Cornell Blog: An unofficial blog about Cornell University

What kind of journalism produces fake news articles which masquerade as real news? Apparently the Cornell Daily Sun, in their special Halloween edition, believe strongly in veritas absentia, quisquam est verus or in the absense of truth, anything is true. They even include the following ridiculous photo-composition:

I hate to mention this, but I hate bad journalism, and this is it at its worst. Oh Editors, where are you?

You probably remember the old Ojos Inc scandal, where I reposted originally a job posting of theirs and an engineer called me at home to tell me to take it down. Well, Ojos Inc is now Riya, and the saga continues. I wouldn’t bring this up myself, but a reader just emailed me to ask:

I’ve been absolutely amused by your sleuthing work on Ojos. Did you ever get to the bottom of it, e.g. the answer to why they were so concerned about removing most information of their needs from the web? Its been an interesting story to follow, especially as someone who does know the CEO and the great publicity he’s generated basically through episodes like this. I wonder if it was a calculated attempt to build mystique at the best computer science programs to make their recruiting efforts easier.

I’d love to know how this ended up. It has definitely taken a life of its own in the blog world, consistent with the other “PR” efforts of the firm!

My take on the issue is not really that they wanted to generate good (or bad) PR, but probably that they really were in stealth mode and didn’t want information about their jobs out on the web. Unfortunately, as any new firm should know, once facts are in the hands of the public, they will stay that way. Any attempt to stifle speech will only hurt your startup’s name and reputation.

Bloggers are unforgiving. Give them facts, not delete orders.

The full text of the presidential debate, which focuses on the scandal that is ID, can be found online. The issue is summed up in this quote:

The issue in question is the challenge to science posed by religiously-based opposition to evolution, described, in its current form, as “intelligent design.” This controversy raises profound questions about the nature of public discourse and what we teach in universities, and it has a profound effect on public policy.

The crux of the thorny issue is the unscientific view that certain structures are too complex to have occured naturally:

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has been leading the intelligent design movement, defines it this way: “The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

However, this doesn’t say much because natural selection is also an intelligent, directed process. However, I love this conclusion:

When [...] ciphers substitute for nuanced ideas, is it any wonder that this debate now concerns matters as fundamental as what we teach in our primary and secondary schools, what academic standards universities require, and what rhetoric candidates adopt in political races? When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers.