Slate’s William Saletan (pictured) is up to his same old tricks. He is a transparent phony who sometimes presents himself as a liberal, but is really a conservative apologist. In his latest post, he defends Mark Regnerus’ junk science study on gay parents in a biased article, “A Liberal War on Science.”According to Saletan:
Mark Regnerus is a hateful bigot. He’s an ultra-conservative with links to Opus Dei. His new paper on same-sex parentingis “intentionally misleading” and “seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents.” His “so-called study doesn’t match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well.” His “junk science” and “pseudo-scientific misinformation,” pitted against statements from the American Psychological Association and “every major child welfare organization,” deserve no coverage or credence.
That’s what four of the nation’s leading gay-rights groups—the Human Rights Campaign, the Family Equality Council, Freedom to Marry, and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation —declared in a joint statement this week. Flanked by a mob of bloggers, they’re out to attack Regnerus’ motives, destroy his credibility, and banish his study from the scientific record. Even Slate contributor E.J. Graff says “Slate‘s editors should be ashamed” for publishing Regnerus’ “dangerous propaganda.”
Wow.
The dim bulb that he is, Saletan lists the charges as if they alone are scandalous, without even making an effort to refute them. It seems not to matter to the writer if the accusations made are factually true and a matter of public record. Speaking of records, Saletan has one and isn’t good. His MO is to attack liberals who defend themselves, all while pretending to be above the fray. I don’t think there is a writer who works for a mainstream publication who is less sincere. For example, Saletan blithely dismisses evidence of right wing funding for the study:
Yes, two right-wing outfits funded his study. But what did they get for it? A detailed, nationally representative survey of 15,000 people, yielding a data set that can test hypotheses about family structure. There’s nothing evil about the data set. From a lefty point of view, it’s the best $800,000 these two funders ever spent.
“What did they get for it” he ignorantly asks? I suggest Saletan conducts a Google search and sees the hundreds of thousands of dollars in free ink designed to make loving gay parents look like reprobates. Of course he already knows this, but asks the question anyway because he has an agenda. Don’t trust anything you read from Saletan. He’s a total snake, a contrarian, and has a completely self serving and dishonest writing style. He truly represents the worst of Internet journalism. In another era of better writers he would likely not be working in this field.
More on Saletan from Zack Ford at Think Progress.
