Despite being called the epicenter of the liberal media by the right, the New York Times continues to play the False Equivalency game. I commented on this Times phenomenon last year when a Times editorial argued that Conway's "Aqua Buddha" ad was basically the same as Rand Paul followers' curb-stomping a Conway supporter.
The NY Times Magazine today has a piece called Fact-Free Science by Judith Warner.
Did you know that "questioning accepted fact, revealing the myths and politics behind established certainties, is a tactic straight out of the left-wing playbook" ?
Judith Warner informed me of that today, and also that the parade of lunatics ranging from Sen. ("It's snowing!") Inhofe to Rep. ("Only God can destroy the earth") Shimkus to every GOP Presidential candidate are really no different the the woman's rights movement in the '60s and '70s. and some (apparently post-modern) academics in the '80s and '90s.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the push back against scientific authority brought us the patients’ rights movement and was a key component of women’s rights activism. That questioning of authority veered in a more radical direction in the academy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when left-wing scholars doing “science studies” increasingly began taking on the very idea of scientific truth.
Warner, of course, does not identify who in the women's movement rejected science and how widespread it was. And to imply that any science rejection by the "left" is remotely comparable to litmus test of climate/evolution denial in the modern GOP is ludicrous.
The Times will be vilified as ultra-liberal no matter what. There's no need to bend over backwards with phony equivalences to try to show that it's not.