overview
- Laura Hellmuth, editor-in-chief of Scientific American, is leaving the company.
- Immediately after the election, she posted several profane comments on social media posts about the results.
- It is unclear whether Helmut's post or the backlash to it played a role in her resignation.
Scientific American Editor-in-Chief Laura Hellmuth is departing from the magazine soon after sharing profane posts regarding the presidential election results on the social media platform BlueSky.
“Following four and a half exhilarating years as editor-in-chief, I have opted to step down from Scientific American,” stated Hellmuth. wrote BlueSky on Thursday.. “I'm going to take some time to think about what's next (and go bird watching…)”
It remains uncertain whether Helmut's social media posts or the backlash they provoked contributed to her resignation. Helmut declined an interview request and mentioned being unable to provide a comment.
Scientific American did not directly address inquiries regarding Helmut's departure, but company president Kimberly Lau conveyed in a statement: We appreciate Laura for her exceptional leadership at Scientific American, during which time the magazine received significant science communication accolades and facilitated the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom. We extend our best wishes to her in her future endeavors.”
Helmut became the subject of criticism from certain conservative pundits following a series of posts on Blue Sky on November 5 post-election. The post was subsequently deleted from her profile, but the screenshot went viral.
In her post, Helmut apologized to young voters and expressed regret that her Generation X was plagued by “king fascists.”
“Solidarity with all the meanest, stupidest, most bigoted high school classmates celebrating early results to fly to the moon and back,” Hellmuth wrote.
in Later Bluesky post, November 7thHelmut apologized and deleted the election night post, calling it “offensive and inappropriate.”
“I respect and value people beyond their political positions,” Helmut wrote, adding that the now-deleted post was a “misguided expression of shock and confusion over the election results.”
Under Helmut’s leadership, Scientific American began endorsing political candidates. After 175 years, the publication’s editors endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, Kamala Harris in SeptemberDonald Trump “endangers public health and safety, rejecting evidence and instead favoring nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
In an interview with the editorial desk before the election, Blog about writing and editing Hellmuth, the author of the book and a professor at the University of North Carolina, stated that in 2020, the editors at Scientific American felt compelled to convey, “We have a duty to share what we know,” as lives were at stake in that election.
Rather than just presenting “both sides” and letting readers decide for themselves, she advocated for informing the public of what they know to be true and how they arrived at that conclusion. She supported an approach that focuses on providing information to the public.
“There aren’t always two rational sides to every story. We know that evolution is real and creationism is not. We know that vaccines save lives and that autism We know that climate change is real,” Hellmuth expressed to the Editorial Desk. “It is inappropriate to give equal consideration to creationists, RFK Jr., or climate change deniers when reporting on these topics, except to clarify that while these topics have been politicized, the science is unambiguous.”
Helmut mentioned Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. President Kennedy has made misleading and false claims about vaccines, suggesting they are linked to autism, even though multiple studies have debunked the concept.
Source: www.nbcnews.com
