27 October 2011

Note to self: your emails are public

So a couple of weeks ago I wrote about how the Bloggess called out a PR firm for some pretty pathetic pitching and some serious rudeness.  Some famous people did too. It was awesome.

What Gawker just did (with its millions of readers) is even more impactful - they may have put a company out of business or at least cost someone his job.

We've probably all seen the websites that have links on random words in the text - those links generally go to sites you wouldn't necessarily expect the writer to direct a reader.  But there are usually ads already on the site you're reading, and often there's no disclosure that this is a sponsored link, so it's easy to assume the link is simply something the author suggests is worth your time.

Many bloggers have also gotten pitches from companies who offer you money to insert these links.  Typically there's nothing in the pitch that says you have to disclose payment. I've gotten my share of these pitches.  Maybe they just assume you're above board and disclosure is your responsibility. But that's not what "Bryan Clark" did.  Read the post I linked to above (I wasn't paid to link).  Clark is proposing that Hamilton Nolan (the Gawker writer) insert sponsored links without disclosure to his editor or anyone else and pocket the cash.  And Clark lists several companies and popular websites by name as his current clients.  Nolan sums it up:
There's the plan: get paid under the table to insert links to advertisers in editorial content; if you're caught, just remove the links without a word; if not, continue to get "paid handsomely." According to Mr. Clark, this is already happening at some of the most popular media sites on the internet—with or without the boss's knowledge.
Two things come to mind.  First, and this is obvious: most bloggers are not journalists, but Nolan certainly is and the websites Clark mentions certainly consider themselves homes of journalism.  You simply can't hide a financial relationship if you're claiming to be a journalist.

Second: Clark and people in his business are taking advantage of a culture where contributors to big websites like Huffington Post aren't paid. (yes, I know HuffPo pays a handful of people, but the overwhelming majority of contributors don't see dime one for their content.) People generally deserve to be compensated for their time and effort, and the "exposure" you get for writing on these big sites isn't worth what some say it is. Business models that rely - indeed, insist - on free labor are not sustainable.  We should expect more people like Bryan and more random links popping up where we'd least expect them as long as the market price for good writing is zero.

24 October 2011

Unleashing my inner broad

I'm pleased to announce that I'm now a contributor to The Broad Side, a new online project led by the PunditMom herself, Joanne Bamberger. As I've written before Joanne is the author of the book Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America and she's an amazing female role model.   From the founder's welcome:
The mission of The Broad Side is to gather women who are writing about the most-discussed and important issues of the day from a fresh perspective, not in that stale, wonky, inside-the-Washington, D.C.-beltway kind of narrative.
While The Broad Side will mostly be a place to showcase all the women’s commentary that those talking head shows and op-ed pages are missing, we’ll definitely invite some men to contribute, as well. 
Joanne's project is a critical and long overdue addition to the American political discussion.  She features intelligent and articulate voices who haven't been corrupted by the beltway culture - people who care much more about policy options than political brinksmanship.  Joanne also refuses to let Washington continue to ignore a simple truth - women's voices simply aren't heard in politics as much as they should.  (by the way, you can hear Joanne's voice, talking politics with me here.)

I'm very pleased and proud to be one of Joanne's first contributors and I'm also pleased that my first Broad Side post focuses on another impressive female role model - Darlene Cavalier, the Science Cheerleader.  I'm looking forward to watching Joanne's continued success and I'll be heading over to The Broad Side often - I hope you will too.

16 October 2011

#BAD11 - Thank you Norman Borlaug

If you care about food, you should know Norman Borlaug.  Learn about "the man who saved a billion people."

Arguably no single person has done more to further the cause of humanity than this man.  Yet most people don't know him.  His advances in crop science blunted devastating famines in the third world for decades, and his work remains the basis for a lot of research today.  A lot of my friends in today's environmental movement who bristle at terms like "genetically modified" or who lament the building of roads in rural areas for fear of things like runoff  should consider the alternative.

But the thing about Borlaug that impresses me so much is something my scienceblogging pals should note - he did science communication the right way:
Graduating in the middle of World War II, Dr. Borlaug went to work for the DuPont Corporation. But he was soon approached about joining a fledgling research project being initiated by the Rockefeller Foundation in rural Mexico. After completing his obligatory wartime service at DuPont, he accepted the offer. There, he first saw the plight of poverty-stricken wheat farmers barely able to sustain themselves due to repeatedly poor harvests. Once again, Borlaug found a wide chasm to be bridged. There was an instinctive hesitation to adopt untried new technologies on the part of most subsistence farmers. And, there was an understandable reluctance to trust the word of an expatriate American college boy who didn’t even speak their language.  
 Borlaug admits to being extremely discouraged in this initial venture into the developing world. But his commitment to learn the language, a healthy dose of the determination he learned in high school sports, and his willingness to get his hands dirty working in the fields eventually enabled him to connect with some farmers who tried his new approach to wheat production.
That's right - Borlaug learned THEIR language. He took the extra step to make sure he could communicate on THEIR terms.  If Borlaug couldn't bridge that cultural and linguistic gap, his scientific knowledge wouldn't have done much in Mexico.

I also find it interesting that Borlaug credits the lessons he learned playing sports in school as the things that helped him persevere in Mexico and elsewhere.   I guess jocks ain't all bad either.

13 October 2011

"A jaw-dropping mixture of ignorance and arrogance"

I was going to craft a rant about this piece in the Guardian entitled "Scientists should be allowed to check stories on their work before publication" - something that David Kroll brought to my attention and later summarized - but then I read this reaction from Seth Mnookin and he said basically what I would only much, much better.  The quote I used for the title of this blogpost is his.

It was even better than the opposing viewpoint that the Guardian, to their credit, also published. Emily Willingham (one of the #scimom crowd!) wrote a brilliant piece as well.  There were also two very good pieces at Deep Sea News (here and here).

For those who don't want to click through the links - because, you know we lay folk just aren't smart enough to understand all that really complicated sciencey stuff - here's my neanderthal interpretation of what the original Guardian piece said:
Scientists should have final say over what is written in newspapers about their work because science is harder than anything else and other scientists look at the work before results are published in academic journals. 
Other people have already rightfully asserted that while science is "hard" it isn't any more complex than countless other fields such as global finance, politics, or even (in some cases) sports.  But the one point I could probably add to this discussion, as a guy who works with people in so many different backgrounds, is that scientists are by no means alone in their lament.

My entire INDUSTRY is grounded mainly in the notion that clients aren't happy with the way they're being portrayed in the media, and in turn the general public.  A big part of my job is helping clients come to grips with the notion that the journalists who cover them won't ever truly know the intricacy and the nuance,  and -- of course -- the profound importance of whatever their business is.  I've worked with energy companies, banks, food companies, transportation companies, religious organizations, health care and pharmaceutical companies, media companies, and universities.

But the one thing I've never seen - the one place none of even my most audacious clients ever dare tread -  is an assertion that their field is so complex and important that they have a right to the final word on how their work is described in the media.

Not until now, anyway.

07 October 2011

Just go read the bloggess already.

it's here.

Personally I think the first FAIL is pitching the idea of a pseudo-celeb in "pantyhose." but I'm really glad Jenny called the PR firm out by name - that's the only thing that will get some folks to change.