WGBH hires, then fires, anti-vaxxer as science reporter

Who know a women of science (as a meteorologist) could be so thick about vaccines.

And btw.. Adam, your story has a proceeding " at the end of the link so it doesn't load upon click.

A well educated immigrant from India, Mish Michaels did very well on her own, then married a well-heeled owner of local car dealerships, so here's hoping that she retains a great lawyer and sues for millions. For those who follow WGBH, it's no surprise that someone with a difference of opinion is quickly escorted out. The Greater Boston program with far-left former Cambridge City Councilor Jim Braude is no longer watchable and the Friday night Beat the Press program has become an echo chamber for liberals, moderates need not apply. The late Friday night repeat is better comedy than any of the actual comedy shows on the networks at that hour.

I'm sure the suits and pantsuits at channel 2 are glad they got rid of Mish before today's blizzard, lest she question Al Gore's prediction that 2016 was the point of no return for Global Warming, "Climate Change."

bug in a rug, very sweet in person, and glamorous, to boot.

But an anti-vaxxer? Sorry, Mish. I expect our real-media reporters to have a basic grasp of science, and that kind of ignorance is potentially lethal to us all, especially our children.

Promulgating anti-science in the age of Trump -- when flunkies for insane, exploitative assholes like Alex Jones get a seat in the White House briefing room -- has to be categorically rejected now more than ever, especially when the science on the subject is so overwhelming.

To people like Fish who talk about science in terms of "differences of opinion", GFY. You're a dangerous ignoramus, too.

To people like Fish who talk about science in terms of "differences of opinion", GFY. You're a dangerous ignoramus, too.

.
The earth is flat (Middle Ages), the "Coming Ice Age" (Newsweek, 1970s), "point of no return in ten years" (Al Gore 2006). With the massive increase in autism potentially caused by infant vaccines scoffed at, scientists like Mish Michaels are fired for exploring the issue. The "settled science" of the left is remarkable. Obviously Mish Michaels would still have a job if she toed the WGHB, big-pharma sponsor's line. Sad.

Scientists understand that observations are rarely complete—that interpretations often vary. There is usually considerable room for discussion and debate. Debate is as important to science as consensus is to politics. But debate needs to be based on observations, not opinions.

Why is it always the meteorologists?

They don't teach these guys to check the farmer almanac for tomorrow weather, nor to ask around on Twitter for people's opinions on the weather?

Is meteorology the poor students science path? You would think they get a good schooling where their data comes from and how it's modeled and used.

Several years ago Nathaniel Abraham was fired from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution because he was did not believe that the theory of evolution was true. He was apparently sufficiently qualified to be hired in the first place. But during the interview process no one asked whether he subscribed to evolution (it was assumed). Abraham sued and lost because believing that evolution is true is part of the job since the job involves work based on evolutionary theory.

So even a scientist can have a blind spot in his science. That blind spot negatively affected his ability to do research that is in part based on theory of evolution.

Would this apply to a science reporter? Can Ms Michael's separate her blind spot concerning immunology from reporting on science issues? If she could then perhaps firing her is unfair. On the other hand if her belief biased her against reporting on immunological science then in at least in that respect I would think her belief might conflict with her ability to do her job.

That she also denies in human made climate change makes the issue worse. Can a reporter who is not an expert in either science (although I would hopes knows more about each being a reporter), who claims that theories accepted by most scientists are false, be a good reporter on those topics at WGBH?

Considering that immunology and human made climate change are major scientific areas of popular concern I can see that her blind sports may interfere with her doing the job. To me this is a hard question and perhaps requires a judge to way the matter if she sues for discrimination?

I would think that it is comparable to whether a lawyer can be reasonably expected to defend a client who he or she suspects is guilty? Public defenders face this question. There the stakes are higher but I think is a comparable question.

Of the soul of my dog: Most theological systems deny that dogs have souls (although I wonder what is the actual definition in theological circles). Yet when I look in my dog's eyes and see the devotion, watch her play, see that she has emotions and see that she can distinguish and respond with various responses depending on who in front of her, then I have to ask how can a creature so intelligent in its relations with the world, and one that is affectionate and without judgement of human beings (she is far more loving than many people) not have a soul, or be denied legal protections since by her affection and joy contributes far more to human happiness in the world than many people? But the science and law does not agree. Yet while I consider myself to be more rational than average I also see the possibility of reality beyond the rationally apprehensible. So I can be rational and still believe in what otherwise is considered the irrational.

So to me the question is can a person as a reporter do a good job of reporting on areas where she personally disagrees? If not then she is not qualified for the job. But if so then she is.