Let journalists do their jobs

Last year the science journalism community had a spirited discussion  about the practice of allowing sources (in this case, scientists) to "fact check" and approve quotes in news articles before publication.  One of the best tick-tocks I found was from Seth Mnookin.

The gist I got from the discussion was this: some scientists think their work is simply too complex for reporters to understand, so they should get the final review before an article is published. (I got a wry chuckle out of this Guardian editorial.) Some journalists pushed back a bit, saying journalism was an independent process and they, not the interview subject, are the more proper final arbiters of unbiased information.

I fall on the side of journalistic independence. I don't have a problem with a reporter returning to a source to confirm facts. The best reporters do that all the time. But the reporter (and editor) should have final say on what appears under their byline. And for those who think their scientific fields deserve some special status of "really hard" where they alone deserve this right to review, I'd like them to explain, say, the United States tax code in three paragraphs.

As a PR guy I'd love to review and sign off on all stories related to my clients before publication.  A lot of my clients are science-based companies. But I'm fairly certain people would raise a red flag about this for any number of reasons, and they'd be right to do so.   My job is to strengthen and protect a client's reputation, and I work hard to influence what people say about my clients.  A journalist has to make sure I'm not spinning something so she or he can report the facts.  But here's the thing: my presence or absence in this discussion doesn't change the journalist's job.  As distasteful as it may be to some, journalists also are vetting their sources for personal agendas, biases, or conflicts of interest.  Scientists are no better and no worse than any other group in this regard.

So I'm pleased the National Association of Science Writers took note of recent reports that political campaigns are reviewing and editing quotes from their spokespersons before article publication. They also note (via Poynter) that Associated Press has a different policy than the New York Times.

In politics, spin is basically baked into the process.  The good news is everyone knows it.  Look at the political coverage in any major "beltway" news publication.  You'll see candidates' quotes, and then you'll see analysis from dozens of others as to what those quotes "actually mean" based on their financial and political interests.   Political reporting is arguably the most transparent reporting there is - practically everyone mentioned in an article is identified with a party affiliation.  Even pollsters are labeled this way.  If someone fails to disclose a financial interest in a discussion, a reporter has a real scoop.  Right now, the presumptive GOP nominee for President is catching a lot of flack for not following the custom (not law) of releasing roughly a decade's worth of tax returns to the media.  This failure to voluntarily disclose - not the content of the returns themselves, but simply the unwillingness to share them - is having a measurable impact on the Governor's chances in the election.

The sad thing is, this condition lies at the core of America's lack of faith in its politicians.  We actually expect our politicians to lie to us and to cover things up.  We have groups like "Politifact" even analyzing the degree to which someone is lying - and then we have people who fact-check politifact. Beltway journalists often joke that a "gaffe" is when a politician tells you what he's really thinking.  Today, when politicians say something that's demonstrably false or otherwise ridiculous, they're more likely to "double down" than to back off.  Clarification is actually a sign of weakness. 


So it's quite convenient to have the luxury of sanitizing one's quotes before publication.  It eliminates that messy step of being held accountable for what you actually said. Without this accountability, more and more Americans wisely refuse to take a politician's published statements at face value.  And the faith Americans have in the political process continues to disintegrate. 


My fear is the reputation of science will follow a similar path if scientists try to exercise similar influence over the process of journalism.  If you encourage the media to hold you accountable, your credibility is only improved.  If you try to own the process, you look more like a spin doctor than a PhD. 


Even if the reporter gets it wrong, I say that's often a blessing in disguise. It gives you another chance to talk with the reporter and get your work publicized.  More importantly, if you handle the situation diplomatically and effectively, it gives you an opportunity to strengthen your relationship with the reporter, making it more likely that you'll be seen as a resource (and not a jerk).  

Protecting yourself vs. owning your words

Much has been said recently about the Google+ "purge" of accounts that don't include real names and the similar Facebook policy and statements to that effect. As a PR guy and political wonk, I may have a slightly different take than many on this issue - while I certainly see the value and importance of protecting one's privacy, I think we must consider the (perhaps unintended) consequences of trumpeting the freedom of anonymity.  Specifically we have to be careful about insisting on transparency from some while preserving anonymity for others - particularly when the identity in question has the goal of influencing the behavior of others.

First, the case against the "real names" policy.  Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic says bluntly,

The kind of naming policy that Facebook and Google Plus have is actually a radical departure from the way identity and speech interact in the real world.

You should read the whole thing.  The most compelling defense of anonymity or pseudonymity on the web that I found came from Danah Boyd:

The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. “Real names” policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people. These ideas and issues aren’t new (and I’ve even talked about this before), but what is new is that marginalized people are banding together and speaking out loudly. And thank goodness.

Emphasis hers, and also worth a read.  So there are certainly times when masking one's identity provides a certain amount of comfort, or security, or freedom.  Mandating your identity strikes many as akin to "papers, please."

But what if the person who wants to be anonymous is actually someone working for Facebook, trying to pitch a story that criticizes Google?  Or the CEO of Whole Foods posing as someone else on the Yahoo Finance message boards to criticize a competitor (and hopefully talk down its stock price) before trying to buy it?  Or some random white American guy living in Scotland, pretending to be a lesbian blogger in Syria who gets arrested after protesting the government?  It seems to me that in these instances anonymity is, in Boyd's words, an assertion of power over vulnerable people.

Again, I'm not so comfortable with "transparency for you, anonymity for me." Because while the examples above are reasonably obvious, it's not always clear who has power and who doesn't.  I really ruffled the feathers of some anonymity advocates when I saw some bashing Darlene Cavalier's attempts to bring science mainstream:

I understand completely why some people feel the need to remain anonymous as bloggers. Sharing thoughts publicly involves some risk, and sometimes the only way you can safely get information "out there" is anonymously. This isn't unique to the science blogosphere - it happens a lot with people who write about finance. Further, some people just don't want the over-the-top abuse Darlene or people like Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney take when they put their names to their words. I'm cool with that.

But let's get real here. Sometimes - definitely not always but sometimes - some of this anonymous posting is really about avoiding accountability. It's about sidestepping the awkward moment when you meet the person you called an "ignorant fuckwit" last month. And sometimes maybe it's writing something that benefits you personally or professionally without having to disclose that teensy little conflict of interest. Maybe some people find anonymous bloggers to be completely credible. For me, there will always be that kernel of doubt.

I felt somewhat vindicated a month later when journalist Steve Silberman said in a ScienceOnline 2011 panel discussion "you can't call bullshit if you're anonymous." He clearly meant it as a journalist, but I think he also believes "unnamed sources" often deserve a stricter level of scrutiny.

Are Google and Facebook imposing "real name" policies because they suit their commercial interests?  Of course they are. Can anonymity protect the abused from the abuser?  Of course it can, and people have a right to publish under a pseudonym.  I'm not suggesting you be required to give your real name to anyone.  Let's just remember that a certain amount of credibility comes with full disclosure and sometimes it's very, very important to know the names behind the words.

AMA vs. Photoshop: think of the children

This pic is everywhere now

Last week the American Medical Association officially condemned the "photoshopping" of models in fashion advertisements and magazines to make those models appear unrealistically thin.  While the "models are too skinny" debate has gone on for decades, this is a rare and important step.  Their stance is obviously more of a statement on our runaway culture of beauty than our use of technology, but it also should send a clear message to those of us in the communications business (marketing, advertising, or PR) - just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should.  Earlier this month I warned against pretending to be someone you're not. This is a similar principle - don't use deceptive images to promote your products.  This example demonstrates the consequences can extend beyond looking like a creep.

I'm not going to pretend to be the moral authority on these issues and I'm not going to say it's wrong to retouch a photo or get a nip and/or tuck if you want.  However, it seems the AMA believes things are getting worse, not better - and it's clear that technological advancements have enabled some people to take things to the extreme.

This issue reminds me of two other issues where some segments of the medical community have already weighed in but I wish the AMA would add its rather hefty and credible voice - promotion of breastfeeding and reducing the influence of pro-anorexia groups on social networks.  I've written about this before. People who freak out over nipples on breastfeeding pictures in Facebook profiles aren't simply advocating for more modesty, they're reducing our ability to promote breastfeeding - and that has negative health consequences.  Social networks like Facebook have made some progress on cleaning up pro-ana sites, but they're still around - and this is also a threat to public health.

Don't take my word for it - take my wife's.  She's the health researcher at the big-time university, and she wrote about both issues several years ago. Discouraging breastfeeding is bad.  Facilitating the harmful practices of people with anorexia is also bad. Of course, I look at the Facebook terms of service and I don't see anything in there that would address these issues. I'm not sure if other social networks have different terms.

Bottom line, there's an opportunity here for the AMA to get more involved in the online space. There's no question that our culture affects our behavior, and our behavior affects our health.  While we should be mindful of protecting free speech rights, we should be giving the medical community a larger voice here.

Obama, Trump, and Sheen - do we get the news we deserve?

I was walking through the reception room at my office yesterday when I noticed the television.  There was Donald Trump, declaring victory for compelling the conventional wisdom to conclude that the President of the United States was a citizen of the United States.  Or something.

Captain Comb-over has been all over the idiot box lately, insisting that the President's citizenship status was questionable, and his crack research team in Hawaii was unearthing some mind-blowing stuff.  Or something. Sadly, the news media just ate it up despite knowing it was all fake.  It got to the point where the President decided to stop doing his job for 30 minutes so he could go down to the press room to explain once again  that yes, he was born in this country, and perhaps the media might want to cover real news for a change.

This constructive criticism predictably injected a dose of responsibility in the press corps, compelling them to "fact check" and scrutinize Donald Trump's outlandish claims...

Oh, wait, they fact checked the PRESIDENT'S suggestion that this ridiculous side show was item one on their agenda.  In doing so they trotted out the "percentage of the news hole" metric - one that conveniently ignores the editorial decisions of what leads the broadcast or is "above the fold" and what's on page 8.  And buried in their defense was the admission their volume of coverage of the twice-bankrupt bluster-box eclipsed their coverage of the President for a week.  So now the media is covering their coverage of one of the most ridiculous non-stories in recent memory.  Somewhere Jon Stewart is saying, "hey - fake news is MY job."

But how big an issue is this, really?  I thought I'd take a look at "coverage" from a (perhaps) more appropriate perspective - in the age of media convergence, you can't ignore blogs from the rest of whatever Pew decides to call its "news hole."  Online discussions are not perfectly reflective of mainstream media coverage, but I don't think you can deny an association.  Bloggers invariably discuss what's in the news, and many bloggers are indeed journalists.  So how did the online discussion of these events really stack up - and are there any other stories out there we could include for some context?

So I decided to look at the last 90 days of online chatter for three discussions:

1. The Trump-Obama birther debacle (I excluded references that only mentioned Trump because they may have been related to his TV shows or other business interests),
2. Any blog reference whatsoever to the term "Social Security," and
3. Charlie Sheen.

Here's what I got, using Nielsen's BlogPulse Trend Search:

Even today, in what is presumably the nadir of the Charlie Sheen saga, he's still arguably bigger than "birtherism"  and social security.  His initial burst in March dwarfs both of those other issues combined.  And don't get me started on the royal wedding.

Of course, bloggers are consumers of news more than they are creators of it.  Maybe the media is just giving the people what they want.  But I thought journalism was supposed to include some kind of professional, editorial judgment on what is news and what isn't.  In my opinion, editors are letting us down here.

Curing "The Gay" - Now Available on iTunes

Old pal John Aravosis reports that Exodus International now has its very own iPhone app - one that tells kids they can relieve their burdens of homosexuality through prayer:

Pardon my French, but WTF? Why does Apple require you to click some "yes I'm old enough" button when downloading gay apps on the iPhone, but when downloading "ex-gay" apps - i.e., apps built by hateful anti-gay bigots who falsely tell young impressionable children that they can pray away the gay - Apple has no restrictions at all on that app. In spite of the fact that federal statistics show 1 in 3 gay kids tries to commit suicide. In spite of the fact that the very first thing in the FAQ of the app is focused at kids.

Apple would be wise to be very, very cautious here. I'm sure the argument they'll make is on first amendment and restraint of trade grounds - people of faith have as much right to their marketplace as anyone else, and they can't be denying apps simply because their content is controversial.  But they clearly are, and want to be, the dominant (if not the only) online marketplace for mobile applications.  They undeniably exercise their market power to influence other market forces to their advantage - look at the fight over flash versus HTML5.    And they review and approve any application that will be available for download - and quite often deny or restrict apps based on their content.  This makes them first amendment traffic cops by default.

So they're in a similar situation to what Facebook was in back in 2007 - banning pictures of breastfeeding while allowing pro-anorexia groups to grow and thrive on their massive-but-closed network.

And let's be clear about one thing - there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence whatsoever that so-called "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever Exodus International wants to call it will turn people from gay to straight.  None. Nada. Zilch. Zip.  Zero.   There is evidence, however, that this kind of "therapy" is harmful.  

From a PR perspective, I think Apple just dropped a turd in the collective lap of its gay and lesbian employees, not to mention loyal customers like John.  I understand the free-speech argument, but I don't envy Apple's position now as the arbiter of what's appropriate and what's not.  Because as John points out, their position is already precarious.

Of course, they could open up the iTunes store, creating even more choice for consumers, allowing for more innovation and creativity... oh, right.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's mortal sin in online PR

Dr. Tyson (h/t: Wikipedia)

I recently listened to a Point of Inquiry Podcast - Chris Mooney interviewed Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Dr. Tyson is an astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium, host of the NOVA ScienceNOW tv show, and probably the best science communicator in the United States right now.

He's also an agnostic - not an atheist.  And while he says the public "God debate" is really not something he chooses to engage in much, he seems willing to disobey a rule so well-established in social media PR these days you might even call it one of PR's Ten Commandments - "thou shalt not edit thine own Wikipedia page."

About 36 minutes or so into the podcast, Dr. Tyson talks with Mooney about how he feels mislabeled as an atheist, and then makes an admission that makes an online PR flack like me raise an eyebrow:

It was funny – I don’t know who created my wiki page – but in there, a few years ago it said “Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist who is an astrophysicist” and I said “what… that’s not really..” so I said, so I put in there, “Neil deGrasse Tyson is agnostic” and then three days later or so it was back to “atheist.” So there’s an urge to claim me in that community. So then I had to – So I had to put it - word it in a way that would survive an edit so I said, “widely claimed by atheists, Tyson is actually an agnostic” so that managed to stick. I haven’t checked it lately but that’s how I left it off.

(Note: the edits to which Dr. Tyson refers don't appear on his Wikipedia page today.) Let me be clear about something:  I don't think what Dr. Tyson did is "wrong" - he took steps to correct the record as he sees it, and protect his own reputation. After all, this is essentially what I do for clients. When people write things about you, you have a right and an obligation to ask that those people get the "facts" right.   And in a forum as public and influential as Wikipedia, Dr. Tyson is quite right to be paying attention.

But let's be clear about something else - this sort of edit runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest and "neutral point of view"edits.  Dr. Tyson may view his action as simply correcting a minor point, but there is a clear public relations interest in a popular science communicator avoiding the unpopular, often misunderstood label of "atheist." It has been argued that Dr. Tyson's use of the word "agnostic" rather than "atheist" represents a distinction without a difference. And there's also a public relations interest in avoiding getting sucked into a debate over religious nomenclature.

Put it this way - If I, a public relations professional, were working for Dr. Tyson or the Hayden Planetarium or NOVA, and made exactly the same edits at exactly the same time, I'd be absolutely slaughtered for it. Companies and PR firms have been called out publicly for making far less substantive edits to their own or their client's Wikipedia pages.

The problem here isn't with anything Dr. Tyson did - the problem is with Wikipedia's guidelines.  Wikipedia's relatively inflexible guidelines have created a situation where "neutral" third parties can purposely or inadvertently post inaccurate or misleading information about a person or company - and that person or company is essentially "forbidden" (or at the least strongly discouraged) from responding quickly on the same forum. No, Wikipedia should not be a place for people to post their CV's or companies to plant marketing materials and press releases. However, just as Dr. Tyson has a right to weigh in on what's being said about him without fear of being labeled as a whitewasher, companies and PR flacks have a right to do so as well.

I do think we should disclose when we're making edits or additions.  Frankly, I have no problem with some special kind of citation that an edit to a page was made by the subject of that page or one of its agents. We should be using legitimate sources and follow the same rules as everyone else on this platform.

Wikipedia's popularity (and search engine optimization) has unquestionably positioned it as an unbiased and authoritative resource.  It's increasingly cited in other publications.  But even the "outs" you can find in Wikipedia's guidelines - things like "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then break the rule" or "use common sense" - haven't made it acceptable for the subjects of pages to correct the record.  We're left with contacting the Wikipedians and hoping that they'll get back to us before they deal with any of the 738 gazillion other pages on the site, and even then there's no guarantee that the matter will be dealt with appropriately.

This is crap.  And it should change.

Climate Change and Strategic Communications

This is how scientists prove their critics are wrong - but line graphs don't shift public opinion

The scientific case regarding man-made climate change has never been stronger.  Climate change is real, our actions are prompting it, and the failure to address this will lead to severe consequences.   (here's how it works - we burn oil and coal and gas, which belches a humongous amount of carbon into the air, which traps heat in the atmosphere, causing all sorts of weird weather and other nasty stuff.  It's more complicated than that, but that's basically it.  It's actually pretty intuitive.  Pour enough crap into anything that supports life and eventually bad things happen.)

The political position of those who would fight climate change has never been weaker.  Last year the US House of Representatives (under Democratic control) passed a "climate bill" that was widely regarded by pundits as the absolute most that could be accomplished politically - and widely panned by environmentalists as not nearly enough to turn the tide.  The Senate didn't pass anything.  Last year's UN meeting on climate change - the overblown farce known as COP 15 - saw a lot of speeches that said "the time for talk is over, the time for action is now" but produced an "accord" that basically said climate change is a bad thing and maybe someday someone should think about doing something.  Maybe.  Even though the "scientific" arguments presented by climate change deniers are absolutely pathetic (as outlined in Dr. Gleick's piece at Huffington Post), they're still winning on Capitol Hill.

This year, House committees (now under Republican control) will hold hearings designed to smear climate scientists.  A "climate bill" isn't even under serious consideration in the House or the Senate.  (We will see, however, a debate on abolishing the EPA.)  Companies that profit from burning oil, coal and gas have funded all sorts of "think-tanks" and hired a bunch of PR guys to work together to confuse the issue and make sure John Q. Nascar remains focused on the things he can see, like President Obama's birth certificate from Kenya.  (it's on the internet, you know.) The UN meeting on climate change that took place in December (COP 16) thankfully wasn't overhyped, but didn't really accomplish much more than COP 15. And I'm not the only person who noticed that the words "climate change" mysteriously disappeared from the State of the Union address this year.

The problem is simple: those who support the status quo have a coherent, coordinated, and well-funded communications strategy.  Those who support real change (and sound science) do not.

So when I see someone like Chris Mooney - someone who is smart and actually trying to fight this battle - point to a form letter written by a group of scientists addressed to every Member of Congress and suggest it "teaches us a thing or two about communication" - I have to sigh.  Chris clearly has an optimistic viewpoint on this and says he wants to encourage more scientists to get involved in the political process.  He's right about that.  However, since the pro-science (and actually pro-business) message on climate change comes in uncoordinated and often random spurts, it has very little impact.  And when scientists make the observation that their valuable time and effort on outreach like this is being wasted, they are less inclined to try it again.

So my advice - start working more closely together and agree on a strategy, a message, and a set of tactics.   And if all you want to do is criticize how others are doing this, or say it's not worth doing because it's not perfect, STFU and go away.   Here's an outline of what I'd do, as promised in an earlier post.

Topline Strategy: Position your side as the solution, the way forward.  Associate supporters of the status quo with the salient problems of the status quo more generally, and position them as opponents of progress.  You saw something resembling this in the most recent State of the Union Address. The President didn't mention the words "climate change" but he did talk a lot about "winning the future" and the economic benefits of clean energy technology.    Then develop a range of strategic and realistic policy goals and attack.

Identify your audience.  "Everybody" is not an audience. "Members of Congress" are an audience, but the way to reach them isn't a letter.  You need to have face-to-face meetings with them and their staffs.  More importantly, you need to have face to face meetings with the people who influence those Members of Congress most.   I think that means the real audience is the media, business leaders, trade associations, and political donors.   As for consumers - and they're also important, because they vote - Mom is unquestionably the household decision maker for basically everything, so you need to develop a coherent message for moms.

Messaging.  Have a backgrounder available for the paleo-clima-anthropomorphi-techno stuff, but scientists and environmentalists aren't losing this fight on the science.  They're losing on the economics. Right now, the message from the other side is simple: capping carbon = less energy use = less economic activity = less profit = fewer jobs for John Q. Nascar.   But to buy into their mindset you have to believe that we won't or can't change the way we use energy, that efficiency doesn't really move the needle, and that wind power is crazy-looking. I think it's time people realized that we don't have cap-and-trade, and the economy sucks anyway.  While messaging should always be in the authentic voice of the person speaking, I think it makes sense for everyone who's speaking on the pro-science side of the topic to assert the following general points:

• The people who deny climate science support a status quo that works for no one but them. High energy prices hurt the entire economy - except maybe a handful of companies and individuals.  We're looking forward but they're clinging to the past.
• Climate science deniers also deny consumer choice.  The technology exists to give us electric cars, energy-efficient appliances, and so on.  Polls show millions of people want them.  But the people who say climate change is a "hoax" also oppose policies that would make it easier for consumers to get them.
• Climate science deniers oppose innovation.  They've gone all-in for a 20th-Century energy strategy that says "dig it out of the ground and set it on fire." They work hard to make sure the rules favor this strategy, and they're holding on to their advantage for as long as they can.

There are other points to make, but if you notice, these general arguments (opposing the status quo, supporting choice and innovation) are largely generic arguments that "test well" with the public and with policy elites across all sorts of issues.  They're also relevant and truthful.  This sort of thing has to be THE message - not "the sky is falling," not something about tree rings, not something that must be measured in parts per billion.  

I'm sure some scientists are thinking "we've said all that already."  Not really, no. These messages haven't been forcefully, clearly, creatively, and repeatedly delivered to the people who matter.  They haven't been built into a coordinated campaign that includes earned media, paid media, social media, and lobbying.  

As for policy issues, there are plenty of options - but what's most important is going on offense.  A really smart political operative once told me "if you're not on offense, you're on defense - and if you're on defense, you're losing."  If you're looking for specifics I recommend my pal the Ecopolitologist for ideas.  Start with battles you have a good chance of winning, build momentum, and keep pushing.  And stop it already with the "it's not for scientists to decide policy, our role is only to share data and analysis."  Everyone has a right to participate completely in the political process. Everyone.

Why science blogs give me hope

Lately I've been watching the Democratic party implode because they've stopped talking about their plans and vision for the future, and they won't stop talking about whatever ridiculousness the other side dreams up.  Sadly, it's an all-too-common problem I see from companies facing PR crises - "Hi, I'm [name], and before I tell you anything meaningful about myself, I'd like to outline all of the criticism that's been leveled against me in great detail and then provide my lawyer-approved response."  

For a while now I've thought the online community of science writers was caught in a similar trap.  I heard (and sometimes still hear) bloggers complain about how the mainstream media gets the facts wrong so often. How critics stack the deck against science with false attacks cleverly planted on television.  And so on. This has concerned me because science is so critical to solving the world's most pressing problems, and science writers are the societal interface for the rest of us.  And you can see what this approach has done for the Democrats.

My inner flack keeps saying  "stop hitting back, start hitting first."  And it keeps saying "talk with the people you want to influence, not just yourselves."  And it keeps saying "just build a plan of attack and go do it. Get them to worry about you for a change."  (My inner flack is apparently a loudmouth.)

The past few weeks, though, have seen some things that really give me hope. While I can't claim to be the authoritative voice on the history of the science blogosphere - that's probably Bora - I can say this online community is really on a hot streak right now.   The community went from the perceived collapse of its most prestigious blog network in a scandal to the birth of three impressive blog networks - Scientopia, Guardian Science Blogs, and PLoS Blogs - and a science network aggregator Scienceblogging.org.   And you should really check out the aggregator to see just how much content is out there.  The rumors of ScienceBlogs' death have been greatly exaggerated.  There are other great networks out there as well.

Of course, most if not all of the bloggers in these networks have already been writing, as Ars Technica's John Timmer points out. But there's an unprecedented level of promotion and cross-talk, highlighting the writers and where they're going and what they're doing.  Most importantly, while the writing has always been generally good and credible, I'm sensing it's increasingly assertive and positive in tone.   The  new networks (and concurrent promotion) are positioning the writers to have influence far beyond their own community.

It's a very important step, one that I hope will be followed by a coordinated effort to build and leverage influence.

Outsourcing Disrespect

Every now and then I get an email from a pal in the mom-o-sphere that makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.  Today was one such occasion.

A friend passed along a solicitation from a new-sounding company called Tomoson (not interested in linking) asking her to sign up at their website so she could receive free stuff to review on her blog.  To get the free swag -things like wigs, keychains and novelty sauce - she apparently would have to embed some html code in her blog so the company could monitor posts and let the client who makes the tchotchkes high-quality merchandise know what an awesome job they're doing, getting bloggers to write about them essentially for free.

I checked out their website and they had a section for "promoters" with a video that claimed they had "thousands of bloggers" (yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that) ready to opine on the awesomeness of keychains, and that these blog posts would create some kind of SEO juggernaut that would launch your hotsauce or branded nail file or whatever to the upper echelons of the google machine.    They've just created this automated system designed to capitalize on the credibility of human interaction that is peer review - and they've "streamlined" it by taking all the human interaction out of it.

I don't do a ton of consumer marketing, so I don't claim to be the nation's foremost expert, but I'll definitely put my professional reputation and my relationships in the mom-o-sphere against this company any day. (I noticed that the business owners don't put their names on the site.)   And I'm going to be straight - not only do I think this approach runs counter to everything I believe in professionally, I think doing what this company proposes actually does much more harm than good for clients.  I think the brands that use a service like this are being dismissive and disrespectful to bloggers, and will be getting absolutely useless metrics.

Here's the message a company is sending to bloggers by using this service.  Not only are they declining to engage directly with bloggers on a substantive level, not only are they fishing for free advertising, not only are they pawning off cheap crap, not only are they requiring people to “apply” for this cheap crap – they can’t even be bothered to do it themselves and instead outsource it on the cheap.

And before anyone says "well of course he's trashing them, he's a competitor" - not so.  In my business I sometimes hire a subcontractor to help with outreach.  But if I'm reaching out to moms, I tend to hire a mom.  If I'm reaching out to medical professionals, I hire a medical professional.  I work with people who have credibility in their own communities and I build non-transactional relationships.  This automated system is transactional by definition.  It's not even a full step removed from buying followers on Twitter.

And as I said, I don't do a lot of consumer marketing anyway.  I don't foresee developing a strategic communications campaign that asks bloggers to review the comfort of clear bra straps.

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!

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.

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...

And this is why we have scientists (and public information officers)

Sifting through my twitter stream today (constantly in the background while I'm working) I see this nugget from Patric Lane at UNC - Chapel Hill:

Tip: if tmrw’s NOAA tests = positive match w/BP well http://ar.gy/Mt, UNC experts can explain oil plume phenom. http://ar.gy/N1less than a minute ago via Argyle SocialPatric Lane
patriclane

And I immediately thought how important it was that we have university-funded scientists who do this sort of thing. Patric linked to a YouTube video of some experiments performed at UNC-Chapel Hill that suggest how undersea oil plumes can form. Apparently it has something to do with whether the oil gushes out "in the form of a turbulent jet" or if it just seeps out, and variations in the density of water based on temperature and salt content.  Here's the video:



I also note these scientists estimate the oil flow rate at 56,000 barrels per day, considerably higher than BP's and the government's estimates.  The "third party" evaluators of this have been very forceful in asserting their opinions on this. In my experience scientists are actually very cautious bunch when it comes to making estimates like this; it's actually quite rare that scientists make such confident statements unless they're very sure of their work.

Last week I suggested university scientists were the real ones holding people accountable to the facts since BP's CEO flatly denied the existence of these plumes while the government was hesitant to acknowledge anything.  At least one scientist expressed grave concerns his work would be censored.

I can say this - if the University of South Florida comes back and confirms what many scientists expect them to, it's another blow to the credibility of those "officially" measuring the spill, and another reason to support your local university scientist.