Evolution and Editing

I just finished my morning coffee on the deck with the Sunday paper. I often see things in the paper that I noticed online but did not take the time to look at. This morning, I saw a NYTimes article in the SJMercury about teaching evolution. It was amazingly shallow, pretty much a useless puff piece. It told the story of a Florida teacher, David Campbell, who helped write the new teaching standards on evolution. It then covers how he introduced it to his class using a picture of how Mickey Mouse evolved over time. Students offered observations about how his tail got shorter, and the article ends this way:

Campbell smiled. "Mickey evolved," he said. "And Mickey gets cuter because Walt Disney makes more money that way. That is 'selection.'"

Later, he would get to the touchier part, about how the minute changes in organisms that drive biological change arise spontaneously, without direction. How a struggle for existence among naturally varying individuals has helped to generate every species, living and extinct, on the planet.

For now, it was enough that they were listening.

I'm thinking: "Stupid. What kind of reporter is this?" Now having finished my coffee and wandered in to see what news awaits on the Internets, I checked out the real article in the NYTimes. Yow! It is about five times longer and actually offers some depth and insight. Now I feel bad for the reporter.

Maybe this contrast is a better illustration of the evolution of newspapers. You would think that at least the Mercury would include the full article online. Nope. Sigh.