It’s no April Fool’s joke — last month CNN delivered its lowest-rated month in total day in over a decade, since August 2001, the month before the September 11 attacks. The once-dominant cable news network posted decade-lows among both total viewers (357,000) and Adults 25-54 (108,000). Versus April last year, CNN was down 21% in total viewers and 29% in 25-54. In comparison, leader Fox News CHannel was up 2% in total viewers (1.1 million) and 1% in 25-54 (273,000) and No.2 MSNBC was flat in total viewers (425,000) and down 5% in 25-54 (139,000).
Things did not look brighter for CNN in the evening where its shows too posted across-the-board declines: John King USA at 6 PM was down 41% in the 25-54 demo, Erin Burnett Outfront at 7 PM was down 34%, Piers Morgan was down 14% at 9PM, and Anderson Cooper 360 was down 8% at 8 PM and 28% at 10PM. In primetime, CNN had its lowest rated month in nearly two years, since August 2010, in both total viewers (508,000, down 16% from last year) and adults 25-54 (149,000, down 22%). Meanwhile FNC (1.9 million, 395,000 in 25-54) was flat in total viewers from last April and down 9% in 25-54. MSNBC (754,000; 236,000) was down 5% and 9%, respectively.
How could this be? Maybe it’s because of CNN’s outrageous media bias.
By a vote of 72-23, Tennessee’s House of Representatives today passed an academic freedom bill that would protect teachers and school districts who wish to promote critical thinking and objective discussion about controversial science issues such as biological evolution, climate change and human cloning.
“This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers to fully and objectively discuss controversial scientific topics, like evolution,” said Casey Luskin, science education expert and policy analyst at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. Mr. Luskin continued:
Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from their goal to censor dissenting scientific views.
The bill expressly states that it…
…shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
The Tennessee State Senate previously passed the bill with overwhelming bi-partisan support. The Tennessee bill is similar to an academic freedom policy adopted in 2008 by Louisiana, known as the Louisiana Science Education Act.
Wow! It’s now possible to make scientific criticisms of Darwinism and global warming socialism in the classroom without being prosecuted by the secular left. Well, at least in Louisiana and Tennessee.
On Monday, an academic freedom bill, SB 893, passed the Tennessee State Senate by avote of 25-8. The bill enjoyed bipartisan support from all the Republicans, and over 35% of Democrats, in the Tennessee State Senate. The proposed legislation is a standard academic freedom bill that would apply generally to the teaching of controversial scientific theories, not just evolution. It contains the following good language:
“The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”
“Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrators, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrators shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education.”
“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”
Thus, the bill includes a clear statement that it only applies to teaching science and does not protect teaching religion. Don’t expect that to satisfy critics, who will predictably ignore the actual language of the bill and falsely claim it would introduce religion in the classroom.
Make sure you read that part in bold, because it’s not going to be reported in the media that way. They’ll report the exact opposite of what the bill says, and probably mention Noah’s Ark. In fact, they already have done so.
Naturally, the Darwinism/global warming cult is not happy about students being allowed to ask questions and debate the scientific merits of controversial theories:
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is already mocking SB 893 as the “Tennessee monkey bill”– reminiscent of the law passed in the 1920s that criminalized the teaching of evolution in Tennessee, leading to the Scopes trial. However, the situation is the reverse of what it was in the 1920s. Today, Darwin-skeptics are the ones fighting for intellectual freedom, while Darwin-promoters try to squash and censor opposing views. The NCSE’s “monkey bill” comparison is completely inapt: the effect of this bill would be to bring more, not less, instruction on evolution into the classroom. That’s precisely why the Darwin lobbyists don’t like it. It would allow students to learn the scientific weaknesses in biological evolution in addition to the strengths.
If secularism stands for anything, it stands for indoctrination and restricting free inquiry. They don’t like debates. They get very uncomfortable with disagreement and different opinions. They want uniformity of thought.
WINTERY KNIGHT 