沈黙を破ったScientific AmericanとWired

アメリカでは有力新聞メディアがはっきりと大統領候補を支持するのは有名ですが、Scientific AmericanとWiredは今年初めて誰を大統領として支持するか表明したそうです。

Matt Shuham
‘Scientific American’, ‘WIRED’ Break Precedent To Come Out Against Trump
August 18, 2016 4:42 pm

Two publications have broken with their respective histories to wade into the presidential election: WIRED, which released a ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton Thursday, and Scientific American, which did not endorse a candidate, but came out strongly in an article for the September 1 issue condemning Donald Trump’s anti-science views.

Scientific Americanの方は、トランプは科学的態度を軽視していると批判することに重きを置いて誰を支持するかははっきりと表明していません。

POLICY & ETHICS
Donald Trump’s Lack of Respect for Science Is Alarming
The U.S. presidential election shows how far the political conversation has degenerated from the nation's founding principles of truth and evidence
By THE EDITORS on September 1, 2016

Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it. For more than 170 years we have documented, for better and for worse, the rise of science and technology and their impact on the nation and the world. We have strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true.

一方のWiredの方はヒラリー支持を明言しています。まず雑誌の創刊理念を説明し、それに沿った候補者であることを述べてからの支持表明という流れでした。

AUTHOR: SCOTT DADICH.
08.18.16.
08.18.16

WIRED ENDORSES OPTIMISM

WIRED HAS NEVER BEEN NEUTRAL.

For nearly a quarter of a century, this organization has championed a specific way of thinking about tomorrow. If it’s true, as the writer William Gibson once had it, that the future is already here, just unevenly distributed, then our task has been to locate the places where various futures break through to our present and identify which one we hope for.

Our founders—Louis Rossetto, Jane Metcalfe, and Kevin Kelly—all supported a strain of optimistic libertarianism native to Silicon Valley. The future they endorsed was the one they saw manifested in the early Internet: one where self-organizing networks would replace old hierarchies. To them, the US government was one of those kludgy, inefficient legacy systems that mainly just get in the way.

Over the past couple of decades, we’ve gotten to watch their future play out: We’ve seen the creative energies of countless previously invisible communities unleashed—and, well, we’ve watched networks become just as good at concentrating wealth and influence in the hands of a few people as the old hierarchies were. We’ve seen geeks become billionaires, autocrats become hackers, and our readers (people curious about how technology is shaping the world) become the American mainstream. Like any sane group of thinkers, we’ve calibrated our judgments along the way. But much of our worldview hasn’t changed. We value freedom: open systems, open markets, free people, free information, free inquiry. We’ve become even more dedicated to scientific rigor, good data, and evidence-driven thinking. And we’ve never lost our optimism.

I bring all this up because, for all of its opinions and enthu­siasms, WIRED has never made a practice of endorsing candidates for president of the United States. Through five election cycles we’ve written about politics and politicians and held them up against our ideals. But we’ve avoided telling you, our readers, who WIRED viewed as the best choice.

Today we will. WIRED sees only one person running for president who can do the job: Hillary Clinton.

さすがに好き勝手やっていたトランプを見限る雰囲気になってしまっているので一方的な戦いになりそうですが、どうなるでしょうか。