Close this search box.
Close this search box.

Reporters Not Sure Why, But Pretty Sure Rubio Still Wrong On Science

Look here to see how reporters struggled to explain why they’re pretty sure Marco Rubio was wrong to point to scientific consensus on when human life begins.

Last week the Washington Post responded to Marco Rubio’s claim that there is consensus regarding when human life begins with a smug article about when one group believes “pregnancy” begins. Though many people explained the problems with the piece — here’s my effort — the article remains uncorrected as of press time.

Here’s a telling exchange between some reporters and others. It may explain why journalism on these matters is so frustratingly bad (mid-way through you are prompted to go to the second page of tweets with the “read next page” button).

Among the many interesting things displayed by these tweets, those who read my piece know that half of it was devoted to discussing the political movement to change the definition of pregnancy. Therefore, Gibson’s tweet “WaPo article seems absolutely fine. When do you think pregnancy begins? Is there a debate?” suggests that he didn’t even read my article before claiming he was unconvinced by it.

Follow Mollie on Twitter.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments