Also from Media Training 101

Never do this:

"This case is about free inquiry and education, not about a religious agenda," Patrick Gillen, a lawyer for the board said in his opening statement.

I realize this is a lawyer in an opening statement and not, explicitly, a media statement, but I think the rule applies. When in view of the media, it's important to avoid the use of the word "not". It gives airtime us the concept you're trying to kill with only a 3 letter word to negate the whole thing. Best example ever:

Nixon: "I am not a crook"
Public: "Hey! Nixon's a crook!"


On the ID debate, my position is simple. The ID folks are simply disingenuous. They only want "debate" on a few issues which promote their agenda and are not really part of science. ID is a great topic for the forensics club or a religion class or even a philosophy class (do they even have these any more?). Just not science.

e.g.
Mr. Rothschild said that the board's own documents would show that the board members had initially discussed teaching "creationism" - one former member said he wanted the class time evenly split between creationism and evolution - and that they substituted the words "intelligent design" only when they were made aware by lawyers of the constitutional problems involved.