Informed opinions: surplus to requirements?

How Americans view climate scientists

My brilliant pal Jamie Vernon alerted me to a column written by Tamsin Edwards, a climate scientist at the University of Bristol entitled "Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies." I really don't mean to insult someone who has clearly done so much to help educate people on this critical issue, but I just can't endorse her approach to policy.

I hope you read the entire piece because I don't want to be accused of taking quotes out of context, but here are some of the "high" points.  Dr. Edwards writes:

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence...

Even scientists who are experts – such as those studying the interactions between climate, economy and politics, with "integrated assessment models" – cannot speak for us because political decisions necessarily depend on values...

To me, then, it is simple: scientists misuse their authority if they publicise their preferred policy options. 

To be fair, I can't tell if Dr. Edwards is only applying this argument to climate scientists.  I don't know where she stands on the American Academy of Pediatrics' advocacy for mandatory vaccines to enter public schools, or the National Science Teachers Association's public position on teaching evolution and not creationism in public schools, or even Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's public opposition to cuts in NASA's budget.  Maybe she thinks these specific policy issues aren't multifaceted or don't require "values" to debate.

I do agree with Dr. Edwards about something: trust in science has been diminished in the debate over climate.  But it's for two specific reasons.  First, too many climate scientists are actually taking Dr. Edwards' advice and sitting out the difficult conversations where leaders hash out actual, specific solutions.  Second, the "advocacy" from many climate scientists has just plain sucked.  A disorganized group of people with little to no experience in communications or politics have prioritized mediocre tactics and scattershot messaging over a coherent and well-executed campaign strategy. In my experience as a communications professional, I think you lose virtually all your credibility not by having a "skin in the game" or an interest to disclose, but by outlining a problem without suggesting a solution.

Meanwhile, climate science's opponents have virtually no credible analysis on their side, yet they continue to just plain crush this community through a multi-faceted campaign of mass communication, obfuscation, intimidation, and lobbying.

Sadly, I think essays like the one written by Dr. Edwards is just the latest example of climate scientists being figuratively beaten into submission. Standing up for your beliefs is a courageous thing to do, and we need those who have the most knowledge on this topic to stand with us.

Reporting abuse on Twitter and owning your words

I guess Jane Austen gets some fellas all rapey.

At least that's what Caroline Criado-Perez learned when she led an online campaign to put Austen's likeness on the back of a 10-pound banknote in the UK.  Her successful online petition to put Austen on the note got her more than 50,000 signatures - and about 50 rape threats an hour via Twitter for two days.  One man has been arrested so far.  It's as if some guys took a look at the countless stories in the Everyday Sexism project and decided to prove it could always be worse.

As angry as Ms. Criado-Perez is at the men who sent threats, she was even more upset with Twitter - because the social network's "report abuse" function is cumbersome and the overwhelming volume of harassment basically forced her off the platform.   So Twitter is responding by adding a "report abuse" button on all its platforms (the iPhone client already has this feature).

Of course, as the Daily Dot points out in this excellent piece, this idea has pros and cons. Trolls already use this feature on other social networks to their advantage, inundating their targets with hundreds of false reports. Trolls who see their accounts blocked simply create new ones. Twitter will quickly find itself inundated with requests to review thousands of tweets in dozens of languages every day.

Ultimately I think we will all be hurt by this. We are so caught up in the information age of the 21st Century that we've forgotten what Daniel Webster said in 1847: "Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."

First, we will likely see another attempt to hold these chuckleheads accountable by outing them - like what Adrian Chen did to "violentacrez" or the Predditors idea or the occasional "racists on Twitter" piece at Jezebel. I'm waiting for someone to publicize an outing and shaming site with users on LinkedIn, where it will probably have the greatest effect. Imagine being a recruiter with this kind of resource - suddenly able to cross-reference anyone who applies for an opening with the creepy photos he took or the sexist rants he launched on Facebook or Twitter.  I already ask a question to every person I interview for a job at my company - "is there anything on any of your social media profiles that you wouldn't want a client to see?" (I don't ask for passwords or anything like that.) This may become part of a standard background check.

Of course, there will be another backlash to this.  Some will say, rightfully or not, "it wasn't me."  Worse, we will again see the DDoS attacks and other hacks that can bring down the sites of entire companies - like what happened to SendGrid, the company that used to employ Adria Richards until she tweeted a picture of two guys at a professional conference who were being less than professional back in March. One of those guys lost his job, and the men's rights hacker collective demanded an eye for an eye.  Richards may be seeking legal recourse with the company, but I haven't seen her say anything online since.

Ultimately, we will lose more of what's left of our online privacy.  We already (often unwittingly) surrender our location, political affiliation, shopping preferences, religious beliefs, financial information, and even our health history to any number of companies.   It's not that hard to find even more information, even if you don't use your real name online - just as Jezebel did.   More people will learn how to employ these tactics, leading to more "outings" over more perceived transgressions.

There is, of course, a possible way out.  I always think of Liz Gumbinner when I mention it, though Kristen Chase, Julie Marsh and Susan Getgood deserve credit as well.

Own your words.

That's the mantra of the project they started years ago called Blog With Integrity.  I suppose it's the online equivalent of "I'm David Wescott and I approve this message."

The next time you see someone making a threat or an overtly sexist or racist remark online - even if it's not directed toward you - just ask them to share their real name and where you might follow up on the discussion.  Ask them if it's so important to rape someone would they share who they really are. Maybe share something about themselves so we can understand their perspective, like where they go to school or where they work or live. Ask them to have the courage of their convictions.  Ask them if they're willing to have a civil discussion in an open forum with people who may or may not think the way they do. If their ideas are valid and reasoned, perhaps they could enlighten the rest of us.

Just ask them, and see what they say.  After all, everyone knows what Caroline Criado-Perez thinks, and she's willing to put her reputation on the line for her ideas. Do her critics hold themselves to that standard?

Perhaps I'm being naive.  I'd love to know what others think.

Personal accountability, crisis communication and the Patriots

Is there more to it than rings?

UPDATE: Consensus from the media is that Belichick did a very good job and put a lot of questions to rest.  I doubt the questions will stop, and the organization still has some work to do with internal communications and community relations.  But it seems as though there's been a turning point.

A lot of people think the coach of the New England Patriots has some explaining to do.  He will have his chance this Wednesday at 2pm when he meets the media a couple of days before training camp starts for the New England Patriots.

Many Americans and most American sports fans are aware of the horrific crimes that authorities allege former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez committed earlier this year. However it's not the only challenge to confront this team in the offseason. The so-called "Patriots Way" of obtaining talented players with questionable backgrounds at a discounted price has backfired in the worst possible fashion. So once again we have a crisis communications case study from the world of sports unfolding before us.

So far I think the team's reaction to the crisis has been pretty good, though not perfect.  They took quick and decisive action at an appropriate time, even though they would take a larger "salary cap" hit by doing so, making them a bit less competitive on the field.  They made a (largely symbolic) act of contrition by holding an event where fans could trade in their Aaron Hernandez jerseys for the jerseys of other team members.  Most importantly, the CEO made a public statement that was sincere and candid, acknowledging shortcomings and promising changes.

Where they've fallen short, however, is in the area of transparency. Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, who everyone knows makes the decisions on personnel, has had nothing to say about the Hernandez case (or about the other player with serious legal troubles, cornerback Alfonso Dennard). The team also came very close to signing another player with an, ahem, gun problem before backing out at the last minute.  They haven't said why. 

So I think it's smart to have the coach talk to the media about this ahead of camp, address the issues now, and eliminate the distraction as much as possible. However, Belichick isn't known for his warmth and grace at the podium or on the field. He's earned a reputation as someone who refuses to share information and stonewalls the media as much as possible. 

I think Belichick needs to strike a careful balance here. He has a lot of audiences to worry about. Players want to see a man who won't sell them out if they get into trouble. Fans want to see wins, but the community at large wants to know the coach understands he made a huge mistake here.  Further, the team could still get sued for any number of reasons. The team wants to draw a line between what they should have known and not just what they shouldn't but what they couldn't.

If the coach does what he's typically done on controversial topics - basically evade the question with a throwaway phrase like "I can only talk about the players that are here" - his reputation will rightfully get crushed.  This one is different. Someone is dead. If the coach begs off like that, the media will immediately go to the victim's family for a reaction. I think the coach will acknowledge the situation and express his sympathies for the victim's family.  I think he may acknowledge that he messed up, and he may echo what his boss said about re-evaluating how they evaluate players,  though I doubt he will get into detail.  I'm not convinced that's enough, but we will see.   Specifically, I think someone will ask him about how he holds himself accountable, and I think Belichick will defer to his boss. 

Finally, I'm very curious to know how the team has handled internal communication - not just to players but to all the employees.  Hernandez may be the player with the worst offense, but he's certainly not the first player on the team with a troubled history of violence. Employees deserve to know that they work in a safe environment, and that the leadership of the team isn't looking the other way with a maniac just because he can catch a football. I'm a bit surprised this hasn't come up.

We will see what happens Wednesday...

I'm a sucker for a good story.

And David put his hand in his bag, and thence took a stone...

Always have been.

One of my favorite stories is, obviously, the story of the 2004 Boston Red Sox. Specifically, the American League Championship Series, starting late in game 4.  The Yankees had just beaten the Red Sox in three straight games - none of them terribly close - and they were poised to win their decisive fourth game and move on to the World Series. The Yankees had the lead in the ninth inning, and brought on their closer, Mariano Rivera, possibly the greatest relief pitcher to ever play the game.  Mighty Goliath stood on the mound, but an overmatched Kevin Millar somehow managed to draw a walk.  Then speedy David Roberts replaced Millar as a pinch runner, and off Roberts went, stealing second as if he had just been shot from a sling. The story continues with an improbable run of four straight wins by the Red Sox, complete with examples of heroism and symbolism and colorful characters and the good guys winning and lessons on perseverance and tenacity and good humor and all that.

The best part of the story, of course - it actually happened.  It's all verifiable. If it weren't true, well, it wouldn't be much of a story.

Virginia Heffernan has a favorite story too, arguably even better than the 2004 Red Sox.  It's one of the greatest stories ever written. It's so good it's been around in one form or another for thousands of years. It's so good that we use characters and vignettes from it as our metaphors and everyone knows what we're talking about.  People cite the story when they're building hospitals or volunteering in homeless shelters or growing the food we all eat or searching for a cure for AIDS.  The story provides some answers for all the big questions like how we got here and why. And, apparently, Ms. Heffernan thinks that stories this amazing, stories like this that have stood the test of time, really have to be at least somewhat true - at least this story, anyway.  Even if you really can't prove that any of the specific details actually happened.  Plenty of very smart people basically think the same thing.

Heffernan is exceptionally smart - especially when it comes to knowing a good story.  You can't fake your way to a Harvard Ph.D. in anything. She has an accomplished career as a critic.  She writes good stories, too - both fact (the script of a documentary about Matthew Shepard) and fiction (The Underminer).  I think Heffernan is smart enough to understand that while a good story is typically better when it's true, not all great stories have to be.  Further, I think Heffernan understands the problems she creates for herself when we discount things that are verifiable because we like the better story.

George Zimmerman believed a compelling story too, one he heard for years.  He believed the story that says there are good guys and bad guys - and bad guys act a certain way and maybe even look a certain way. He bought totally into that narrative, and he thought of himself as one of the good guys. He believed the story that says people have to stand up for their communities against people who don't belong there.  I'd even bet that some of the characters or metaphors in Heffernan's favorite story show up from time to time in Zimmerman's story.

He believed that story so much that he had to be the "hero" and ignore instructions from the police to stay in his car.  He believed that story so much that a jury just determined that he legitimately feared for his life when he encountered a teenager armed only with an iced tea and some skittles, and shot him in the chest. Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place," according to a juror.  After all, this is the power of a good story too.

Heffernan isn't Zimmerman, I know.  But Zimmerman is a salient, tragic example of what can happen when we don't try to verify facts, when we simply buy into the compelling narrative, and we act on those beliefs. After all, that same story Heffernan and so many of us love so much has been cited to justify all sorts of unspeakable crimes as well.

When Heffernan "outed" herself as a creationist of sorts, she got the extra helping of snarky indignation and hyper-analysis from the science community you'd expect. Scientists and their advocates were, in my view, justifiably angry.  I understand the frustration but honestly I thought it wasn't constructive. Because the backlash to the backlash started up just as quickly, and here we go again.  It reminded me of the time the Miss USA pageant contestants were asked about teaching evolution in schools and then they got mocked. It wasn't until some friends and I got together to provide an actual, alternative answer from some pretty incredible women that anyone did anything constructive about it.   And even then, that pageant video has been viewed more than a million times and the snarky response more than 2 million times.  Our thoughtful response has been viewed only 45,000 times.

So since it's now in fashion to spout controversial beliefs that some people won't like, here's mine.

Science needs Virginia Heffernan.

Seriously, it does. Science needs better storytellers.  Sure, we have some people who tell great stories - folks like Maryn McKenna, Ed Yong, and Deborah Blum. We have plenty of people who can tell those smaller-scale stories like why a curveball curves or how a chameleon changes colors. But Heffernan understands the elements of a great narrative.  She understands the impact of a story on a society, on a culture. She knows how to push people's buttons. She has relationships with top-tier media people. She's smart. She's credible with people scientists don't always reach.  She can help us craft the stories we need to craft to inspire young people, improve the quality of life of people everywhere, and even save lives.

The stakes are as high as they've ever been.  Right now, parents aren't vaccinating their kids because they like the story that actress spins about autism. School-age girls are getting pregnant because our "comprehensive" sex education isn't all that comprehensive - thanks in no small part to the people who take Ms. Heffernan's favorite story really seriously.  People are investing in buildings right on the coastline even though we know the coastline will be further inland in a matter of years. And yes, we're failing our children by not giving them the education they need to succeed in high-skill, high-wage life science jobs.

I think science has all the necessary elements of an overwhelming, awe-inspiring narrative. It has characters millions of people don't know about but should.  It has history, conflict, heroes and villains, miracles, and everything else a great story needs.

Plus it's true. And we can prove it. We need someone as smart and talented as Virginia Heffernan to help us tell the story.

There, I said it.