attorneys (15 total, 15 percent), pro-intelligent design groups like the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center (12 total, 12 percent), and scientists (9 total, 9 percent). Other less frequently used sources were Dover citizens, pro-evolution groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Dover parents, non-scientist academics, ministers, the trial's judge, Dover students, public opinion polls, web sites, election returns, and world leaders.
Number of Sources (2004)(2005) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Articles 1 1 3 3 3 5 1
Number of Sources 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Articles 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Type of Source (2004)(2005) Type of Article
Dover School Board member or teacher 22
Attorney 15
Pro-defendant group 12
Scientist 9
Other citizen 7
Dover parents 6
Pro-plaintiff group 6
Academic (non-scientist) 5
Minister 4
Judge 4
Dover student 3
Surveys/Polls 2
Election results 2
Website 2
World leader 2

Analysis

In the articles about the Kitzmiller trial, intelligent design is often portrayed as though the issue has two equal sides. In fact, many articles reduce the issue into two contrasting sentences. For example, an article by Neela Banerjee, "An Alternative to Evolution Splits a Pennsylvania Town," says, “Proponents of Intelligent Design, which asserts that life is so intricately complex that an architect must be behind it, say it is a valid scientific theory. Critics argue that Intelligent Design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism.” Rachel Smolkin says, “The public thinks we're biased despite our reluctance to speak plainly.” Giving equal weight to both sides of the issue won’t make the public think the article is unbiased, and it would be better for the article to tell readers that one side has much more evidence behind it than the other. Articles about the Scopes trial are much less likely to present different ideas about evolution in such equal terms. A rare article that does talk about "two sides" qualifies that statement. Speaking about the upcoming trial, it says, "For no doubt both sides of the case, so far as it has two sides, will be presented there with skill and vigor" (Topics…).(Topics). And when the verdict for the Scopes trial came in, the New York Times let the judge's ruling speak for itself. The article, "TEXT OF JUDGE'S RULING; He Holds Law Makes Clarification by Scientists Unnecessary. INSISTS INTENT IS CLEAR This, He Explains, Is to Prohibit Theory That Man Descended From Lower Animals. SEES JURISDICTION LIMITED Court Holds That Proof of Theory and Question of Policy Are Matters for Legislature. JUDGE DECIDES AGAINST SCIENTISTS," is simply a transcript of the judge's statement. The different sides of the debate are presented in the judge's words, not reduced down to a single sentence by the paper. Instead of having to come up with a fair summary of each side’s perspective, the paper lets the record speaks for itself.

One of the biggest differences between coverage of the two cases is the number of sources used per article. More than half of the articles about the Scopes trial use only one source. And the ones that use more usually do so in order to add more evidence for the same point, not to show two opposing perspectives,perspectives. This leadingleads to articles with explicit points of view, rather than articles that cover both sides of the story. The article, "SAYS SCOPES ISSUE IS NOT RELIGIOUS; Dr. Sockman Sees Christianity on Trial by Practice and Not by Jurors. NOT SHAKEN BY EVOLUTION Preacher Declares Man Who Lives In Faith May Accept Theory Without Injury," quotes two ministers, Ralph W. Sockman and S. Edward Young. Instead of finding one minister who supports the teaching of evolution and one who opposes it, the author of the article provides two examples of ministers who say belief in evolution doesn't conflict with belief in the Bible. Another article, "TO DEFEND SCOPES IN SCIENCE'S NAME; Darrow Outlines the Big Question Involved in Tennessee Teacher's Case. STATE CONTROL AN ISSUE Not Settled by Oregon Decision, He Says -- Talk of Fosdick as a Witness," quotes two attorneys and again both support Scopes. Even an article with only an anti-evolution author as a source favors Scopes' position. In the article, "DECLINES BRYAN'S REQUEST; Anti-Evolutionist Won't Testify -- Calls Scopes Case Futile," Alfred W. McCann says "I disapprove of the entire procedure from beginning to end. I cannot believe that good will come out of it, for I am very sure that the spirit of this generation must feel outraged by the spectacular methods invoked to put a muzzle on the teachings of any sect or cult, however erroneous those teachings may be." The article has a clear point of view: even evolution's opponents support Scopes.

Research shows the articles from 2005 use many more sources than the articles from 1925, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily less biased. Banerjee’s article "An Alternative to Evolution Splits a Pennsylvania Town" quotes 12 different sources. But none of the sources mention that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution. When Banerjee says “Critics argue that Intelligent Design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism," she never mentions that those “critics” include virtually all scientists. Instead, the article talks about how divided the town is. While this is true, it leaves out a crucial fact—the town may be evenly divided, but the scientific community is not. In a long article that has space to quote multiple Dover students and teachers, the omission of the scientific perspective on evolution is glaring. It's not like this point is complicated or difficult to include—another article, "Opting Out In the Debate On Evolution" by Cornelia Dean, says simply, "In theory, [the intelligent design] position – 'teach the controversy'–is one any scientist should support. But mainstream scientists say alternatives to evolution have repeatedly failed the tests of science, and the criticisms have been answered again and again. For scientists, there is no controversy."

This exchange with New Science magazine reporter Celeste Biever, from Laurie Goodstein’s article “In Pennsylvania, It Was Religion vs. Science, Pastor vs. Ph.D., Evolution vs. the Half-Fish,” illustrates the difficulty that comes with trying to cover the debate over intelligent design as though it were actually controversial among scientists.


Ms. Biever was finding that she could not cover the trial the way she would a classic courtroom face-off. When you put intelligent design up against evolution, she said, ''It's not a head-on collision between two scientific arguments; it's orthogonal,'' with the opponents coming at each other from right angles. ''It's apples and oranges,'' Ms. Biever said. Her readers do not take intelligent design seriously, she said, so she was striving for ''local color.'' Her readers want to know, she said, ''Why is this happening here?'' ''We're not just science cheerleaders, and I don't want to overlook any valid argument for intelligent design,'' Ms. Biever said. ''As far as I'm concerned, I haven't heard one yet.''

The last line shows how it can be difficult to cover a "controversy" when one side has overwhelming evidence on its side. But while intelligent design is not at all controversial among scientists, it is a controversial issue for many Americans.

Conclusion

In his article about the Scopes trial, “Evolution on Trial,” Steve Kemper says “Bryan and the creationists claimed victory because the jury in Dayton upheld the state's ban against teaching evolution and, by implication, the right of parents to control what their children learned. Darrow and the evolutionists, on the other hand, believed that in exposing the ignorance behind creationism they had stymied its threat to academic freedom. Time has proved both sides wrong.” Is widespread disbelief in evolution today partly the result of media that dwell on the “controversy” over it, or would Americans refuse to accept it even if everyone knew that it is so completely accepted by science? According to a 2006 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review article by Brenda Lee, “Recent polls show that around eighty percent of Americans believe God created the earth, while acceptance of evolution hovers around fifty percent.” In 1925, ministers were quoted in the New York Times for preaching that evolution does not conflict with the Bible, when today that idea is clearly hard for many people to accept. Then again, if the 1925 New York Times coverage had been convincing, perhaps evolution would not be so controversial today. Even if the coverage of the Kitzmiller trial didn’t change many minds by giving equal weight to both sides of the issue, there’s no way to be sure that coverage more like the Scopes trial would have changed any more minds.more. Would coverage of the Scopes trial have been better if it included more about why some people were against the teaching of evolution, and would the coverage of the Kitzmiller trial have been better if it gave more weight to the side with more evidence? Perhaps both could have benefited from being more like the other.

Sources:

Bannerjee, Neela. “An Alternative to Evolution Splits a Pennsylvania Town.” New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jan 16, 2005. p. 1.18

Dean, Cornelia. “Opting Out In the Debate On Evolution.” New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jun 21, 2005. p. F.1

“DECLINES BRYAN'S REQUEST; Anti-Evolutionist Won't Testify -- Calls Scopes Case Futile.”
New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jul 3, 1925. p. 6 (1 page)

“GIGANTIC REPTILES AND DRAGONS.; DISCOVERIES OF FOSSILS IN WYOMING AND COLORADO BY YALE PROFESSORS.” From the Omaha (Neb.) Bee. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jul 17, 1878. p. 3 (1 page)

Goodstein, Laurie.“A Web of Faith, Law and Science In Evolution Suit.”
New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 26, 2005. p. A.1

Goodstein, Laurie. “In Pennsylvania, It Was Religion vs. Science, Pastor vs. Ph.D., Evolution vs. the Half-Fish.” New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Oct 2, 2005. p. 1.14

Kemper, Steve. “Evolution On Trial [The Scopes Trial].” Smithsonian v. 36 no. 1 (April 2005) p. 52-9, 61

Lee, B. “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review v. 41 no. 2 (Summer 2006) p. 581-90

“SAYS SCOPES ISSUE IS NOT RELIGIOUS; Dr. Sockman Sees Christianity on Trial by Practice and Not by Jurors. NOT SHAKEN BY EVOLUTION Preacher Declares Man Who Lives In Faith May Accept Theory Without Injury.” New York Times. New York, N.Y.: June 22, 1925. p. 18

Smolkin, Rachel. “What The Mainstream Media Can Learn From Jon Stewart.” American Journalism Review. June/July 2007, http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4329, accessed November 17, 2007.

“TEXT OF JUDGE'S RULING; He Holds Law Makes Clarification by Scientists Unnecessary. INSISTS INTENT IS CLEAR This, He Explains, Is to Prohibit Theory That Man Descended From Lower Animals. SEES JURISDICTION LIMITED Court Holds That Proof of Theory and Question of Policy Are Matters for Legislature. JUDGE DECIDES AGAINST SCIENTISTS .” New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jul 18, 1925. p. 1 (2 pages)

“TO DEFEND SCOPES IN SCIENCE'S NAME; Darrow Outlines the Big Question Involved in Tennessee Teacher's Case. STATE CONTROL AN ISSUE Not Settled by Oregon Decision, He Says -- Talk of Fosdick as a Witness.” New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jun 29, 1925. p. 1 (1 page)

“TOPICS OF THE TIMES.” New York Times. New York,N.Y.: Jun 2, 1925. p. 22 (1 page)


Site pages
Top Contributors