Sociologist Linda S. Gottfredson said in 2009:
The Bell Curve had pushed intelligence onto the front pages. Some journalists were seeking balance in their coverage of the book. They must have been referred to me as a willing expert for the defense, as it were, especially on race. It was odd to suddenly be interviewed as a respected authority on IQ rather than the wicked scientist—and for holding exactly the same views. Only a small slice of the book actually dealt with race, but that is what the
controversy swirled around.
Now, it is not as if journalists had never interviewed me about race and IQ. Few people realize that it is risky for journalists themselves to give credibility to IQ, especially the sort of research Bob Gordon and I were doing. They are subjected to an editorial review process just as we academics are. No matter how high up they were in the news organization, the journalists
who interviewed us tended to get flak from above if they took us seriously. The tenor of the piece might be changed, or the headline be made to say the opposite of the text. The piece might be spiked altogether. For example, Forbes senior editor Peter Brimelow wrote a feature article about my work when the 1988 JVB special issue appeared in print, but his article was killed at the last minute. The Village Voice reported that it caused such an uproar at
the magazine—a ‘‘copy desk revolt’’—that Steve Forbes himself had to step in. Dan Seligman periodically wrote about IQ matters in his column at Fortune, and he also wore out his welcome at his magazine. I know science writers whose editors forbid them to write about the topic, unless critically.
A bit of the Bell Curve coverage was excellent, such as the first review in the New York Times Book Review, a feature in Newsweek, and 2 half-hour TV segments on Ben Wattenberg’s Think Tank in which he had Doug Besherov, Glenn Loury, Christopher Winship, Roger Wilkins, and myself probe the issues. But most coverage was rubbish. Snyderman and Rothman’s (1987, 1988) survey of journalists and IQ experts had shown the two groups tend to hold opposite views of the facts on intelligence. This latest media frenzy reinforced my sense that as the science had become more conclusive, the attempted refutations were becoming shriller. Much was ad hominem. Herrnstein and Murray had cited articles by various Pioneer
Fund grantees, such as Bouchard, Jensen, and Richard Lynn, as would be expected of any scientifically credible treatment of the topic, but that allowed critics to drag out the lurid charges against the Pioneer Fund. The most condensed piece of vitriol was a really despicable segment by ABC news anchor Peter Jennings on the evening news. It highlighted the smears about the Pioneer Fund and even ran footage of what appeared to be Nazi death camp doctors. It was sickening. I cannot tell you how dishonest his team had been. Bob Gordon would later write a detailed analysis dissecting
the perfidy in those 8 minutes (Gordon, 1997b).
ABC News had interviewed us both at length. I had traveled to New York City, where Jennings’ team interviewed me on camera for hours. They were clearly surprised and frustrated by my answers, which I often turned into mini-tutorials. They used none of it for the broadcast. I suspect they had wanted me just for a mug shot. My interviewers had clearly expected me to look like the witch in the doctored magazine photo. They did not recognize me when I stepped off the elevator and were visibly startled when I introduced myself.
Like other intelligence researchers, I was disturbed by the bulk of
the media’s grossly distorted coverage of intelligence research. Our past experience was that letters to the editor defending unpopular research or researchers rarely got published. I therefore proposed an opinion essay to the Wall Street Journal. The editorial features editor at the time, David Brooks, suggested an alternative: a short statement by 10–15 experts describing the
knowledge they considered scientifically mainstream. What I sent him, ‘‘Mainstream Science on Intelligence,’’ had 52 signatories and itemized 25 ABCs of scientific knowledge about intelligence (Gottfredson, 1994c). It was all very basic stuff to us, though it clearly surprised Brooks because he commented something to the effect that ‘‘it sure wasn’t wimpy.’’ I submitted the manuscript with the understanding that the Journal could not edit even a word of it and that it would appear later as an editorial in the journal
Intelligence (Gottfredson, 1997b). Although its publication was received with deafening public silence, it was widely disseminated. Murray was not the only one thrilled by its publication. Academics and others could now point to a short, simple, authoritative statement that backed them up scientifically for holding supposedly ‘‘fringe’’ views about intelligence. Like the two JVB special issues I had put together before, the statement gained extra influence by joining the voices of diverse, respected scholars.
