NPR reported on the resignation of Laura Helmuth, the editor of Scientific American, in the wake of her comments about Trump on social media after the election. Who knew that Trump supporters were such snowflakes? Trump constantly sneers at and insults people and he got elected President. She expressed her reaction to his election and was forced out.
Before coming to Scientific American, Helmuth was previously the health and science editor for The Washington Post. She was also the President of the National Association of Science Writers.
NPR wrote:
Laura Helmuth, the chief editor of Scientific American magazine, announced her resignation on Friday after comments she made disparaging supporters of President-elect Donald Trump gained attention in conservative circles.
In a post on the social media platform Bluesky, Helmuth wrote, “I’ve decided to leave Scientific American after an exciting 4.5 years as editor in chief. She added, “I’m going to take some time to think about what comes next (and go birdwatching).”
In subsequent messages on Bluesky, which were later deleted, Helmuth referred to some of Trump’s supporters as “the meanest, dumbest, most bigoted” individuals celebrating his election night victory over Vice President Harris.
She also expressed regret to younger voters, stating that her generation is “so full of f****** fascists.”
Helmuth later apologized for her remarks, writing: “These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results.”
Helmuth’s comments and resignation come in the wake of a highly contentious election season, during which media organizations and their reporters struggled with how to address Trump and his allies concerning conspiracy theories, their plans to consolidate power to the White House, and threats to their perceived enemies.
For only the second time in its nearly 180 years, Scientific American endorsed a presidential candidate, backing Kamala Harris while describing Trump as a threat to public safety who “rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
In an emailed statement to NPR, Kimberly Lau, president of Scientific American, confirmed Helmuth’s resignation, stating, “Laura Helmuth has decided to move on from her position as editor in chief. We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American, during which time the magazine won major science communication awards and established a reimagined digital newsroom. We wish her well in the future.”
Helmuth is a courageous editor. Her departure is a loss to freedom of thought and expression, as well as to science.
If you are on BlueSky, check out her posts. Especially her list of the outstanding articles published on her watch.

A conservative editor similarly criticized by the opposition would only be buoyed by the criticism. Hence the March of Tyranny as it floats on the idiocy of an uninformed public.
LikeLike
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/17/goodbye-to-all-that–once-again-and-for-the-last-time/
LikeLike
thanks. Interesting opinion. I did not, however, detect any rejection of neoliberalism, which I hold responsible for the modern takeover of the Republican Party by fascists.
LikeLike
You have a tough time convincing me that there was anything socioeconomic in what motivates a Trumptard. No less voting for deconstructing the regulatory state that to what ever degree protects workers , Consumers , Citizens from everything from poisons in the air and water they drink to diseases in their food supply. ….
An this because they reject neo liberal philosophy. A slight contradiction to say the least.
LikeLike
Birdwatching is a good choice. She should visit as many National Wildlife Refuges as she can before these underfunded gems are sold to Jared Kushner.
LikeLike
Our loss.
LikeLike
So her name-calling post on social Media was more important to her than her position at Scientific American? If she thinks so, she does not understand where this MESS is headed. And what point of view will now slide into her chair? Has she thought about that? One’s painful personal outrage does NOT out rank one’s responsibility to use position & privilege to protect others with science, with fact, with wisdom, with compassion. Maybe she should watch Schindler’s List again just so she finally gets it.
LikeLike
Probably not a smart move on her part simply because it would focus more negative attention on Scientific American. Public figures, on the losing side in particular, have to be really judicious in their comments. I doubt that a science denier will end up as editor, but I would like to see some more conservative figures get the chopping block for crowing about “owning the libs.” should read for “cheating the libs” with their disinformation campaign. The reports of more Trump voters going, “Wait a minute, what?! I didn’t vote for that!” keep surfacing.
LikeLike
I can’t blame Laura H for being angry and frustrated. Trump, as she expected, is appointing people who have total disregard for science, eg RFK Jr and the guy at Wnergy who denies climate change and the guy for NIH who opposes vaccines. They are screwballs.
Having said that, I think she should have been careful about what she says online. Not everything that you think should go public.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup its a good thing they can’t read my thoughts.
LikeLike
Diane: Here’s my “conspiracy” theory: Unless I am wrong, which I very well could be, and hope I am, Elon Musk has assigned a techno-goon squad to do what they can to take down Bluesky, or to buy it.
And BTW1, whatever happened to freedom of speech? Going, going, gone?
Also, BTW2 science by definition is not about particular content but about method–and the method is about (for science) the critically developed protocols of collecting, sharing, and preserving evidence . . . as in testable, probable, true and real, . . . as distinct from arbitrary desires and delusions.
BTW3, the newest talking point on the right is about “the status quo,” which (in case you didn’t know) is why people voted for Trump–to get rid of the “status quo” which is defined, as far as I can tell, by earlier false GOP talking points used when criticizing democratic (or even many republicans now) and the so-called libs. Mike Johnson, who has obviously drunk the Trump Kool Aid, hinged his argument for supporting Trump’s cabinet picks on the idea of changing the “status quo.” More delusion. The only question is, like SCOTUS, do they believe their own fearful political dribble?
BTW4, gang, unlike in WWII, there seems to be no America or even Stalin, to come to our rescue from a fascist dictator. CBK
LikeLike