The really interesting question is not how stupid fat people can get hold of a microphone and spout nonsense. We have too many examples (e.g. Roseanne Barr(the frig), Michael (lots)Moore, Al Gorge, but how scientific information is filtered through the media and reported by our self-appointed Mr. Smiths so that it can be easily fed to us without us getting upset tummies and developing gas.
Truth isn't important for the little people. It's too difficult to grasp.
True to form, the overwhelming majority of press outlets failed to report the juiciest global-warming gossip of the week — a change of heart on the issue by one of the world’s most celebrated environmentalists. Also true to form, the press failed to report the most profound science story of the week — a startling theory that not only absolves humans of blame in global warming but sheds light on another taboo subject: shortcomings in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Unlike their coverage of the political establishment or the corporate establishment, journalists will rarely be skeptical of the scientific establishment. Perhaps these unskeptical journalists don’t question scientists out of a belief that scientists’ pronouncements are free of the self-interest that taints politicians or corporations. Or perhaps these journalists, who are themselves rarely scientifically literate, blindly accept the views of scientific authority figures because they lack the training to assess rival views. Or perhaps these journalists fear being subjected to ridicule if they buck politically correct views. Whatever the reasons for journalistic deference to dogma in science, the victim is the information-consuming public, which at best is kept in the dark, at worst is duped.
H/T: Small Dead Animals