Truth.

So the good people at babble.com have a micro-controversy brewing.  It doesn't come anywhere close to being a crisis, but as the crisis PR guy who knows more than a few of the players involved, I think I have something to add.

First, by way of background: there's this dad blogger on babble (to protect the innocent, we'll call him "Godzilla") who does a great job promoting his blog/business, tends to push the envelope on marketing, and writes a few emotional feel-good pieces that he hopes provide inspiration to his readers.  These pieces get a lot of attention because a) they're well written and b) they're heavily promoted. 

Then there's this other dad blogger (let's call this guy "Megalon") who has had some not-so-great interactions with Godzilla and makes some reasonably credible assertions that at least one of Godzilla's feel-good pieces was a hoax.   Then Godzilla promotes this series he wrote about being rescued from a mountain, Megalon (and some others) think it's over-the-top, and a sliver of the parenting community breaks into full-blown navel-gazing  "what are we as a community" mode.  Godzilla tells this story about how he owned a mattress business or something, Megalon does the self-deprecating "don't drink and blog" thing, people take stuff way too personally, and hilarity ensues.

Liz Gumbinner, as usual, has a great perspective and kinda brings us back to earth a bit.  From my perspective, there are really two things to keep in mind as bloggers "go pro."

First, there's nothing wrong with promoting yourself and your work as creatively and aggressively as you want.  The market will decide when you've gone too far. The purpose of marketing isn't necessarily to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about a person or a topic.  The purpose of marketing is to influence you on a decision or action.   Sometimes the warm and fuzzy approach works.  Sometimes it's more effective to make people uncomfortable.  Sometimes it's even more effective to annoy people into doing something for you just so you'll go away.  In a 20-year career in politics and PR, I've been called a sell-out, a fraud, a communist AND a fascist, a racist, a hypocrite, a sycophant, and a sleazebag.  (And that's just from my friends.) "Professional" blogging is competitive, and the formulas and business models that actually make money compel you to be provocative and annoying - both in content development and promotion. 

Second, and more importantly, there's this: if something you write and promote isn't completely true, you should say so. It's not good enough to say "even if it's not completely true, that's OK if people get value from it. Even if it's "based on a true story." Even if it's a feel-good piece with a politically-correct social message.  If you state that your blog is your business, you are writing something designed to influence people in some way, and you have a financial interest in the impact of your content, you should be held to the same standards as any other business.   And if you're promoting your content in press releases, the default expectation is everything you're promoting is truthful.  Further, I see this responsibility as an individual one.  If I mess up, it reflects poorly on my employer, my partners, my colleagues. I'm responsible, not them.

Parables and fiction can teach wonderful lessons and have meaningful impact if they're well written.  But the more "true" a story is, the more force it carries.  There are so many examples of this it's impossible to count them all.  The most basic example I can think of is the Bible.  People who think the Bible is a literal record in which every word is completely true take the Bible much more seriously than those who think it's a collection of stories that highlight a good guy with some semblance of accuracy.  And those folks take the Bible more seriously than those who see no evidence that anything in the Bible ever really happened as written.

There are many more contemporary examples with a lot at stake.  Liz mentioned the tale of Amina Abdallah Araf al Omani. You can flip the argument by looking at the climate change "debate." There's a reason critics of climate science aren't putting up much of a fight in peer-reviewed academic journals but are investing heavily in popular consumer media.  The story's facts aren't changing.  But their impact changes dramatically if people don't believe the facts. 


I'd love to know other people's opinions on this. 

Accountability and Crisis PR at Penn State , Revisited

Seriously?

I'm stunned that so many people have missed this: the real story coming from Penn State is and continues to be one of the most profoundly inspiring examples of courage and fortitude we will see in America today. The events in Happy Valley over the past week only make this conclusion even more obvious.

A small group of young men - men who were once "disadvantaged" boys - stood up to say they were abused in ways many people won't even discuss.  They were tortured by a man who likely selected them for their perceived weakness - a man who no doubt instinctively understood the dynamics of power he was exerting over them. 

This man understood that these "weak" boys were not just facing an older, stronger man - they were facing a "culture of reverence." This predator instinctively knew he would be protected simply by his association with a popular football program.  And now we know he was right - as a member of that program, Penn State's leaders saw to it that he wouldn't face accountability for his actions. 

Some of these boys faced initial disbelief from their parents.  When one parent finally mustered the courage to complain in 1998, she faced this pedophile in her house, and got something tantamount to a confession while police listened in the other room.  She also had a report from a therapist suggesting the possibility of a pedophile in the football program.   Still, he wasn't prosecuted.  "Not enough evidence."  Leaders in this program worked quietly to protect the pedophile - not once expressing any interest for the welfare of the child. 

Still, some of the young boys continued to speak up, despite all of the incredible burdens working against them.  They faced the overwhelming trauma of the abuse itself, the disbelief, the stigma, the obtuse legal system, and the overwhelming pressure of disparaging the football program and its leaders - leaders who lied to the grand jury and everyone else.  There must have been incredible pressure to just shut up and "take it."  But someone in Happy Valley decided they wouldn't let this happen to another kid, no matter what it took.  That person is a hero.  So are the people who spoke up and challenged this pedophile in court.

The courage was contagious.  One victim speaking up became six, then eight, then ten, then twenty.  Now the list of those brave enough to step forward includes the predator's own son. 

Sadly, that courage must continue today.  That's because only one message from the Penn State community has come across clear as day since the scandal broke: "Don't even think about taking away our football."  Not a single game will be missed. 

Back in November, less than a second (yes, I timed it) after a statement was read announcing the termination of the University President and the football coach, two reporters shouted simultaneously, "who is coaching on Saturday?"  Students and alumni took to the streets.  They destroyed public property. They demonstrated in support of their coach, right outside his house. 

Just imagine the impact this scene must have had on the victims and their families.  These men shielded the pedophile that targeted them - and a community rushed to support the coach, not the victims.  These brave young men and their families watched their community literally riot the moment their coach saw an inkling of accountability for shielding the man that raped and abused those children.  (Of course, we now know that the coach made sure this "accountability" included a $3 million payout and a multitude of perks.)

The courage must continue because "don't even think about taking away our football" has inexplicably developed a very noisy corollary - "don't even think about taking down that statue of JoePa." To this day people there consider the statue a shrine and leave flowers there. (Don't worry, says the Board, it's staying. Of course, as the PR turns sour, the Board also issued an evasive statement saying "no vote has been taken.")


Again, imagine the impact this ridiculous distraction has on the victims and their families.  This guy knew he had a pedophile in his program, and, according to Penn State's own report, actively concealed information about it for 14 years and never considered the welfare of the victims.  And everyone seems more concerned with a statue of his likeness calling him a "humanitarian." 


The courage must continue because even though Penn State's own report heralds over 100 recommendations for improvement, dozens upon dozens of them are simply bureaucratic.  Shift "dotted line relationships" on org charts.  "Review" existing policies. Write job descriptions for new positions if you haven't already. (Yes, that's an actual recommendation.) Make a list of relevant programs you currently have. Comply with existing law.  No wonder the Board is quick to assert they're "already implementing many of the recommendations."  It's very hard to think real progress dismantling the "culture of reverence" can be made through dotted lines and job descriptions. 


The courage must continue because Penn State's culture isn't simply what you see at any other sports-crazy school.  This was the home of the "Grand Experiment."  The notion that their program was above reproach.  The idea that made them better than anyone else.  It's not like this at other schools.  


For example, I just look at some of the schools where my wife studied and worked.  There's just no way Penn State loves football more than Kentucky loves basketball.  People in Kentucky say national championships are their "birthright."  But say what you will, John Calipari really doesn't run the place.  Need an icon coach?  Mike Krzyzewski doesn't run Duke. (While my wife was never in Bloomington, Bobby Knight was the legend at Indiana and every bit as much an icon as Paterno - but he was escorted out.)  Need a football analogy?  The University of Georgia is as football-crazy as any school.  But Mark Richt doesn't presume to call the Board of Trustees and tell them what to do.  What's more, none of these coaches proclaim that their way is a "grand experiment."  


No, Penn State is a place where a former football coach with emeritus status can bring "underprivileged" kids on to campus to meet football players and attend football games, then rape boys in the showers that the football team uses, get seen by a football graduate assistant, who a day later reports it to the head football coach, who then waits to report it to the Athletic Director so as not to upset his weekend.  That former football coach with emeritus status can continue using the football facilities for several years with an office there, bring kids to meet football players and watch football games, take those kids to football games on the road and rape them.  And the most spirited, substantive defense that the head coach can make - in a letter published after his death - is that "this is not a football scandal." 


But it's all good, because the coach said "with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more" - and for many at Penn State, that alone constitutes a get-out-of-jail-free card.  The Paterno family has its own set of lawyers and PR consultants, and they're no doubt very good.  I just hope they consider the impact their campaign has on those who have really been hurt. 

The courage must continue because in a couple of months, they're either going to play football in Happy Valley or they won't.  If they play football, these brave young men and their families will get to watch thousands parade around like they're on some kind of victory lap, chanting "WE ARE!" like they beat back outsiders who just don't understand the Penn State way.   Just like they did at the Nebraska game last year, only with more bravado this time.  If they don't play football, expect the local media to run stories about the businesses that will suffer for the 6 missed home games, the kids who don't get to play sports, and how everyone feels like they've been punished for someone else's crimes.  These young men and their families will have to fight the notion that they're somehow responsible for this.

I hope we will recognize the courage exemplified by these brave young men and their families.  The physical abuse is over, but we all know the mental and emotional impact endures.  We all know these young men will endure further indignities as many in the Penn State community continue to resist the "transformation" of its culture.  The courage must continue.  I certainly hope it does. 

They Are Penn State

From the Freeh Report press release (pdf):

Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest...

Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky's victims.

Cowards.

#sciencegirlthing: the PR guy's take

FINAL UPDATE AND THEN (MAYBE) I'LL LET THIS GO: It's great that the science/science comms community is stepping up with some references to role models, as the EC asked.  As important as that is, however, it's not the only thing we should do.  We have to remember that the primary audience for this campaign is not scientists, it's girls in the EU ages 7 to 13.  If I were a smart science person, I'd start reaching out to the advertising community - I'm a fan of my pal Liz Gumbinner, though (and this is a plug for my colleagues) the amazing team at Strawberry Frog would probably rock on this.  They focus on cultural movements, and that's exactly what we need here.


UPDATE II: An official word from the EC science comms spokesman:

#sciencegirlthing aims to attract women to science. Launch video distracting from that.It has gone. science-girl-thing.eu
— Michael Jennings (@ECspokesScience) June 23, 2012

This is a good move.  I also like this:

OK scientists, we've heard you and we want to keep hearing you: Help us build a list of #realwomeninscience: twitter.com/#!/EU_Commissi…
— European Commission(@EU_Commission) June 22, 2012

I've read that the campaign's target audience is girls age 7 to 13, or at least they held 5 focus groups of girls in that age range for something.  That's younger than the "millenials" category.  Looking at the video though, I still think it misses the mark for the audience.  The ad firm will likely look at its research methods.  Either that or I weep for the future.


UPDATE: The European Commission pulled their video (though it exists elsewhere).  Smart to eliminate that distraction.  Now they should focus on what their target audience thinks is important and demonstrate the relevance of STEM.  They'd be smart to ask the many critics of the video to participate.

The Twitterverse 'sploaded over #sciencegirlthing, a new campaign intended to encourage girls in the European Union to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math.  They include some good profiles of women in STEM, but they also have this:

and I find it interesting that within minutes we learned that the ad firm that produced it also did this:

Scientists, especially female scientists, are not pleased. And the damage control begins, and frankly it's not good:

Lots of comments on #sciencegirlthing vid. 45 seconds of fun for launch to grab attention.Not central to main campaign.
— Michael Jennings (@ECspokesScience) June 22, 2012

This video should be pulled immediately. It distracts from the central purpose of the campaign. It shouldn't be pulled simply because it's silly and offensive to many female scientists. It should be pulled because it's clear the video won't appeal to its target audience - millenial women. Millenals care about contributing to something greater than themselves. They don't like stereotypes.  They want to know that what they do produces results - quickly.  Makeup and glamour and all that are fun, but they're not what dominates your life. Millenials don't expect to be in a single job their whole lives.  Millenials want to know why whatever it is you're selling is relevant to them - in a meaningful way.

This video reflected none of the well-established research on what the target audience wants.  Instead it just re-purposed the strategy selling the smartphone app that lets you "take pictures of yourself" with soccer babes.

I think the EC went to an ad firm, and said, "we want you to make science sexy."   What they should have done is asked millenial women what was important to them and then tried to make the case that careers in STEM would help them achieve that.

This stuff isn't hard, people.

You want role models?  try #realwomenofscience.

Nice soapbox you have there

A few months ago I wrote a "conflicted" take on the Science Online 2012 conference. "Scientists continue to feel the effects of a withering, coordinated attack in our politics and our culture," I said, "but collectively I don't think this community has anything resembling the sense of urgency or strategic consensus required to overcome it."  Then I really got all self-righteous and smarmy - "I for one am tired of analyzing the contour and measuring the force of the fist punching science in the face."

And of course, I backed my words up with... well... yeah, not so much. But I will say this - many of the people I met at that conference (and many others) are building momentum to launch a bit of a pro-science charm offensive.  And that's not such a bad idea.

Lou Woodley put together a great series on science communication and outreach at Nature.com's Soapbox Science blog, complete with a handy Twitter hashtag #reachingoutsci.  She lent me her soapbox for a moment, and I used the opportunity to outline some of the key elements of successful PR campaigns to a community that probably doesn't spend a ton of time talking about PR.  I remain enormously grateful - not simply for the chance to share my thoughts there, but also for the opportunity to learn from others who participated - people like Ravi Subramanian, Mark Henderson, Miriam Goldstein, Jeanne Garbarino, Katie Pratt, and James Lush.  The series was followed up with a discussion at the monthly Science Online NYC event.  They even gave me a PR lesson of sorts - their use of the social media tool Storify to highlight the series and event is a great online PR case study in tactical execution. 

I stand by my basic points from my initial rant.  More needs to be done in establishing both a sense of urgency and a perception that this is absolutely winnable among science advocates. The science community would benefit from a coordinated, overarching communications strategy that includes tested messages and measurable outcomes. But the more I learn about the commitment and eloquence of those who believe in science outreach, the more optimistic I become.

Female Role Models VII

Did anyone report on what she was SAYING?

Time Magazine tried to start another "mom versus mom" fight and Secretary Clinton went out without makeup on.  You know what that means: another round of media flatulence over "appearances," a few bush-league insults, the requisite meta-concern-troll navel gazing from media critics...  and another installment of my series highlighting Female Role Models. (I'm gonna have to add a page on this - but here are installments one, two, three, four, five, and six.)

   This installment has been long overdue, and for so many reasons.  For those just joining us, I like to highlight a small group of female role models whenever a man (or men) says or does something that attempts to "put women in their place" by degrading them or otherwise trying to assert some kind of power over them.  Let's just say it's been a busy couple of weeks.

First, we have Chicago Sun-Times idiot Joe Cowley, who apparently thought deleting his twitter account would somehow staunch the bleeding from his latest online rant that I can only conclude is a cry for help.  But you want to know something interesting?  Go to the Chicago Sun-Times website and search for "Cowley apology." You won't find one.  (Also haven't yet heard his thoughts on the Arizona Catholic high school, ironically named Our Lady of Sorrows, that had their baseball team forfeit the state championship game rather than play against a girl.)

And speaking of deleting tweets, we have the curious case of now-former Romney campaign spokesman Richard Grennell, who suddenly erased some real gems, like noting the First Lady was "sweating on the East Room carpet" or that Rachel Maddow "needs to take a breath and put on a necklace."   Of course, Grennell's case is awash in irony - he quit not because people wouldn't tolerate his sexism, but because people wouldn't tolerate his sexual orientation.  

But the big example in my mind has to be the Vatican. (No, not just the war on the Girl Scouts.) A couple of weeks ago the leadership of the Catholic Church ordered a "doctrinal assessment" of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious - the organization that represents nuns in the United Sates - for supporting "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith." No specific examples of actual radicalism were provided in the official report, but they did cite one specific speech by a Dominican nun in 2007 and that the organization's national  leadership received some letters or something.  The report also specifically faults the nuns for not implementing "initiatives" that confirm that only men can be priests and that homosexuality is a sin.

So, I can go on for pages about how unflinchingly moronic all this is, or I can use my little corner of cyberspace to recognize and celebrate some uplifting examples of this:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

I've asked FRM "alumni" as well as some like-thinking dad bloggers for ideas on role models.  So far I got two really good ones: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Zainab Salbi - both people who have made names for themselves in standing up to powerful interests, daring to speak their minds, overcoming tremendous adversity.  I'll put them on the pin board.  Of course, I also like to share examples of people who may not be famous (yet) - people like...

Emily Willingham. This co-founder of Double X Science (and, ahem, YouTube star) has zero tolerance for pseudo science and hype, and she isn't afraid to take unpopular stands.  When she calls out journalists, she gets corrections fast - that's something PR guys like me would LOVE to be able to do. She's also a great science communicator - she wrote The Complete Idiot's Guide to College Biology and a cool book about how bears and people really don't mix.

Nuvia Crisol Guerra. I learned about her from Leah Peterson's blog post. Nuvia is the guest curator of Domestic Disobedience,  Redefining the Feminine Space.  This group exhibition ran at San Diego Mesa College last month, and features some incredible Latina artists.  When she's not creating art herself, she's advocating for and promoting other artists.  Oh, and she's a molecular biologist. You know, in case you were wondering if she had any other interests.

Carmen Stacier. The Mom to the Screaming Masses is so badass even the honey badger knows not to mess with her.  Black belt in Muay Thai? Check.  Lost 80 pounds and kept it off? Check.  Mom to six kids?  Check.  When she's not juggling asthma meds and epi pens for her kids, or cross training like crazy, she's providing leadership at her church and showing some damn fine writing skills on her blog (and other places like BlogHer). She's a vital, vibrant part of the online mom community - the kind of person everyone wants to know.

Sloan Martin. She's one of the young female sports journalists who stood up to Joe Cowley in his rant.  She clearly loves baseball - you don't write a blog focusing on a AAA team if you don't.  She's also an advocate of women's sports and Title IX.  Most importantly to me, she showed no fear in calling out a senior, ahem, statesman of her field publicly - and enduring his ridiculous taunts. She's trying to start a career in Cowley's field and basically introduced herself by showing she doesn't tolerate asshattery. That's risky in a field that's even more male-dominated than most.  Mad props to her. 

Now BACK IT UP with action

I kinda wonder if she figured it out yet.

UPDATE: Nope, she still hasn't figured it out yet. And so it continues.  Look for her on conservative media gab shows soon...

Maybe she's still mad about this

Sometimes writers are intentionally provocative to get more attention.  It's particularly common in the online world because controversy begets page views which beget ad revenue.  Of course, sometimes, people get a little carried away with it.

From Naomi Schaefer Riley, newly-former contributor to the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog on April 30: 

You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them.

Yeah, go read the post.  It's helpful to read the article she links to. It would be most helpful to read the dissertations themselves - but hey, it's not like Riley did.  Oh, and I really can't let this one go, from the same post:

Seriously, folks, there are legitimate debates about the problems that plague the black community from high incarceration rates to low graduation rates to high out-of-wedlock birth rates. But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments.

Which, as you can imagine, leads to stuff like this and this and this.

I think experts on race can more than adequately handle the statements the writer makes on race - I'll simply suggest it's important to read something before dismissing it - and its entire field - as irrelevant.

But then there's this, from Naomi Schaefer Riley, newly-former contributor to the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, on May 3:

...since this is a blog about academia and not journalism, I’ll forgive the commenters for not understanding that it is not my job to read entire dissertations before I write a 500-word piece about them. I read some academic publications (as they relate to other research I do), but there are not enough hours in the day or money in the world to get me to read a dissertation on historical black midwifery.

Yeah, so then there's this, from the editors at CHE:

Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog.

Not all that surprising.  But then there's this interview of Riley by Craig Silverman at Poynter, and apparently she's still confused about why this was such a big deal.

“It’s a new standard for a 500-word blog post if you have to read the dissertations in order to comment on their topics,” she said. “That seems to me a little absurd.”

Riley also said that “the immaturity and childishness of the reaction [by commenters on the website] is all the more surprising” given The Chronicle’s well-educated readership. “This to me was kind of a not particularly big news flash of a blog post so I think the vitriolic reaction is kind of surprising,” she said.

Maybe Riley has a point - after all, what's the big deal?  All she did was use her perch at the Chronicle of Higher Education to dismiss an entire field of academic study because it doesn't focus on the notion that black people are ignorant, slutty criminals. Why would anyone care about that?

Jay Rosen is hosting a decent case study discussion regarding this on his Facebook page.  It goes beyond the very basic issues I highlighted here.  I wonder if Riley will read it - or if she's too busy.

Most brilliant billboard ad campaign ever.

OK, for starters - climate change is real, it's caused by people, and the only real question is what should we do to stop it.  This really is the consensus from the scientific community, no matter what some politically or financially motivated people may tell you. If we lived in a society and had a media that cared about facts and reason and understood the dangers of misinformation, this would basically be the beginning and end of this discussion.

However, we live in America, so we get this:

Yes, this is part of a billboard campaign brought to you by our dear friends at the Heartland Institute.  In all my years I can think of no other billboard campaign in history that is so brain-searingly stupid and yet so utterly brilliant at the same time. Honestly, I look at it and all I can do is applaud.  I'm not even going to link to it because I really don't have to.

It's brilliant because it demonstrates a complex understanding of what it takes to make a splash in today's media and society.  We are rewarded when we go all-out, over-the-top, insert-lousy-metaphor-here crazy in public. And let's face it - this is Ted Nugent meets Octomom crazy.

It also demonstrates an understanding of where the money is.  While some reputable larger companies are pulling out of groups like Heartland after facing scrutiny when Heartland does... well... stuff like this, the Heartland guys know there are a couple of billionaires out there who will pay any price for anything that really pisses off liberals (and by extension here, scientists).  Now that the guys who almost singlehandedly bankrolled the Gingrich and / or Santorum campaigns are looking for something to do, up pops this idea.

Finally, it demonstrates an understanding of how to score "earned" media.  Millions of people will see these billboards - but only on computer screens. Stories about the campaign have been written by outraged liberals in the Guardian (UK), The Hill, The Daily Beast, The American Prospect, and countless blogs and tweets and Facebook posts.  Scientists and liberals will be giving this cheap stunt free publicity for weeks. And that's exactly what Heartland was hoping for when they thought of this.

Of course, this strategy probably isn't all that sustainable.  But then again, maybe it is. If you don't need facts or reason to get your point of view across, and all you have to do is annoy liberals and scientists who just plain NEVER go on offense, why would you ever stop?

Amendment 1: Social Media and the New South?

Next week North Carolinians will go to the polls to vote on a state constitutional amendment asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman only. (Of course, that's already the law here.)  One might expect that this would pass easily in a southern state, but the outcome is in question for a variety of reasons.  First, legal scholars say the amendment creates a host of unintended consequences on issues such as domestic violence.  Ohio had these problems for years after they passed a similar amendment.

Second, and perhaps more relevant to this blog - opponents of the amendment have employed an unconventional strategy.  They have used social media tools to highlight the words and actions of the amendment's most strident supporters. Two of the more popular examples of this are basic displays of typical redneckery - YouTube videos of young supporters, umm... defacing "oppose the amendment" lawn signs, either with urine or buckshot.  (The internet is forever, idiots.) Another popular one is the support the amendment has received from white supremacists. But to me, the most effective example has been the audio recording from a North Carolina pastor  suggesting parents should "punch" the gay out of their kids, and giving them a "special dispensation" to do exactly that.  Listen for yourself.

Normally it isn't wise to promote the views of your opponents in a political campaign. But amendment one opponents are banking on it - they assert that these views are held by most amendment supporters and they are trying to show the rest of the world what they're dealing with.

I'm an opponent of the amendment for a variety of reasons - mostly because I think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else, but also because this amendment goes far beyond what proponents say.  I do think, however, this is a somewhat risky strategy.   Social media tools can be very effective at times, but in my experience it serves to strengthen opinion within specific communities more than persuade people beyond that community.  Are the typical and perhaps undecided voters watching these videos and considering them as they come to a decision on the amendment?  Maybe.  But I'm completely convinced the overwhelming majority of views and shares are coming from people who are already decided and going to other people who are already decided.

Of course, this isn't the only strategic element to the campaign, and I do think opponents have done a good job garnering support from the business community and from mainstream media outlets.  But in the end, we'll see if highlighting the bigotry of the old south online will help lead to a new southern ideal of equality.

Science and policy: one step forward, two steps back

Some friends of mine at Science Debate released a survey a couple of weeks ago that reported something that shouldn't be at all surprising or even newsworthy.  Americans of faith want more sound science and less ideological nonsense in politics.  (Yes, that includes "born again" Christians that effete chardonnay-sipping Massachusetts liberal pansies like me like to mock so much.)

It makes sense, after all - believing in God doesn't mean you automatically think climate change is a hoax (it isn't) or that vaccines cause autism (they don't).  Best of all, I think, was the strong support given to sound science in policy specifically from Republicans. The survey suggested that Republicans oppose political censorship of scientific reports more strongly than Democrats do.  I'll be honest - this surprised me a little bit. But then, it was a Republican who tweeted this:

To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
— Jon Huntsman (@JonHuntsman) August 18, 2011

I guess what's so confusing to me then, is this poll seems to fly in the face of beltway punditry conventional wisdom.  Nobody in DC ever thought Jon Huntsman had a chance to win the GOP nomination for President, and this tweet even prompted remarks from "leading" commentators how this eliminated any remote possibility of winning.  During the presidential primaries, all of the candidates either backed away from previous pro-science positions, fudged, or outright denied overwhelming scientific consensus.

effectiveness depends on residence in Tennessee

And then, of course, there's Tennessee.  Yes, the folks who brought us the original Scopes trial are at it again, this time with a law that "prohibits the punishment of teachers" who want to teach evolution - an interesting back-door path to asserting creationism in the state science curriculum. The governor there didn't sign it but didn't veto it either - not what I'd call a profile in courage.  I'm not sure where the law falls on whether it's ok to say magnets relieve pain (umm... NO) or even cure cancer (seriously) or "detoxifying electric foot baths" do, ummm.. something.

But I thought it was a good time to remind everyone what evolution is and isn't - from credible, articulate voices.  I'm so grateful to all the people who participated in this, and I hope we can do more things like it.  The voters are apparently on our side - hopefully someday the politicians will follow their lead.

#DadsLove

Last month I attended Dad2.0 and saw an emerging community of online parents with something to prove.   Fathers aren't the dopes you see portrayed in sit-coms or commercials. We aren't a group of guys who are just "watching the kids" while mom is away.  We aren't apathetic schlubs who care more about our favorite sports teams than our families.

At least we hope we aren't. We try to shatter those stereotypes every day.

That's close to the message I heard from men like Matt Schneider, Doug French, Jason Sperber, and John Cave Osborne. However, rather than tell you what they aren't or what they hate, these men are much more interested in talking about who they are and what they love.

So I'm kicking the tires on this growing community of online dads and I'm going to see how many of them want to engage in a good ol' fashioned blog meme I'm calling #DadsLove.  I'm going to try to get at least one father in each of the 50 US states (plus DC and Puerto Rico, what the heck) to write a simple blog post that describes three things they love about being a father.

Yes, I did something like this with moms a while back.  But that was a large, global community of moms that was reasonably well-established.  While there are some leading voices among online dads, I think this community is still trying to figure out what it is.  I know business and civic leaders are still, oddly enough, really in the dark about this community.

I may be a dad, but I'm not really a "Dad blogger" - this isn't a blog where I share the details of my family life.  But I can say this.  I love:

1) Learning all the little things I'd never think I'd have to know;
2) FINALLY understanding some of the things my own parents would say; and
3) Watching a personality develop before my eyes.

I expect the "real" Dad bloggers will have something much more personal to share.  So I'll keep track of the posts from people who participate and just add the hashtag. My hope is to collect a large #DadsLove list from across the country.  I'll keep it running until I get there. Let's see just how creative this community can be.

What is a flame?

What Is A Flame? from Alphachimp Studio Inc. on Vimeo.

It's "an elegant and totally awesome orchestration of the teeny tiny particles that make up matter." Well done, Jeanne Garbarino, PhD and Deborah Berebichez, PhD.

Alan Alda would be proud.

Weekend Reading

I will never be able to read this to my son again without laughing.

Female Role Models VI

So here we go again.

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex...

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope...

Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?... So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch...  

She's having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk... Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?

She's a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior... It's no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don't know and said, 'You know what? I'm out of money. I can't afford birth-control pills, and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.'

- Selected and limited excerpts from the scum-lapping dirtbag Rush Limbaugh, Feb 29 - Mar. 2, 2012. (and her name is Sandra, idiot. And next time, read what she actually said, moron. )


It's been my tradition for a while now to introduce people to a group of online female role models whenever some noteworthy or influential or relatively powerful guy says something that demeans women. (This is where you can find editions one, two, three, four, and five of this series.) But this has been a particularly awful stretch - not simply in what people say about women, but what Republicans are doing to women.   I'm increasingly annoyed at Republicans raising the false equivalence argument since liberals like Bill Maher, or Ed Schultz, or Keith Olberman have all said disgusting things about women in the past.


Because here's the truth: Rush Limbaugh proudly voices the sentiments that many GOP activists and Republicans in Congress share.  These are the sentiments that compel them to systematically defund not only America's leading provider of health care to low-income women, but also the entire federal budget for Title X and some state healthcare programs for low-income women.   To oppose equal pay for equal work.  To prevent victims of gang rape on the job from suing their employers. To actually try to REDEFINE rape - presumably to legitimize a "bitch had it coming" defense. To mandate a medically unnecessary procedure - one that involves penetrating a woman's vagina with a wand - for women who consider terminating their pregnancies in Virginia.  And Mississippi.  And Alabama.  And Pennsylvania. To oppose the Violence Against Women Act.  To even take a figurative dump on the Girl Scouts. 


And yes, to deny a young woman the opportunity to testify at a Congressional hearing regarding contraception coverage because you insist it's a "religious freedom" issue, and instead take testimony from a panel that looks like this:

Seriously.

And I haven't even mentioned anything about any presidential candidates. 


These are not the words, actions, or values I would teach my son. I want him to embrace the words, actions, and values of the people I'm highlighting - and I think it's important that he see role models that are women just as often as he sees men.  So, to refresh everyone's memory, here are my criteria:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

Liz Gumbinner. Entrepreneur, creative genius, advocate for working moms, and damn good writer. That's Liz. She's the Co- founder of Cool Mom Picks, a site that highlights products made by other mom-entrepreneurs.   She's an executive vice president at a ginormous advertising firm.  And she's a great mom to two wonderful daughters.  She's one of the first "mom bloggers" I ever spoke with, and to this day I'm impressed with her grace, her wit, and her drive.   She fights the illusion that working moms can "have it all" but shows us how much joy you can get out of what you have. 


Danielle Lee.  I met Danielle at a science blogging conference earlier this year (I got her on video), but I've been reading her stuff (now at Scientific American) for some time now.  She got her PhD in biology at University of Missouri - Saint Louis, and spends a lot of time mentoring students to be research assistants.  She won the Diversity Scholars Award from the American Institute of Biological Sciences for her work in outreach and for her contributions to her field.  Danielle makes science accessible and engaging to so many people.  Put her in a backyard or a playground with some kids in it, and in 15 minutes you'll have a dozen scientists. 


Maryn McKenna. Maryn is without question the scariest person I've ever met.  And I mean that in a good way. A journalist, Maryn was embedded with the Centers for Disease Control on Capitol Hill during the antrhax attacks and with the World Health Organization during a polio eradication campaign in India.  She's the author of a couple of amazing books - Beating Back the Devil and Superbug.  Now she spends her time focusing on the issues surrounding antibiotics and agriculture - trying to warn us that we may be rendering antibiotics useless if we maintain the status quo.  She writes compelling stories and defies some rather powerful interests in doing so. 


Katherine Stone. Katherine has a message for women with postpartum depression: you're not alone.  She created Postpartum Progress, the world's first online resource for women of its kind.  She also founded Postpartum Progress Inc., a non-profit organization that helps improve the services for women with perinatal depression.  Katherine was speaking up and leading this effort long before it was cool - she's had to endure the mocking of more than a few guys.  But she's risen above it and she's even (perish the thought) engaged in the political process by organizing people and urging Congress to support legislation to fund treatment and research.  


So I hope Rush and all his ditto-heads (including those in Congress) enjoy their moment.  The market is making its correction.  I'm sure the electorate will too. And women like Liz, Danielle, Maryn and Katherine will lead the way.


And since it seems like this series isn't going to end, the next time I write this I'm going to ask four dad bloggers to nominate four women to be "role models." You know, just to show people like Rush that we're tired of this garbage too. 

When Fitting In Feels Kinda Weird

I spent last weekend in Austin at the Dad2.0 Summit.  It was like most of the other blog conferences I attend in all ways but one.

• Cool location: check.
• Corporate sponsors: check. 
• Big-time keynoters and smart speakers: check. 
• A gazillion mentions on Twitter: check. 
• Bloggers I know like Julie, Catherine, Kristen, Rita, and Sarah: check, check, check, check, and check. 
• Bloggers I read but hadn't met like Jim Lin, Doug French, and Jason Sperber: check, check and check.
• The luxury of an outsider's perspective: che... WHOA.

I'm typically the person who jumps in and out of online communities and maintains a courteous bit of professional separation. I go to these conferences not just because I'm interested (I really am), not just because I like many of the people there (I really do), but also because it's my job. I go into each conference with a plan and a list of things I want to accomplish. It's not personal, it's business.

So I tried to do what I always do at conferences - stay engaged, try to relate and advocate, but maintain a professional distance.  I feel kinship with a lot of the bloggers at BlogHer because I'm a feminist and with many bloggers at ScienceOnline because I feel strongly about advocating for science - but when I'm asked to speak or provide advice to bloggers at those conferences, I can usually keep things technical.

But this time I wasn't "the guy at BlogHer" or the layperson at ScienceOnline. I don't write about my experiences as a father on my blog, but clearly these were my people. They were focusing on issues I see every day. And while many of these writers had been at it for a while, this conference was really the first of its kind, and there was a lot of discussion about where online dads are as a community, and where they're going, and I was really part of it. I wasn't used to this.  It felt kinda weird.  But it felt pretty good.

So here, when asked to talk about how bloggers can work with brands or expand their audience, I talked about demonstrating your passion first and worrying about the numbers later. I talked about building movements over endorsing brands. I even used religion metaphors.  I was feeling it.

While my personal family life will remain personal, I'll be reading more of these guys.  I'll be finding ways to relate and advocate and organize. I'll be connecting them with people in other communities I've met.

Frankly I think it will be easy.

There was one other thing I noticed that was demonstrably different - the presence of so many people who aren't dads who were there to lend support.  I asked several of them why they were here, and they all said "I'm here for Doug," one of the conference organizers.   Five years ago I didn't see anyone from the outside showing the moms at BlogHer how things were done.  I openly wondered if dads would be supporting moms so actively if dads were the ones with the five year head start. Rita Arens wrote about it, and you should check it out.  Just food for thought.

Who's your daddy?

Early tomorrow morning I head off to Austin for that ridiculously cool conference everyone talks about.

Of course I'm talking about Dad2.0 - you can follow along on Twitter with the #dad2summit hashtag.

I'm scheduled to be on a panel talking about connecting dads to brands. John Cave Osborne is moderating the panel, and I'm also privileged to join Catherine Connors and Alisa Volkman of Babble on the panel. A special shout-out to Julie Marsh is in order since she connected me with Doug French, the conference poo-bah.

It's great to finally feel like I have some skin in the game on the "bloggers and brands" discussion, since APCO is now partnered with Strawberry Frog, the cultural movement agency in New York City.  I could go into all of the business arguments why their digital marketing prowess is such a great fit for APCO's public affairs strengths, but since this is my blog and not APCO's site I prefer to say things like "Strawberry Frog comes slathered in awesomesauce with a side order of outstanding."

I'm also excited because I'm usually a misfit at the blog conferences I attend. While I don't write about my family life here, being a dad makes me feel a bit like I'm walking into my own community.

I know this space has been neglected of late, and I have several updates. I'm hoping things calm down soon and I have time to focus on things here.

Work Work Work

I have neglected this space for too long - work has been really busy lately -  but I haven't stopped writing.  I've had a great time staffing the @SuperTuesday Twitter account and blogging the primaries with my colleagues for Virtual Vantage Points.

Oh, and then there's this.  I'm really quite excited about it. There are some brilliant people there and I'm really looking forward to working with them.   Here's more:

I'll be back soon...

The original #scimom

Susan Niebur was one of those amazing people who was perfectly at ease in  more than one community.  Mom, scientist, cancer fighter, advocate. The outpouring of support and love that has come from so many people, from so many walks of life, is testament to her grace, her strength, her leadership.

It was through a number of conversations with Susan that the idea for the #scimom meme emerged.  I remember one of those conversations vividly.  Just a few hours before she gave the "voices" speech at BlogHer that everyone talks about, we were talking about science communication - how we could be encouraging more young people to pursue careers, and how to support women who were just beginning or in the middle of their careers.  Then, after a short rest, she stood up in front of hundreds of people, read a blog post, and blew us all away.

So many people from the momosphere, so many scientists, so many health advocates and cancer fighters have spoken so lovingly about Susan, and it is all well deserved.  What I remember most about her is her amazing ability to step in and out of each community seamlessly - and more importantly, how she could bring those communities together.

I don't want to hear about Komen's "brand" anymore

So a few people have asked me about the debacle that the Susan G. Komen Foundation brought upon itself last week, creating a silly and transparent "rule" clearly intended to do nothing more than cut funding for Planned Parenthood. They reversed the decision three days later.  (ironically, the best tick-tock I can find is from Jezebel.) Specifically, I've been asked about the "damage" Komen has done to its "brand."

You know what?  I don't give a rat's ass about the Komen brand.  I don't care that they offer companies an easy opportunity to help customers feel warm and fuzzy in exchange for a few bucks and a licensing agreement.  They aren't the first nonprofit to take this approach, and they won't be the last. As for the hubub about "raising awareness," well, that's nice and all, but just go read Susan Niebur.

I do care that Komen helps fund other organizations to provide health care research, screenings, and treatment. I do care that the decision they initially made would have made it harder for women, particularly low-income women, to get the screenings they need. The decision contradicted everything I thought the people at Komen believed.

The justification for the decision the organization made is just ridiculous. You don't preserve your "fiduciary duty" by placing a grantee's fate in the hands of, say, a city councilor with an axe to grind.  "Endorse my re-election or I'll call an 'investigation' and take your Komen funding away."  This would throw the grant-making process into chaos.  If Komen's board of directors is really stupid enough to consider this rule and not think of this outcome in 30 seconds, none of them belong there.

I also note that, as of Saturday, there's been an "apology to the American people," but no real accountability for the people who made the initial decision.  And no, embarrassment is not the same as being held accountable.

Planned Parenthood is a lifeline to many women who need health care.  Yet it's obvious there are people at Komen who just don't like Planned Parenthood because they also provide reproductive health services such as abortion, and want to shut them down. They have already demonstrated they're willing to compromise Komen's mission (and make it harder for women to get health care services) to accomplish their goal.  I doubt they would let a week or so of bad publicity stand in their way.  And those people still work at Komen.  My guess is they're waiting for all this attention to turn elsewhere - as it inevitably does - and then they'll go at it again.

As long as that's the case, all this talk about Komen's "brand" is superfluous.