BREAKING: Bloggers Are Misunderstood

UPDATE:  Seems this post got some attention, thanks to links and tweets from Bora.  (I like Bora a lot.) And folks aren't happy with me.  Someone even went as far as dusting off the old fallacy of moral equivalence - I think communities who care about how they are perceived have an obligation to do outreach, so apparently I think women who dress in suggestive clothing shouldn't be surprised if they are raped.  The only thing that argument does is trivialize rape, and sadly, those comments sorta prove Heffernan's point.

Here's the point that perhaps I could have made more clear - we all know someone took an unfair shot at the science blogging community. Science bloggers have a choice - they can call that person stupid, or they can view this unfair shot as a fabulous PR opportunity.

What would happen, for example, if Heffernan were invited as a speaker at ScienceOnline2011?  Would science bloggers throw tomatoes at her?  Or would they take the time and demonstrate the patience to calmly, rationally, educate her on their community and what it offers?  Isn't that a better strategy and wouldn't that create a better outcome?  And wouldn't that encourage more people to read science blogs?

What did the Washington Nationals do with Miss Iowa this week?  They took a PR turd and created a nice opportunity to bridge a cultural divide.  Basically the same deal here.

I've been kicking an idea around with some great bloggers from different communities on exactly this issue.  I hope the folks who have commented on this post will be willing to join us when it's ready - Nothing would make me happier...

I read with interest Virginia Heffernan's piece in NYT Magazine over the weekend, giving her spin on the whole SciBling exodus thing.  Frankly, I'm about done with the meta-discussion and kinda want to get back to reading good stuff about science too.  But there were a couple of things in her piece that made me scratch my head.  First:

I was nonplussed by the high dudgeon of the so-called SciBlings. The bloggers evidently write often enough for ad-free academic journals that they still fume about adjacencies, advertorial and infomercials. Most writers for “legacy” media like newspapers, magazines and TV see brush fires over business-editorial crossings as an occupational hazard. They don’t quit anytime there’s an ad that looks so much like an article it has to be marked “this is an advertisement.” 

I'm pretty sure the issue was that the "ad" needed the disclaimer but didn't actually have it.  I'm also pretty sure there would be a few defections from the "legacy" media types if content at NYT was for sale. 

The other item, though, got me thinking a bit.

What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats. 

My first reaction was simple and snarky:  "of course we've never seen 'incendiary rhetoric'  from, say, the New York Times op-ed page."  And then I thought Ms. Heffernan isn't reading the same blogs I am because I see plenty of good science there all the time.  Ms. Heffernan is clearly smart enough to know she's painting a community with a rather broad brush.  David Dobbs sorta shrugged this criticism off - "this is neither novel nor surprising."

But then I thought maybe the science blogging community, rather than taking offense, might get beyond the over-generalization and take her comments to heart a little bit - especially if they want to be taken more seriously by people outside their own community. 

Right now the most prominent voices in the science blogging community - at least in terms of "share of voice" - are probably PZ Myers and a guy who calls himself "Orac" (though his real name isn't hard to find.). Thanks to all the ScienceBlogs defections, Myers probably accounts for more than half of all the traffic on that network.   I read their blogs regularly and I know they're both very smart.  I'm pretty sure neither of them presume to speak for an entire community.  But to put it kindly neither one pulls punches.  They can be downright NASTY.  Of course they have a right to be nasty, and frankly I personally think their targets deserve to be called out in some way, though my style is a bit different.

But here's the thing:  the scientists and science writers/bloggers I talk with care very much about how they are perceived beyond their own community.  They are concerned about the waning influence scientists have on policy, on public opinion, and on culture.  At the same time, they think they have a critical job as "media." If you care about your role in media and how you're perceived, you should think about how the most prominent voices in your community "represent" you.

When people outside the scienceblogging community think of science blogs, they think of PZ Myers and Orac.  And if they don't have the back story, they are not likely to get beyond the most provocative things these two have published.  And they're going to react the way Heffernan did.  By the way, Heffernan has a PhD in English Literature from Harvard. PZ Myers reacted to her column by writing a blog post tagged "stupidity."

I have some personal experience here.  When I spoke at ScienceOnline2010, I asked people to work with me on reaching out to other bloggers in other communities.  In doing so, I delivered a message that wasn't all that well received - it's hard to convince someone to reconsider a position when you're calling them a dick.   And let's face it - the most popular blogs on that network devote much of their time calling people dicks. 

It's not my place to tell PZ Myers or Orac or anyone else what they should publish on their own blog.  And I'd bet Myers and Orac would be the first people to say they don't presume to speak for anyone but themselves.  (I'd even be willing to bet they're probably nice guys.) But I know this - the scienceblogging community cares a lot about what people outside their community think of them, yet they do very little real outreach. Of course there's a place for provocative thought and for these two great writers - but the scientists and bloggers who want to be known for their own thoughts and their own work have to do more to make sure they're not drowned out by the loudest voices.

A consensus seems to be developing among science bloggers that says "if Heffernan knew us, she wouldn't have written that."  I say if science bloggers took the time to introduce themselves and their work to people outside their own community - people like Heffernan - she would have known you.

So I bought a "book."

In case you never heard of the term, I looked it up.

book  Pronunciation: \ˈbu̇k\ Function: noun  Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bōc; akin to Old High German buoh book, Gothic boka letter  Date: before 12th century
1 a : a set of written sheets of skin or paper or tablets of wood or ivory b : a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together into a volume c : a long written or printed literary composition d : a major division of a treatise or literary work

It's great to see someone you like and respect have success.  Susan Getgood not only has the best name in social media marketing, she's also very smart.  She put together a valuable and clear guide for people who want to write, publish online, and maybe make a little coin while they're at it.  Susan sets herself from competitors by being an effective advocate for bloggers - as a co-founder of Blog With Integrity and the author of i-don't-know-how-many posts on how (and how not) brands and bloggers should interact, she really sets the standard for the rest of us.

In addition to the bloggers many people knew she'd highlight in the book - smart, entrepreneurial moms like Liz, Kristen, Julie, Joanne, Devra & Aviva, Mir, and a bunch of others - I was very pleased that she went beyond the mom-o-sphere and looked at some pals of mine like Chris, Preston & Jeff.  The book blends the case studies with the useful advice quite well, and it's worth a read for anyone who wants to do this social media stuff for real.

Congrats Susan!

This is what a blogging exodus looks like

As you know I've been following the developments at Scienceblogs.  I've read all of the departure posts from the Sciblings in exile.  Just for kicks, I thought it would be interesting to see if all the "resignations" struck common themes.  Here's what I got from pushing all the farewell posts from the bloggers listed on Carl Zimmer's post through the cloud generator at Wordle.  For those who may not know how it works, you enter the text and it spits out a graphical representation of the discussion - the more often a word is used, the larger it appears in the cloud.  It's not scientific analysis but it's nice to look at and it starts discussions.

I think it's interesting, though not surprising, that the writers there are / were far more interested in the ScienceBlogs network, and not Pepsi.  This is intriguing from a corporate crisis PR perspective - while Pepsico isn't exactly called a good guy in all this, the consensus among the bloggers is this had very little to do with Pepsico and very little to do with what Pepsico wanted to discuss.  It was always about transparency and accountability.  I also find it interesting that only 2 names showed up - Adam Bly, the CEO, and Bora Zivkovic, the heart & soul of the science blogging community.

I do think it's a positive development that the management from Scienceblogs has tried to establish a dialogue with the remaining bloggers. Seems like the strike has been called off.   It's true: ScienceBlogs still has some good blogging.  It's also interesting to learn how some of these bloggers have some unique multi-tasking skills. 

There has been some significant damage done, however, and the plan to rebuild trust and reputation must begin in earnest.  Bora is right that the science blogging ecosystem has evolved quickly, and the old-school thinking (and old-school response time) is a great threat to the network there.  I notice that Adam Bly still hasn't addressed the substance of this at his own blog.  That's a problem.

Readers deserve to know what's happening too.

I go places, I do things, I talk with people

I'm taking a quick trip to visit a client and then I'm off to Minnesota.  I'm giving two presentations to the 2010 Ag Media Summit - I'll see what I can share.

(yes, I realize this is one of those snooty posts that tries to convince you that I'm smart and important, yet only makes me look arrogant and out of touch.  But hopefully this parenthetical, self-deprecating comment mitigates the damage a bit.)

Hey Gulf Coast Scientists - Don't Sign Those Contracts Yet

It's not at all surprising to read reports that BP is trying to "buy up Gulf scientists for legal defense" or to require that those in their employ not share anything with third parties.   Companies hire "expert witnesses" all the time and they expect those witnesses to sign confidentiality agreements.  It's standard practice.

It's also not at all surprising that BP is trying to sign on as many scientists as possible - doing so prevents plaintiffs (and media outlets) from talking with credible voices who might provide a point of view contrary to BP's interests.  It's a sound legal strategy, and it's a sound PR strategy.  As Rachel Maddow suggested,  does leave that smarmy bada-bing taste in your mouth, but it makes sense.

What is surprising is how little BP expects to pay the people who may ultimately may save their company:

More than one scientist interviewed by the Press-Register described being offered $250 an hour through BP lawyers. At eight hours a week, that amounts to $104,000 a year.

Let's be clear:  BP isn't hiring scientists to learn about the impact of oil on ocean life.  It isn't hiring scientists to assess flow rates, or review spill response, or learn how robot-guided diamond saws work a mile below the surface. BP is hiring scientists to limit the amount of money they'll have to pay in fines and settlements, and to control as much information as possible to limit the harm to its reputation.

If your role is really to provide expert-level credentials to a high-stakes legal and PR strategy, $250 an hour is chump change for a huge company like BP.  The best law firms and PR firms in America would charge probably double that right now.  For these firms, "crisis rates" tend to be higher because you're asking people to drop what they're doing with existing clients and work 24-7 for you. 

I have conversations with my wife the PhD all the time about how scientists are under-valued and PR flacks are over-priced.   The simple truth is both are paid what the market will bear.  I'm guessing scientists can demand a lot more for their services right now.

Seriously, if you're gonna work for these guys, don't settle for anything less than $500 an hour.

Earth & Industry's Gang of Four - The Deepwater Horizon Debacle

It's been a crazy few weeks but I did manage to get 12 minutes with my pals at Earth & Industry - Tim Hurst, Maria Surma Manka, and Jeff McIntire-Strasburg - for another podcast about the debacle in the gulf.

Here's where I think we are.  BP continues to stonewall and mislead people. They have zero credibility. In fact, they have negative credibility - they say something and I tend to believe the opposite - thanks to the fact that they apparently photoshoped a fake picture of a "command center" and put it on their website. 

The federal government continues to look at BP and say "fix it," without knowing what else to do.   Scientists continue to be marginalized, despite a few decent stories.  Politicians on the gulf coast are grandstanding and offering some pretty stupid ideas.  People are fighting over money that's been committed but not dispersed yet.

And I have this sinking feeling that we don't know the worst of it.

Then I see this:



I have a couple of problems with it - first, there's no real context. There's no explanation of "parts per million" and just how many parts per million pose a threat. The pictures are creepy, and having a "chemist" say there should be zero oil in the water is somewhat credible, but I think you need to go the extra mile when putting something this sensationalist on the air and give people the background they need to understand what's harmful and what's not.

Whither ScienceBlogs?

UPDATE:  Bora's leaving.  He's my favorite.  Wow.

I've watched the science blogging community blow its collective stack about "Pepsi-gate," the quickly-canceled sponsored content blog hosted at Seed Media's ScienceBlogs called "Food Frontiers" that featured scientists (and, perhaps, their lawyer-approved ghostwriters) from Pepsi writing about nutrition issues.

The folks at SB made two big mistakes - they botched the disclosure of the sponsorship, and they did a less-than-stellar job telling the other SB contributors that the sponsored blog was coming.   These mistakes, along with some issues that may have been percolating for a while there, prompted at least a dozen bloggers to leave the SB community. (Bora kept a decent list of reactions to it here.)

Shortly after the pepsipocalypse, The CEO of Seed Media started his own blog on SB.  His introductory post said he'd be addressing the issue, but in the two weeks following none of the posts he's published ever addressed the substance of it.   I'd argue that's mistake number three - but the fact that the management addressed the issue a bit in a pair of posts at Page 3.14 mitigates this somewhat.  This is the most important passage in a post there, written by the CEO: 

We apologize for what some of you viewed as a violation of your immense trust in ScienceBlogs. Although we (and many of you) believe strongly in the need to engage industry in pursuit of science-driven social change, this was clearly not the right way.

I've worked in the public affairs industry for some time now, and I've done my share of crisis communications work.  I've done work for more than one major, multi-national beverage company - though I've never worked for Pepsi, and I'm not doing any work for beverage companies now.  I'm also a longtime fan of science blogs and science writing generally.  I've had discussions with people who write for SB, people who read SB, and people who follow the PR issues around SB.   So I hope I have something of value to contribute here.

From a crisis PR perspective, what SB should do is relatively simple - it's basically a by-the-book response.  Acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, and explain how you won't let it happen again. (the post I linked to above is a decent start, but not close to sufficient.)  Do this emphatically and repeatedly for a while.  Avoid the passive voice, or qualifiers to your apology or explanation. Embrace the bottom line - you screwed up, you're sorry, you won't do it again, and you're implementing substantive changes.  Let the aggrieved parties know that you really care about them.  Then shut up and listen for a while. Make at least some of the changes those aggrieved parties recommend.

Having gone through this process with clients a few times, I know it's a lot harder than it looks.  People have pride. They may feel that not all the facts are getting out there.  They may be worried about liability, and they retreat to a bunker, thinking they should remain silent until the whole thing blows over.  Sometimes they feel they really haven't done anything wrong, even if the wrongdoing is obvious to everyone else.  When it's your company, or your organization, or your reputation, these are all understandable reactions. The actions these reactions prompt, however, typically make matters much worse.

From an issues management perspective, the desire to partner with SB is a no-brainer.  SB's brand is enormously credible, thanks to the contributions of the bloggers there. Of course Pepsi would want a space there. When making soft drinks is your core business, you're going to have challenges to your reputation on health, environment and science grounds. You have to be creative to address those challenges, and building relationships with "validating third parties" is one of the things you do.

Further, it's not like Pepsi is some fly-by-night operation.  Their communications team isn't a bunch of idiots. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt they had any intention of hiding the fact that this was sponsored content, written by Pepsi employees.   Frankly I don't think SB had any intention of hiding that relationship either.  I think the mistakes about disclosure are more likely the result of poor management of the relationship or poor communication between the parties involved.

That said, I don't question the decisions the now-former SB bloggers made to leave. For many of them, particularly the science journalists, objectivity is paramount. Sharing a blog platform with a network that has even the appearance of a conflict may be too much to risk. 

But it's as a fan of ScienceBlogs that I hope and expect the network will endure this, develop better internal systems of communication (particularly between management and the bloggers), and rebuild and strengthen their reputation and their credibility.  I've talked with enough people close to the situation to know the mistakes were unintentional and there are efforts underway to improve lines of communication there.  I hope they'll continue to apologize, and I hope they'll make the substantive changes necessary to survive.  They're a big part of a vibrant and important community.

Let's not forget why the sponsored blog came about in the first place.  The current business models for online publications don't work very well. The management is trying to find new revenue streams, and they're bound to make mistakes along the way.  I hope the people who protested this arrangement will be just as assertive and vocal about developing new ideas to sustain the community.

You can't compromise your integrity or your credibility, but I would think science bloggers understand this better than most: you have to adapt and evolve to survive.

Rewiring the World

This TED talk by Ethan Zuckerman is worth watching.



From his talk:

We look at the internet, we think we’re getting this wide view of the globe, we occasionally stumble on to a page in Chinese and we decide we do in fact have the greatest technology ever built to connect us to the rest of the world, and we forget that most of the time we’re checking Boston Red Sox scores.
So this a real problem – not just because the Red Sox are having a bad year – but it’s a real problem because as we’re discussing here at TED, the real problems in the world, the interesting problems to solve are global in scale and scope, they require global conversations to get to global solutions this is a problem we have to solve.

I appreciate the Sox references - pretty sure he calls Massachusetts home, at least some of the time - but the great thing about this talk is he discusses what he's doing to fix it and he asks for help.

Why the old spice social media stuff REALLY works

Did you come here from twitter?

Seriously people, it looks like people click on ANYTHING old spice today.  It was smart and funny and they got lucky.  They were also on television.  That's basically it.

Build Your Own App: Crisis Communications Game-Changer

So Google's open platform has sparked the next big innovation - Android operating system-based phone users will now be able to build their own mobile applications.   It's a great idea for consumers, who want to pick and choose the features they like. Google has a cute little video that shows you how easy it is to use. 


It's also enormously intimidating for those of us who practice issues management and crisis communications.

I saw this and immediately thought of what I wrote about the Good Guide mobile application:  

Now they've added a barcode scanning feature so you don't have to work your way through their lists to get the info you want right away. Nice time saver. So I tried it out on a box of cereal.

And I learned immediately that the company that made the cereal has "violated the Clean Water Act."

And then I realized it's just a matter of time before I'm going to learn if a company discriminates against gay people, or is a union buster, or has a CEO that denies climate change, or has a political action committee that gives only to Republicans, or has a slew of OSHA violations, or doesn't pay any taxes, or has another product that's being recalled - ALL AT THE POINT OF SALE.

The Android inventor labs already has a GPS feature, and a host of social network features.  If they don't have a barcode scanning feature - the video seems to suggest they do - I'm sure it will be added soon.  Google has also been working on a lot of image scanning and searching technology, so I wouldn't be surprised if you will soon be able to get a wealth of information about something immediately just by taking a picture of it.

So let's sum up - regular joes and janes will soon be able to go anywhere, scan any barcode or take a picture of anything, and access the news and databases - accurate or not - of their choice about the things and places around them.  Things like "there has been a rash of violent crime near this store" or "that place has a discrimination lawsuit filed against it" or "this product kills kittens" or anything else.

And they'll be able to share that instantly with people they know (or in the case of some Facebook friends, people they barely know.)  They'll be able to upload a blog post or a video of them talking about what they've just learned.   And that information will be shared several times over before any company has a chance to monitor it, let alone respond.

"Real time" just got more real. Maybe we should call it "surreal time."

Science Needs a Strategy

I'm back.  I'll have something to say about "Pepsi-gate" but I'm trying to get some insights from others closer to the situation first.  Before I disappeared from the blog I mentioned an interest in examining Chris Mooney's assertion that scientists need to be better listeners when it comes to (for lack of a better term) public relations. For a while now I've pushed something somewhat related:

Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other. 

When Mooney talks about "listening" I think he means understanding where certain critics are coming from and understanding more about what makes the more neutral (and potentially persuadable) public tick.  I think we all see a certain amount of value in that. But I also think Mooney would agree that "listening" is only the beginning.

If I understand what Mooney's critics are saying, he's been blasted for being either too simplistic, or too brief, or that he doesn't put enough of the burden on non-scientists, or that his ideas won't be a complete solution, or that engaging critics is like talking to the wall, or that scientists really shouldn't wade into some areas of discussion because it compromises their important role or their integrity or something.  

But then I cringe when I read headlines like "Scientists expected Obama administration to be friendlier."  (Really?  Why? Because he said he would be?  As Speaker Pelosi once said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.") Or when I read the Attorney General of Virginia wants to investigate scientists who did nothing more than write uncouth emails about climate change critics - even after the scientists have been cleared of any wrongdoing. (No word on whether the AG plans to investigate the theft and leaking of said emails.)  Or when the scientific community is flatly ignored by our own government and an oil company whose CEO insisted the greatest ecological disaster of our time would be "very, very modest."

Here's the sad, simple truth: Scientists are marginalized in politics and the media because there's no downside to marginalizing them.  The community is loosely organized at best from a political / PR standpoint - despite the multitudes of organizations within the community.  There is no groundswell of support, no army of activists ready to go at a moment's notice. Worse still, there's no real agreement among scientists how to address this - or even if they should.

When it appeared the White House was going to drop immigration reform as a priority, Latino groups organized and made some noise.  Now reform is back on the table.  When it appeared the President's promise to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a military policy would be cast aside, the GLBT community organized and made some noise.  Now DADT repeal is back on the table. 

It's not like these communities are monolithic.  But there are some issues where they all get together and fight.  Where they let a group within the community identify an audience, set a goal, develop a strategy, and work relentlessly to implement it.   People either support that effort or they get out of the way.

Critics of science (you know, like some national groups with the word "family" in their name) consistently kick scientists' asses in PR and politics not because they're made of money but because they have a plan and they stick to it.  They learn as much as they can about the pool of persuadable people and the pressure points of people in power.  They test messages relentlessly with focus groups and polling.  They identify speakers and develop talking points and pitch stories to reporters.  They recruit allies.  They don't expect to "win" in a day, or a week, or a month - but they have specific benchmarks and timelines.  They have specific actions they ask people to take at specific times - typically in advance of milestones in a court case or a political campaign or the legislative calendar. They build databases of supporters and they stay in contact with them.  They constantly work to build relationships beyond their own, cloistered community - so when the time comes to build a coalition of support around an issue they're not introducing themselves by asking for something.

Bottom line: there's nothing even close to this from scientists or their "allies."  Nothing.  Instead there's mockery or infighting or indifference.

The mockery bugs me a lot. You're not shaming an adversary, you're getting their blood up and getting them to work harder. For example, I've heard educated people refer to National Rifle Association members as "ignorant hillbilly gun-nuts with no teeth."   But ask a politician where he or she stands on banning gun sales to PEOPLE ON THE TERRORISM WATCH LIST.  Nine out of ten of them will be looking over their shoulders, asking those ignorant hillbillies what they should think before they tell the guy who writes love letters to al Qaeda not to buy that AK-47.

The infighting bugs me even more. Chris Mooney had a thought.  Some people agreed with it, some people didn't.  That's fine.  But if Mooney and his pals launch a campaign to implement his ideas - ideas that they think would help all scientists - I'm fairly convinced there would be other scientists peppering insults from the sidelines, undermining the credibility of the campaign because of differences over minor tactical details or personality conflicts or whatever.  There would be people jumping in, saying "Chris doesn't speak for me," but not having a lot to say beyond that.  Let's face it - there are a lot of big egos in the scientific community.  But not even Darwin was correct 100% of the time.  It doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant.

The indifference bugs me the most.  I may be a civics nerd, but I think everyone has an obligation to participate in the political or civic process in some way.  With education comes a responsibility to the greater good.  If our political leaders are basing their decisions on folklore instead of science, then scientists must step up, organize, and make real noise. It can't be "that's a climatology issue, I'm a chemist."   It can't be "they just won't listen."  It can't be "I don't understand this process and don't have the time to learn it." 

Right now the politicians are blowing scientists off because they can.  Frankly, that's not even close to the worst.   Pretty soon they'll be looking for pots of money to cut the deficit or pay for something else. Guess where they'll find the cash?  Then the textbook re-write parties will migrate to Northern states.

This tide can be turned, but it won't if the community doesn't step up, organize, plan, and make some noise.

I've been busy, OK?

So for all you people who have been bugging me to post something - oh, wait, that didn't happen.

The past week has been crazy busy and the next week will be as well - in the near future I do hope to write something about the paper and the  Washington Post op-ed Chris Mooney wrote and the responses he's gotten from some science and enviro blogger types.   Chris' blogging partner, Sheril Kirshenbaum, added her two cents as well, and placed additional emphasis on the public policy implications here.

I think the discussion is very important - and I find it interesting that among all of the comments, there are very few from people who actually develop and implement communications strategies that are designed to influence public policy.   I guess I sorta wouldn't mind being that guy...