I’m astounded that no one (especially in a blog devoted to rationalism) has mentioned the very obvious motivation for appearing on bloggingheads—self-promotion. Sean Carroll has already said almost everything he’s qualified to say on bhtv, with the exception of promoting his upcoming book. He stands to benefit more from the attention/reputation he gains from ‘taking a stand’ than he does from doing nothing. He loses what? One more interview?
As EY pointed out, there is ample evidence that bhtv does not have a hidden ‘religious’ agenda. To say that only certain viewpoints have enough merit to be heard was never anyone’s decision to make, save Bob Wright and his staff. SC’s actions smack of a play for attention—the squeaky wheel, so to speak—that has apparently worked. If SC was so valuable to bhtv that Bob felt pressure at the thought of losing him, than bhtv has bigger problems with respect to its coverage of science.
And let’s not kid ourselves—SC can have a ‘seen the light’ moment at any time and decide that he would prefer to engage in dialogue and attempt to add to the public’s knowledge rather than subtract from it. Bob would welcome him back with open arms after reading his ever-so-sincere blog post that reflects his ‘changed attitude’. Life goes on as before, except that everyone involved has gotten a little extra attention.
The fact that we are even acting like this has something to do with ‘principles’ makes me a little ill. The only fact worth noting in this entire debacle is the ease with which Bob is/is not ready to throw his guests and his staff under the bus.
I’d add that a good boycott has an end in mind. What’s the point of a boycott without returning once certain conditions are met? This, in my eyes, lends more credence to the idea that this is about drama and self-promotion. It would have been much less eventful had they merely demanded that, say, Michael Shermer appear in interview dismantling creationism, or better yet, a creationist (’s arguments—of course).
I’m astounded that no one (especially in a blog devoted to rationalism) has mentioned the very obvious motivation for appearing on bloggingheads—self-promotion. Sean Carroll has already said almost everything he’s qualified to say on bhtv, with the exception of promoting his upcoming book. He stands to benefit more from the attention/reputation he gains from ‘taking a stand’ than he does from doing nothing. He loses what? One more interview?
As EY pointed out, there is ample evidence that bhtv does not have a hidden ‘religious’ agenda. To say that only certain viewpoints have enough merit to be heard was never anyone’s decision to make, save Bob Wright and his staff. SC’s actions smack of a play for attention—the squeaky wheel, so to speak—that has apparently worked. If SC was so valuable to bhtv that Bob felt pressure at the thought of losing him, than bhtv has bigger problems with respect to its coverage of science.
And let’s not kid ourselves—SC can have a ‘seen the light’ moment at any time and decide that he would prefer to engage in dialogue and attempt to add to the public’s knowledge rather than subtract from it. Bob would welcome him back with open arms after reading his ever-so-sincere blog post that reflects his ‘changed attitude’. Life goes on as before, except that everyone involved has gotten a little extra attention.
The fact that we are even acting like this has something to do with ‘principles’ makes me a little ill. The only fact worth noting in this entire debacle is the ease with which Bob is/is not ready to throw his guests and his staff under the bus.
I’d add that a good boycott has an end in mind. What’s the point of a boycott without returning once certain conditions are met? This, in my eyes, lends more credence to the idea that this is about drama and self-promotion. It would have been much less eventful had they merely demanded that, say, Michael Shermer appear in interview dismantling creationism, or better yet, a creationist (’s arguments—of course).