Goddesses, editors, and owning your words

UPDATE: It appears as though Henry Gee has deleted his Twitter account.  I wonder if some sort of official statement from NPG is coming, or if we will see some kind of apology from Gee. 

Ironically, perhaps the best advice on apologies I can find come from two of Gee's critics - Janet Stemwedel and Kelly Hills.  The Harvard Business Review Blog has a good primer.  In my line of work, Shel Holtz is known as a smart guy and has had something to say about this as well. 

The best piece of advice on apologies I could probably give NPG right now is to make sure they include an of act of contrition.  Or as they say in Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, "saying I'm sorry is the first step.  Then how can I help?" 

I'm  grateful to the community of online science writers because I learn new things from them almost every day.  Of course, lately those lessons have very little to do with science. I had no idea this community was such a fertile source of public relations case studies.

In recent months, the topics of evolution and exploration have taken a back seat to stories of power dynamics, personal insecurities, and institutional inertia.  From my virtual vantagepoint as a "PR guy," it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.  Here's the latest.

"Isis the Scientist" describes herself as an "exercise physiologist at a major research university."  She is a passionate and provocative feminist and an active blogger with many friends in her community. She focuses, understandably, on the challenges women face in science and academia. She doesn't use her real name online.  She's good at getting under the skin of people who don't agree with her. Also she has amazing taste in shoes.   

Henry Gee is an author and senior editor at Nature.  He is known for his scholarship, his fiction, and his provocative comments as well.  Isis has criticized him in the past, as have others.  Few people can match his passion for the books of J.R.R. Tolkien.

A few days ago, Isis made a back-handed "subtweet" (actually, opinions differ about what a subtweet is) about Gee.  A day later, Gee responded on Twitter by revealing Isis' name and professional affiliation several times, calling her "inconsequential" and sarcastically suggesting Nature was "quaking in its boots" because Isis wouldn't read the publication.  He then sent a few messages to others on Twitter suggesting he had been the victim of ceaseless harassment from Isis that took a significant toll on him and others.  Isis responded by essentially taking the high road. 

Clearly the two have some sort of history, though as PZ Myers notes there isn't much to see publicly.  I have no idea what has gone on behind the scenes. 

First, the issue of transparency and "outing" or "doxing" people.  I've been pretty consistent about this issue, even when it applies to science communication. One example of my thoughts comes from 2011: 

The one quote that still resonates with me from #scio11 came from Steve Silberman at the panel on “keepers of the bullshit filter.” He said you can’t call bullshit on someone if you’re anonymous. I know this is a sensitive topic for many in the science blogsophere, and some of my favorite science bloggers don’t use their names. But as a PR guy with a political background it’s so important. It goes to the heart of credibility. It drives me nuts when I see so many political ads out there funded by people who don’t want you to know who they are. If I tried to hide my identity or my interests while speaking for a client I’d be slaughtered for it, and rightfully so. If you want to influence people with your writing, I think it’s important to be transparent and to own your words.

I have long thought it's important to reveal the identities of people who use anonymity to help them harass or attack others without accountability, to hide a conflict of interest, or to conceal an obvious and harmful hypocrisy.  But I also know that transparency is easy for me.  I can own my words and share my opinions without much fear of reprisal.  If I'm attacked, a formal and an informal system is in place to defend me.  I'm given the benefit of every doubt.  I'm a straight white man with an education and a job.

What happens to women who voice opinions (or even facts) under their own name?  Ask Amanda Hess or Amy Wallace or Adria Richards or Caroline Criado Perez or countless others.  If you're a woman and you're just talking about general stuff, you can expect someone to invoke your femininity as a reason to not take your thoughts seriously.  If you  have something to say that challenges the existing power dynamic, you can expect rape threats, death threats or worse.  Some women can take the abuse, some women can't, but one thing is certain: no one should have to.

Was Isis a bully, or was she trying to call someone on their crap? Opinions clearly differ.  What I've seen publicly leads me to believe she's more of a cultural whistleblower than an online thug.  She doesn't deserve the abuse she knows she's about to take - much of it directed toward her newly-known professional address. No one does.

One thing is certain: Isis now has to own her words, and there are a lot of them.  It seems as though she's prepared a least a little for this; she says her closest colleagues know her identity already.  I expect she may have an uncomfortable moment or two if she's suddenly reminded of a smug insult she threw upon meeting her target.

Of course, Gee has to own his words as well, and right now he looks petty and vindictive.  He claims Isis is "inconsequential" yet seems to suggest he still isn't over an argument he had four years ago and says the psychological pain he's felt is "huge."

Perhaps Isis has sinister, Hannibal Lecter-esque powers that allow her words to drive people to insanity or worse.  Maybe she's jealous of Gee and lashed out at him because she has horrible self-esteem. Perhaps she led a years-long campaign of torment and bullying and threats that only a public outing could stop.  Stranger things have happened.

Or, perhaps Gee is just another one of those entitled brats who, despite obvious intellect, can't discern the difference between intent and impact. Maybe he thinks he isn't about to be lectured by anyone on right and wrong, especially some mid-career Shelia who doesn't have the guts to use her real name. Or maybe he just can't get over the time someone got the best of him in an argument.  Stranger things have happened.

More importantly, however, Gee isn't the only one who now owns Gee's words.  Nature does as well, thanks to three things: his obvious and public position, the lack of an appropriate disclaimer on his Twitter bio, and his mention of his employer in his tweet.  If Gee thinks it's obvious he was only speaking for himself, he needs a lesson in public relations.

Wherever you go you're a representative of your company's brand, especially if you're a senior-level employee.  When in public (or online) you have to conduct yourself appropriately.  It's generally not wise to generate a series of tweets that look like the script of a soap opera.  It's one of the reasons we have disclaimers - such as the one Gee has on his personal blog. If it's on his blog and not on his Twitter account, it's easy to assume one is personal while the other is not - especially if your job title is "Senior Editor, Nature."

What's more, Journalists know that "outing" someone has to be done carefully, with significant preparation and consideration for the ramifications and safety of the person in question.  I don't know if Gee warned Isis privately that outing her was a possibility.  As an outspoken feminist it's clear Isis would be subject to hateful abuse likely up to and including rape and death threats, and it's just as clear Gee either didn't consider this or thought it wasn't as bad as the "hurtful untruths" he experienced.

Additionally, Something Isis and Michael Eisen mentioned is very important. Nature uses a peer review process that keeps the identity of reviewers confidential, apparently to protect the integrity of the review and to prevent "score-settling."   One of the senior editors has now demonstrated he is willing to reveal someone's identity to settle a personal score. As digital life continues to blur the lines between the personal and the professional, I'm not sure how Nature can credibly preserve their process without removing Gee from it.

Finally, all of this happens in a particular context.  This is just the latest in a string of unforced errors that demonstrates Nature Publishing Group's lack of situational awareness on inequality issues.  This simply reinforces the perception that when it comes to gender equity issues, NPG either doesn't get it or doesn't want to.

And if you think it's bad for them now, just wait for someone at NPG to decide to stand up to defend Gee.

This one kinda stumps me

"I worked the cones"

UPDATE: Governor Christie held a very long press conference to try to address the issue, and it made things worse for the Governor.

Christie effectively rebutted the claim that the staged traffic jam was in retaliation for the Fort Lee Mayor's decision not to endorse the Governor. This of course led to a search for a more plausible motive - and a very strong one emerged. (seriously, watch this video if you can.)

The retribution was directed the morning after a contentious decision by Governor over the nomination of judges to the state's supreme court. Specifically Christie withdrew the nomination of a judge after it became clear the nomination would be challenged by Senate Democrats.  The nominee was married to a member of the Governor's staff.  In announcing the decision, Christie referred to NJ Senate Democrats as "animals" and said, "as for the ramifications for that will be going forward... they should have thought about before opening their mouths."

The leader of the New Jersey Senate Democrats?  The state senator from Fort Lee.

As far fetched as it sounds, this seems plausible to me.  After all, we're talking about the spouse of a key member of the Governor's staff.  This one was personal to the Governor and to the people who worked so closely with him and each other.  But since Christie hasn't spoken with his now former deputy chief of staff - the one who sent the email the next morning saying "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" - we get to have another round of stories and investigations on that.

Further, since the Governor was so obviously personally invested in this issue, it's more likely he was aware of more details earlier on. This is going to cost more people their jobs, and possibly their status as non-felons.

Worse still for the Governor, he can't fix this anymore; he can only limit the damage. If everyone shares all the details now, he can limit the story's length and may still get some credit for taking his lumps and leading the way out of it.  If his administration continues down the path they're on, the story will go on indefinitely, and each successive revelation will have an impact far beyond its actual weight.
--------------------

A smart lawyer once told me, "never assume malicious intent when simple incompetence will do."  However, I'm having a lot of trouble trying to figure out how profoundly incompetent you have to be to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge to get back at a mayor who wouldn't endorse your boss.

If you haven't followed this over the past few months a decent tick-tock is here, and if you're looking for the best coverage I'd look at the Bergen County Record.

If you're not patient enough to read it all, here's the skinny.  Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, was cruising to an overwhelming victory for re-election, and was trying to gain endorsements from Democrats in the state.  One of his targets was the mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich.  The mayor decided to endorse his fellow Democrat, Barbara Buono.

In what appears to be an attempt at political retaliation, the Governor's allies allegedly plotted  "traffic problems" in the offending mayor's city.  Governor Christie's political appointee (who is also Christie's friend from high school) running that section of the George Washington Bridge and the Governor's deputy chief of staff decided to close all but one of the traffic lanes in Fort Lee that go to the bridge.  The resulting huge traffic jam came without warning and lasted for days.  Fort Lee children were late for their first day of school.  Police were hampered in their search for a missing 4-year-old child.  Emergency responders were late in reaching at least four people who needed them, including a 91-year-old woman experiencing a heart attack.  That woman died soon after, though it's not known if the delay was completely responsible for that death.

For months the Christie administration has been stonewalling any investigation of this petty stunt.  First they claimed the closures were part of a "traffic study" for which there was no documentation.  Then they sued to avoid subpoenas and resisted releasing any information while they mocked the media for suggesting this was a story in the first place.  They may have broken the law in the process.  The governor himself called New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to protest Cuomo's desire to investigate the situation (New Jersey shares jurisdiction of the bridge's governance with New York). Then documents revealed how "high up" this plot went, and suddenly the Christie administration isn't as cocky as it was a few months ago.

And now we get to play another round of everyone's favorite scandal game, "what did they know and when did they know it."  So here's my best guess, based only on what I've read and my experience in politics and communications.

I don't think Governor Christie new any of the specifics of this ahead of time, and I don't think he "ordered" anything specific.  He gains nothing from that.  I think it's possible (but not probable) that Christie said something general and negative about the mayor, and others may have taken that as a directive to do something.

I don't think Christie's chief of staff, director of communications, or general counsel knew ahead of time. I don't care what your politics are, no lawyer would ever sign off on something like this.

I do think they all knew what was happening well before yesterday.  It's simply too easy to uncover the details.  Anything given to the media via a public records request was retrieved at least a week before it was released and reviewed.  Likely much longer than a week.   There's no doubt in my mind the counsel's office and the chief of staff knew what happened more than a week ago. I think it's likely they knew something was wrong months ago, and they've had all the specifics for at least two or even three weeks.

I think it's possible that some attempt was made to keep the Governor out of the discussions, to give him some semblance of "plausible deniability."   I think we're playing legal ju-jitsu when the Governor said it was the "first time he heard" about this.  He may have just been given one specific detail yesterday, but he's not stupid.

This whole sad episode is an example of what not to do in crisis communications.  It's obvious the Governor's team circled the wagons and adopted an "us vs. them" mentality. It's obvious they decided to conceal as much information as possible for as long as possible, while staying within the technical boundaries of their opinion of existing law.

This posture has led to a drip, drip, drip of details that has turned a mildly embarrassing three-day story into a seriously damaging three-month story.  This posture put the Governor in the evasive position of throwing his staff under the bus instead of demonstrating a strong, "the buck stops here" style of leadership.  It will likely cost thousands in legal fees and invite more scrutiny and more questions - has this ever happened before? Are others involved? And now people are saying Governor Christie's presidential ambitions may be over.

All over a traffic jam in Fort Lee, New Jersey and a meaningless political endorsement.

Oh ye of little faith... in science

Well this isn't good:

In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, only 36 percent of Americans reported having "a lot" of trust that information they get from scientists is accurate and reliable. Fifty-one percent said they trust that information only a little, and another 6 percent said they don't trust it at all. Science journalists fared even worse in the poll. Only 12 percent of respondents said they had a lot of trust in journalists to get the facts right in their stories about scientific studies. Fifty-seven percent said they have a little bit of trust, while 26 percent said they don't trust journalists at all to accurately report on scientific studies.

I shared a link to the story on Twitter and headed off for a while - and got a far more active response than I anticipated, led primarily by Katie Mack.

78% think science skewed by politics. MT @dwescott1: Poll: Americans Have Little Faith In Scientists, Sci Journalists http://t.co/UZlybwjPPU
— Katie Mack (@AstroKatie) December 22, 2013

This led to a larger discussion, first about the context of the word "faith" and setting off a science vs. religion debate that was only tangentially relevant to the article, then a few points about the scientific method, and so on.

These are all really smart people having this discussion and I mean them no disrespect.  But I think they're all missing the point.

There are two driving issues in the current reputation crisis facing "big science" and scientists generally.  First, people are generally supportive of the idea of "science" but don't see its direct relevance in their everyday lives.  Second, people who have a financial interest in obfuscating certain scientific facts are attacking the purveyors of those facts, using tactics borne from politics, marketing, PR, and strategic communications - and scientists don't know how to counter.

"Big Science" is breaking the first rule of communications.  They don't know the audience.

Sure, they know the people who think this stuff is super cool.  But they don't know the people who have no "faith" in them.

Look at the stories on "the biggest science discoveries of 2013" from places like Wired, io9, or National Geographic. All have the nice SEO-driven headlined "listicle" format that gets the attention of the general public. This may be the one science article they read this year - all the important science stuff they missed over the past 12 months in one handy-dandy place!

Read through all of them and you'll see words like "neutrinos" and "exoplanets" or weird acronyms like "CRISPR" or terms like "interstellar space." But you'll see virtually nothing that has any bearing whatsoever on the daily life of a typical reader or even an "opinion elite" - that is, unless they have a PhD in science.

I don't know how strong the methodology is for this Huffington Post / YouGov poll - after all, I'm not a scientist - but I do think it serves as a good starting point and wakeup call for anyone who wants to improve the image of science and scientists.

There isn't a silver bullet to improve science's "favorables," but there are a few requirements.

It starts with knowing the audience.

I think we'll take more steps to know the audience in 2014.

blah blah blah

So much for "it's not a lecture."

Last Wednesday I was privileged to speak at the Institute for Public Relations Leadership Forum in New York.  It's the second time I've had the chance to speak there.  As I mentioned before, speaking at IPR is more than a bit intimidating because the "students" are all very accomplished and exceptionally smart people, and the other speakers resemble the roster of a PR Hall of Fame induction ceremony.   At these events you're speaking with a relatively small group (about 20, I think) and it has the feel of a classroom by design. IPR promotes the substantive research behind what we do. I appreciate that because I spend so much time talking with "real" scientists who think my job is more "art," to put it generously.

I was asked to discuss emerging trends in Digital PR, so I think everyone was prepared to hear yet another talk about "Big Data," the buzziest buzzword in PR today.  Frankly, I think "big data" in the absence of strong analytical tools is really just a big mess.  As an industry we're getting better, as smart people like Katie Paine know, but I still think we have a long, long way to go.

To me, the most important "trend" continues to be homophily and the continued isolation of online communities. As more people use curation tools to screen out everything but the information that most closely fits their interests and worldview, we speak only with like-minded people.  These smaller groups collectively move toward more extreme viewpoints.  We begin to find an "otherness" in people.

This is much larger than a PR problem.  It's the reason for our disjointed politics and our most strident and misguided activism.  At IPR I called it the greatest single threat to the fate of humanity.  I discussed the segregated conversations that took place immediately after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  And I presented a small case study that shows what happens when someone outside a community happens upon messaging not intended for that person - Dr. Hope Jahren's audacious hijacking of #ManicureMonday.

Despite it all, I'm hopeful and I think that PR people - yes, PR people - can help us out of this spiral.  We are the people that move across communities and have a knack at finding who the influential people are in those communities.  We can not only identify the "bridge figures" that Ethan Zuckerman so brilliantly discusses - we can be those bridge figures.  It doesn't just have to be connecting a Malagasi musician with an audience in Manhattan.  For example, we can introduce the dairy farmer to the science educator and let them discover what they have in common.  If we build the right relationships, we can help build bridges of understanding to help re-humanize those people we see ranting on social networks.

The next day I presented and sat on a panel at the PR News 2013 Media Relations Conference.  That's a different kind of intimidating.  That's "you're speaking in the Ballroom of the National Press Club in front of a couple hundred people" intimidating. That's "these people paid a lot of money to be here so don't waste their time" intimidating.  On the panel was Kathy Grannis of the National Retail Federation and David Ringer of the Audubon Society.  They clearly knew their stuff.  Earlier speakers represented big brands or organizations who constantly dealt with newsworthy issues.

Before I spoke, I took a look at the registration list and noticed that many of them weren't in organizations you're likely to see on the front pages of national (or even regional) newspapers.  They have to do much more than push out a press release to expect any semblance of coverage from "mainstream" journalists.  While I had my "tips and tricks" of practical advice teed up, and was ready to talk about using Twitter as a personal positioning and curating tool, I really wanted to demonstrate there were options beyond traditional outlets.   USA Today probably won't cover the latest marketing initiative from a small brand, but an influential blogger who really likes your brand just might - and she might reach a more appropriate audience.

Luckily, I had the perfect example in the room. I noticed Kim Orlando was there, sharing her thoughts about the conference on Twitter while also facilitating an online conversation about tech and travel. Kim is the founder of Traveling Mom, a popular website that provides the kind of information parents need but may not always find in the pages of old-school travel mags and guidebooks.

I've been following Kim on Twitter for some time now - after all, it's my job. I know she's a well-respected and authentic voice in the mom-o-sphere with reach and influence. I know she's passionate about what she does online.  She's very smart - she "gets" working with organizations and brands, and understands the value of her work.  She's no-nonsense yet very social.  And she's always looking for new ideas with new people that have something relevant to discuss with her community.

So a couple of minutes into my talk I called out Kim and described her as "the most important person in the room." It's an unconventional thing to say, and I think she was surprised at the attention.  Yet for many in the room - comms directors for small museums, trade associations, and small to mid-sized companies - she represented the best chance they had to build relationships and trust for their brands.

If that's the only thing people got out of my talk in DC, I think I did my job.

Teaching flood preparedness to Noah

I'm heading out for a couple of speaking engagements next week. Speaking with your peers is fun because it forces you to organize your thoughts strategically and make sure you really know your stuff. As a speaker, I'm positioned as the "expert" - but invariably, I learn more through preparation, comments, questions and follow-up than I teach in the finite time I'm forcing everyone to stare at a PowerPoint. Of course, it's also intimidating.

Senator Kennedy used to tell this great joke when he would speak on a topic in front of experts on that topic.  He would talk about a man who survived the infamous Johnstown Flood of 1889.  More than 2200 people died as a result of that flood - the worst loss of civilian life in a single event at the time. But this man was prepared and had supplies at the ready. After the flood he dedicated his life to teaching people about what to do in the event of a flood, and saved many lives as a result.  After living to a ripe old age, he died and met Saint Peter at the gates of Heaven.  Peter informed the man that since he led such a virtuous life, he would be admitted AND granted a wish.  The man said he'd like to do one last speech on flood preparedness, this time to all the souls in Heaven.

Saint Peter scratched his head, and said, "well, that's fine, but you should know that Noah will be in the audience."

With that in mind I'll be presenting "Effective New Trends In Digital Communications" to the Institute for Public Relations PR Leadership Forum on Wednesday.  The event is cosponsored by the Arthur W. Page Society and the Council of Public Relations Firms. I plan to cover three things: digital PR, the greatest threat to humanity, and nail care.

I turn right around and sit on a panel at the PR News Media Relations Next Practices Conference on Thursday. I'm presenting with Kathy Grannis of the National Retail Federation and David Ringer of the National Audubon Society. Steve Goldstein of PR News is moderating. That presentation is going to be more tactical, so of course I plan to talk about Twitter, coffee, makeup, Gloria Steinem, and nail care again.

You know, the typical stuff.

#ManicureMonday and guerilla science outreach: a case study

"Salamanicure" photo courtesy of John McCormack

Hearst Communications owns 29 television stations and 2 radio stations.   They own studios and syndication services. They own several newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle. They have an ownership stake in networks like ESPN and A+E Networks. They also publish a lot of magazines, including Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Elle, Esquire, Redbook, and Popular Mechanics.

They also publish Seventeen. This is where you go to learn 5 ways celebrities like to wear pale pink, 8 ways to rock red lipstick, or if that special guy stinks at kissing. It's not important to me, but it is to their target demographic of American girls. It's also reasonably profitable stuff, because at its core Seventeen is a marketing and advertising vehicle to sell things like makeup and clothing, and those are the bits that attract customers to the ads.

The editors and staff of Seventeen don't wake up in the morning and ask themselves, "What can I do today to impose an unrealistic standard of beauty and culture upon girls, and grind away at their self esteem?"  They try to think of things that would be interesting to their audience, and would make their publication more attractive to their advertisers. That's it.

So they come up with fairly clever ideas like #ManicureMonday, a weekly conversation on Twitter, Pinterest and other social platforms that encourages readers to share pictures of their coolest nail designs.  The girls who participate like it - it gives them an opportunity to express their own creativity in a fun and relatively safe environment.  The advertisers like it - it helps them identify potential influential customers and know more about how to target their marketing.  The publication likes it because it demonstrates its online reach and its value to advertisers. It's a win-win-win.

Or at least it was until Dr. Hope Jahren caught wind of it. Dr. Jahren runs a geobiology lab at the University of Hawaii Manoa. Innocently enough, she was going to write a tweet about how she nearly ripped off a fingernail in her lab, and on a whim thought to use a hashtag - "#Manicure." Twitter autofilled "#ManicureMonday" for her, and suddenly Dr. Jahren found herself peering into a different online community, looking at things that nobody ever intended to show her.

To Dr. Jahren, this somewhat foreign community celebrated things like pretty nails, and not the things she thought were important. Where were the articles in girls' magazines that talked about science? Aren't there other ways to celebrate creativity? Don't we owe it to our daughters to tell them that sure, manicures are fine, but you can do other things too?  Are girls shying away from fulfilling careers in STEM because we're telling them to spend more time on their nails?

So Dr. Jahren decided to do something about it. "Screw you, Seventeen," she thought to herself as she submitted her own picture of her fingernails covered with the ink from a light blue highlighter pen.

Not much happened in public.  But the PR team at Seventeen may have noticed. They may have read through her blog, looked at her Twitter account.  If Seventeen were my client and had me running their social media campaigns, I would have.

Since that first tweet of the picture wasn't followed by much, they may have figured it was just a "single ping" of a snarky so-and-so who wanted to make a point.  No real harm, no real threat to the campaign or to the Seventeen brand.  So they may have missed the tweet she sent that Friday:

Heads up: we will be taking over @seventeenmag 's #ManicureMonday with real nails on real hands doing real #science. All are welcome. #stem
— Hope Jahren (@HopeJahren) November 15, 2013

That Monday, Seventeen and its PR team probably learned that Dr. Jahren has a pretty powerful and creative online community too.  Dozens of Dr. Jahren's online friends (and many others she didn't know) submitted pictures of their nails - in labs, in the field, under UV lights, basically anywhere you could find science in progress.

And the pictures were amazing.

Seventeen's PR team probably raised an eyebrow at all of this.  They probably get their share of criticism and trolling from a random, pubescently-challenged boy or maybe from feminist groups.  They probably know how to deal with that.  But this was a little different.  This was off-message for Seventeen, but it was relatively nice.  It certainly could have been a lot worse.

With very few exceptions, the pictures from scientists represented a relentlessly positive celebration of science in action - directed squarely at an audience that was completely unprepared for it.  And the leader of it all was someone who sending snarky signals she was hostile, yet also had a valid point and the ability to garner sympathy from "opinion elites" that may read some of Hearst's other publications.

Ultimately, Seventeen's PR and editorial team chose the safest course of action - do nothing.  The "hijackers" were not directly attacking the brand or arguing much with the people who were participating in the "official" conversation. If anything, they were bumping up traffic for the hashtag and for Seventeen.

Of course, they could have seized an opportunity and been the "white hat" in all of this - they could have engaged Dr. Jahren and had a discussion about the best way to encourage STEM careers for girls.  But from a purely PR perspective, that's too risky.  Dr. Jahren had expressed hostile intent, and had been commenting on recent developments in her own field from the perspective of a principled feminist. Furthermore, Seventeen probably doesn't have a lot of data that says their readers want this information. Seventeen has a formula and an editorial strategy that turns a profit. Do you know what you call a business that strays from its strategy? "Closed."

The calculated silence on Seventeen's part led to some mildly sensationalist media - but it was in places that its target demographic doesn't read and in which its advertisers don't invest - places like Slate, Media Bistro, Huffington Post. From Seventeen's perspective, this is not a crisis.

It remains, however, a wonderful opportunity.  Dr. Jahren has provided an audacious, even inspirational example of guerilla science outreach - thanks in no small part to the contributions from her community of scientists and science advocates.  She has expressed regret for using terms that imply a hostile intent. She's clearly an exceptionally skillful writer, and she has an approachable, self-deprecating style of humor.  She has also expressed an intention to keep sharing pictures on Mondays.

So if Dr. Jahren wants to continue to make her point, she has some choices to make.  Does she want to reach the readers of Slate and Media Bistro, or does she want to reach the readers of Seventeen?  Does she want to impress her friends and colleagues who love what she did and need no persuading, or does she want to open up a constructive dialogue with powerful interests who may now pay attention?

Or can she do all of it?

The leaders at Seventeen (and perhaps Hearst Communications) have some choices to make too.  Do they want to see if they can keep their readership (and their advertisers) happy by exploring this topic further in the pages of Seventeen or their other publications?  Can they leverage the attention Dr. Jahen gave them to gain positive coverage in other places, driving traffic their way?  Can they prove that doing the right thing - promoting STEM careers to girls - is also profitable, earning goodwill from potential critics and strengthening their reputation?

Dr. Jahren's creative and ultimately positive idea seemed to live somewhere between the impulsive and the tactical.  I, for one, would love to see it evolve, become more strategic, and ultimately more impactful.

I hope others do too.

This isn't crisis PR. It's just a crisis.

Rob Ford's story is a lot of things, but it's not a "PR crisis." It's much worse.

I've had public-sector clients that have high profiles in their communities.  People with serious addictions to drugs and alcohol, and who broke the law.  People with very high opinions of themselves. I've seen clients maintain their "functionality" through a reasonably complex system of lies, misdirection, cover-ups, and intimidation.

I've seen seemingly insignificant facts emerge that set events in motion and ultimately lead to a person's public (and private) downfall.   I've seen people deny everything at first - even to me, even to the lawyers on his team.  Then I've seen clients go silent, refusing to answer any questions, as investigators do their jobs. Then I've seen them make a series of small, tactical admissions as a last resort, all while trying to position themselves as victim or even hero.

I've seen them insulate themselves with sycophants and gullible marks.  I've been in the conversations where it's everyone else who's wrong and it's my enemies are doing this because they can't bring me down any other way.

I've seen clients in this situation suddenly decide to hold on-camera interviews over my protests and without any preparation. I've seen them insist it's "time to move on from this," thinking the embarrassment of a partial, tactical admission is sufficient accountability. And even as the truth becomes more obvious, even as everyone sees that resignations are imminent and criminal convictions are almost certain, I've seen people search feverishly for that one lie, that one angle, that one narrative that "fixes" everything. They can't help it.

I've seen this all unfold up close and I've thought, "this is not going to end well."  And it doesn't.

Rob Ford's story isn't going to end well.

The last thing Ford should worry about right now is his image. He can't afford to worry about his job.  If Ford's family, colleagues, or staff cared about him they'd get him out of City Hall and into a hospital.

Sometimes the best PR advice is to forget about PR for a while.

Female Role Models XII

Over the past week  the online community of science writers has faced a crisis of leadership, of confidence, and of ethics.  I've had a lot of conversations with people in the community - some wanting advice or perspective, some providing it. While I've tried to maintain a professional distance of sorts, it's difficult because ot the friendships I've forged over the years with some of those involved.

So much has been said about Bora and what he did, about the community, about sexual harassment, about credibility, and about self-worth. I don't have much to add. But I can continue a tradition on this blog - I can identify and celebrate female role models from all walks of life as a response to bad behavior by men. Instead of tearing women down, we should lift women up.

Obviously, it's impossible to overlook the courage it took for Monica Byrne, Hannah Waters and Kathleen Raven to share their stories.  I won't focus too much on them here today, however, because I don't think they should be seen only in the context of being harassed by the same man. While their courage in this situation is one part of what defines them, it's by no means the only thing.

For those who have not seen this feature on my blog before, you can find the others I've mentioned here. The criteria I use are very simple:

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."

So here are some people who I've seen online (and offline, in Cristina and Karen's case) and I think deserve some recognition.

Cristina Escobar. She's the director of loveisrespect, a partnership between Break the Cycle and the National Domestic Violence Hotline that helps young people identify abuse in relationships and offers a peer-to-peer counseling service via text messaging. She started at the ground floor at Break the Cycle years ago and has risen to a position where she can help thousands of people have productive, safe, loving relationships and protect themselves from abuse.

Monique Frausto. She has developed a strong following online and leverages that prominence to promote the work of other Latinas.  She founded BlogsByLatinas.com, the first aggregator of its kind, and is a writer at Babble.  She also founded the blog Cuves and Chaos, which she describes as "a fashion, beauty, and lifestyle blog for the CURVY (plus size) woman. She is glamorous, fabulous, foxy, confident, and more."  She's a confident and creative community leader.

Karen James.  Karen has been instrumental in leading the #ripplesofdoubt conversation that has helped open people's eyes to the many issues women face when dealing with harassment - but that's not why she's on the list.  Karen is a strong advocate for science outreach and she walks the walk. She's a staff scientist at the Mount Desert Island Biological Library in Maine, and she works to help people understand how what we do to the environment affects everything else.  She also founded a non-profit to help re-build the HMS Beagle - the ship that once carried Charles Darwin aboard - and re-enact its travels with a new generation of scientists. How cool is that?

Kimberly Bryant. She said something I could relate to, at least a bit, about her freshman year - "Fortran and Pascal were the popular languages for newbies in computing and the Apple Macintosh was the new kid on the block."  But while I decided to end my pursuit of a computer science degree, She kept at her studies in engineering - despite the isolation of being the only one there who looked like her.  And now, in addition to a successful career, she founded Black Girls Code - an organization that aims "to increase the number of women of color in the digital space by empowering girls of color ages 7 to 17 to become innovators in STEM fields, leaders in their communities, and builders of their own futures through exposure to computer science and technology."

Evolution of a PR crisis and other observations

The past few days have been tumultuous in the science blogosphere.  I can't do the whole tick-tock but for anyone not up to speed I wrote about the first event here, and the next development here.

In short, Biology-Online has handled their crisis very well, while Scientific American has not done well at all.

In fairness, Biology-Online had the easier task, and apparently fewer lawyers. They had a CEO who just got the information, showed some leadership, and let the right people know about it.  Boom. Over.  Arguably they improved their reputation by demonstrating zero tolerance for inappropriate comments.

Scientific American is a more complex organization, as a former SciAm editor aptly explained. Apparently the lawyers are very powerful there, as they are in many large companies.  But the leadership let their lawyers over-think abstract applications of multi-jurisdictional libel law, paralyze their decision-making process, undercut their executive editor's ability to make the right call, and then take over the company's PR function.

As another smart editor points out, as far as we know no one from Biology-Online or anywhere else ever threatened legal action over this incident.  The chances of anyone filing a lawsuit as a result of Danielle's post were infinitesimal, and the chances of that suit succeeding were even smaller.  As Biology-Online's relatively swift action demonstrated, this was a reasonably simple case of an overmatched dudebro acting like a privileged asshat and a really smart woman calling him out on it.  Bottom line - the post should have never been taken down. It should never have even been considered unless someone made a credible legal threat.  Danielle told nothing but the truth, in the way that only she can. And it was amazing. And Scientific American let her down.  Maryn McKenna's analysis on the actions SciAm did and didn't take has been excellent - and courageous given that she is a contributing editor there.

There are a lot of questions Scientific American hasn't answered.  I believe strongly that the editors at Scientific American want very much for all the ugly details around what happened there to get out in the open so they can learn from it, regain the trust of their readers and their colleagues, and move on.

I believe just as strongly that the lawyers at Scientific American want everyone to stop talking about this as soon as possible.

I'm not trying to diminish the important role lawyers have in organizations. They are often the sentinels of free speech, free thought, and free enterprise.  But shielding a company from some theoretical legal liability is not always the same as defending or preserving your good name. Scientific American's reputation has endured and prospered because of the integrity of its leadership and the quality of its writing, not because of its ability to avoid lawsuits that would never be filed in the first place.

I sincerely hope the editors and lawyers at Scientific American will decide who works for whom and then let the leaders lead. Because while critical stories from people who follow science journalism closely were inevitable, negative pieces from places like ABC News, Fox News, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jezebel, Slate, Business Insider, and International Business Times were not.

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS

This was probably inevitable - though the timing may have been different, had Scientific American done the right thing immediately.

Then something resembling this became necessary, though I have more to say about it in a minute.

And since it did happen, this was inevitable too.

And then this was inevitable and necessary.

And then, of course, this had to happen.

I know Bora and consider him a friend.  What he did was utterly wrong on many levels. I'm not the only one who has told him as much directly.  I think he's continued to make some big mistakes as he realizes the consequences of his actions.  Ultimately, he is responsible for his own choices. So many others have written eloquently about the problems women face in science, in academia, and everywhere else.

Posts from Kathleen Raven, Isis the Scientist, Radium Yttrium, Emily Finke, and Laura Helmuth are among many I found important.  Janet Stemwedel and Kelly Hills have written pieces from an ethicist's perspective that I think are particularly valuable as I look at them through the lens of someone who works in public relations, crisis comms, and issues management.  Karen James has led the #ripplesofdoubt conversation on Twitter.  It has opened eyes and provoked thoughts.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Some have suggested there was a "firestorm" of commentary on Twitter about this, that people have gone over the top.  I disagree. In my experience as a political/PR guy, I've seen far more fury by many more people over much less substance.  (For example, see "birth certificate, Obama.") Further, this discussion doesn't happen in a vacuum.  Right around the time Andrew Maynard was telling Monica Byrne to think twice before outing Bora, the "Dear Prudence" column over at slate was telling women to stop drinking if they don't want to get raped.  And in the many conversations I've had with people about this, one comment from someone I respect sticks out to me: "At least we haven't seen any rape threats or death threats this time.  That gives me hope."

We've gotten to the point where we see not threatening to rape or kill people who speak out against harassment as a "positive" and not a default setting for basic humanity.

Finally, there's one thing I've noticed that very few people have discussed.  It has to do with that "confession" on Bora's site.  I've written a lot of things in my career that require "legal clearance" in one form or another and that statement reminded me of a lot of them.

Bottom line: I'm not convinced he is the sole or even primary author of the words that appear on his own, personal blog. I'm not convinced he had final approval on what appears there. Of course, he owns those words now, including the since-disproven "singular, regrettable event" regarding behavior that hasn't happened "before or since."

I understand that people represent their companies in their public comments at all times and should conduct themselves professionally.  I know that disclaimers are important things, even if they're not always an iron-clad defense against a threat to a brand's reputation. I try to own my words. But I don't think it's appropriate for a company to force someone to publish something on a personal blog.  It may be a minor issue, given all that has happened, but I'd really like to know if that's what happened here.

Free crisis PR advice for Scientific American online

MEMORANDUM

To:  Mariette DiChristina, Scientific American
From: David Wescott
Re: Censorship on the blog network

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Your online reputation has been significantly damaged by the removal of a post from Dr. Danielle Lee's Urban Scientist blog, the subsequent explanation (and clarification) for the decision, and the resulting discussion.

As you know, Biology-online.org, a member of the Scientific American Partnership Network, solicited Dr. Lee to contribute content on their site without offering financial compensation. When she politely refused, the blog editor there called her an "Urban Whore."  Readers of Biology-online.org have asked questions about this on the site's forum, and an administrator has offered a response, albeit an insufficient one.  Scientific American's response to this situation so far is to remove Dr. Lee's response from her blog.

It does not appear that Dr. Lee was contacted in advance of the decision to censor her post. This is a mistake.  Further, the brief reasoning that has been shared publicly - that the post was not relevant enough to "discovering science" or that it "verged into the personal" - does not withstand even brief scrutiny.

As you know, Dr. Lee's post deals with an issue that is directly relevant to everything that happens at Scientific American online - the actual value publishers place on science communication. The fact that  Dr. Lee draws upon personal experience makes her post more compelling and credible, not less.  Other blog network contributors have already pointed to posts that clearly do not meet the "discovering science" criteria yet remain published. Further, they point to comments from the blog network editor that suggest a "write whatever you want" policy.

This creates a crisis with three specific "audiences." The first audience is internal.  Contributors to the network no longer have clear guidance on criteria or process for publication. The second is an "opinion elite" or audience of those who follow Scientific American closely and can impact its reputation within the scientific community. These peers view censorship as a last resort, and are not convinced of any imminent threat Dr. Lee's post posed to the blog network to merit its immediate removal.  Finally, the public at large is an important audience.

In this regard, the coverage in Buzzfeed is particularly damaging, as it reaches an audience far larger and far more diverse than Scientific American online. This is the audience Scientific American needs to expand its readership and fulfill its mission, but for many of them this story is their introduction to your publication.  They see this as an obvious mistake.  The statement provided to Buzzfeed is passive, vague, and elusive. Further, it puts Scientific American on the wrong side of the discussions about racism and sexism, particularly in science and technology.

As you know, several posts have now emerged criticizing the editors at Scientific American, even some from within the network.  The blog network editor has been uncharacteristically silent.

In the immediate future, you can expect more critical comments from more prominent sources, including organizations that advocate for women and people of color.  You can expect more critical posts from within Scientific American, and possibly even attempts to re-publish Dr. Lee's post verbatim on the network that censored it.  You can expect departures from the blog network. You can expect individuals to look much more closely into the relationship you have with Biology-online.org and the way in which the editors came to their decision to take down the post. You may see a downturn in the number and quality of submissions for your guest blog. Ultimately, you may see a decline in online traffic and ad revenue.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The editors at Scientific American online should republish Dr. Lee's Post and offer an unqualified apology.  Dr. Lee's post does not likely violate any guidelines set out by her editor, and the quality of writing met appropriate standards.  The statement of apology should also recognize the organization's failure to support Dr. Lee when she was treated disrespectfully by an ad network partner. The embarrassment of admitting you were wrong, even now, is far less damaging than the credibility lost by continuing to defend an indefensible position.

The editors should contact Biology-online.org to express their strong disapproval of the way one of their blog contributors was treated, and review the possibility of terminating this partnership.

The editors should draft a communication to blog network members informing them of the apology offered to Dr. Lee and explaining the process by which the editors came to their decision. They should be available to all network members and other relevant parties for a Q&A session.

The editors should work with the contributors to establish a clear set of guidelines, rights, and responsibilities for publication.

The editors should publish an editorial offering a public and unqualified apology, reinforcing the organization's commitment to free speech, and emphasizing the value of their contributors' work.

The editors should work with a third party with expertise in STEM diversity to convene a discussion on how the publication can support this cause more effectively. There are many individuals and organizations with expertise here.  Veronica Arreola is a good start - she has expertise in the topic, and she is well-regarded in online communities that extend far beyond science.

The editors should strengthen partnerships with journalism advocates, business leaders, and centers of entrepreneurship such as the National Association of Business Incubators to explore new ways to underscore the value of science writing and develop more sustainable business models for freelance science writers.  While this is a long-term project with an uncertain future, taking this or a similar effort will demonstrate Scientific American's commitment to its contributors and a more sustainable financial future for all parties.

Free crisis PR advice for Biology-online.org

MEMORANDUM

To: "Ofek" and the leadership of biology-online.org
From: David Wescott
Re: Correspondence with Dr. Danielle Lee

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Your reputation has been badly damaged by the publishing of recent correspondence with biologist Dr. Lee, in which your blog editor suggests her reluctance to provide content to your site without financial compensation makes her an "Urban Whore."

Her response (along with a copy of the correspondence) was initially posted at her Scientific American blog, but now resides on other sites. The correspondence generated significant conversation on twitter among highly influential figures in the science and sci-comm communities, including some who have contributed to biology-online in the past and now wish to have their content removed. It has also led to critical posts on your own site's forum.  As of Friday evening the conversation continues in earnest.

As you may know, Dr. Lee is a very popular and influential member of her community.  Her writing and outreach skills are well-established and celebrated. She is a leading advocate for diversity in STEM and a role model to many.  She also has exceptional communication skills beyond writing, as evidenced by this video of her, speaking extemporaneously, when asked to finish the sentence "Science is..."



Two significant issues compound the immediate reputational damage for your organization.  First, the absence of a public response, specifically an unqualified apology, suggests you either stand by your comments or you are not organized enough to marshall a response and demonstrate accountability. It should go without saying the tone and word choice in the correspondence was unprofessional and wholly inappropriate. The comments go beyond the issue of compensation for legitimate work product and put you on the wrong side of the discussions on sexism and racism.

Second, Biology-online is part of the Scientific American Partnership Network, and prominent readers are now asking if this relationship led to the removal of Dr. Lee's post from her SciAm blog. As you know this form of censorship will not stand with SciAm's readers.  Scientific American's editors will be compelled to comment publicly on why the post was removed, and this situation poses a threat to their reputation as well.

Two other issues threaten your organization's reputation over the medium-term.  First, the correspondence rekindles a common debate in many online communities about appropriate compensation for quality writing.  While many websites ask for (and often receive) content without financial compensation, authors argue it diminishes the overall value of content overall and damages the livelihoods of even the best freelance writers.  This will diminish your reputation among those you solicit most and ultimately render your business model unsustainable.

Second, the site itself does not meet high standards of transparency, nor does it demonstrate best practices in design. The "webmaster" asserts copyright (i.e., ownership) of all content on the site while not disclosing the webmaster's identity.  The "biology online team" do not provide adequate information of their background, roles or responsibilities.  The site employs an outdated design, rudimentary SEO tactics, and free ad banners and forum scripts. Claims of significant web traffic are unverified.  Text written by the webmaster or staff has numerous errors and typos. The site has no social media assets to allow for more direct and public feedback. Taken in sum the site looks like a small operation that spams writers for content, claims ownership of the effort of others, and attempts to profit while investing as little time or resources as possible.

In the absence of quick remedies, Biology-online can expect continued criticism from prominent online voices, fewer quality contributions, less web traffic, and the potential dissolution of its partnership with Scientific American.  Any traffic spike the site gets right now is almost completely attributed to the controversy. Ultimately, this will hasten the site's demise.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Biology-online leadership should offer a public and unqualified apology to Dr. Lee.  The apology should not only acknowledge the inappropriate word choice, but also clearly recognize the cultural and contextual ramifications of those words. Further, the apology should be attached to a full name - not the "biology-online team" or "webmaster."  It is best placed on the Biology-online blog and promoted via social media channels.

Biology-online should also specify what it has done or will do to ensure accountability.  While this does not mean that Ofek should necessarily lose his job, some action is appropriate to reinforce the notion that biology-online truly values the work of its contributors and treats all people with respect and dignity.

Biology-online should reach out to Dr. Lee and others in the community and ask to have a public, candid discussion about the issues facing freelance writers and content creators, specifically addressing the concerns Dr. Lee raises in her response and developing or affirming "best practices."  It would be best if a third party with more credibility on these issues led the discussion, such as the editors at Scientific American.

Biology-online should offer an apology to the editors at Scientific American for endangering their reputation by association.  There is little doubt that the Sci-Am partnership is significant to your site's credibility, and there is value in preserving that partnership.

Finally, Biology-online should conduct its affairs more transparently and redesign its site to reinforce this value. The site should identify its leadership with full names and clear responsibilities.  It should elaborate and clarify its policies on how it seeks content and why it asserts ownership of others' work product.  It should clearly express how it adds value to your readers and contributors.

Here they go again.

What could go wrong?

Just after the presidential election - the one where all the opinion polls consistently showed President Obama winning and wound up being right - I wrote a post about how the Republican Party is suffering from homophily.  When people of the same stripe isolate themselves, and refuse to acknowledge other opinions or even facts that contradict their priorities or world view, they tend to adopt increasingly extreme positions and interpret reality in a way that doesn't reflect reality. That's why conservatives were shocked that they lost the election then, and why they embrace extreme positions like shutting down the government and defaulting on America's debt now. They even say a default won't hurt. (It will.)

It's more than Dick Morris' ridiculous assertion that Governor Romney was "gonna win by a landslide" because all the polls said President Obama would win. All the conservative pundits got it wrong.

But the best example of conservatives heading to oblivion right now is Erick Erickson. Remember Erickson joked that Obama was a lock once Morris made his prediction. But he took a look at the same polls and made his prediction in November:

I believe Mitt Romney will win Florida, Virginia, and Colorado... I honestly change my mind hourly on Ohio, but my best guess is that Romney wins Ohio and consequently wins the Presidency...

If you take a polling average in Ohio, the President is three points ahead. Republicans tend to do two points better in Ohio than the polling and Democrats tend to do one point worse than the polling. That puts Ohio tied and I think passion for Romney makes up that gap...

I’ve never seen the Republican base more fired up.

So Erickson looked at the polls, all saying President Obama was winning in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio, and predicted Romney victories in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio.

Because of passion.

For Governor Romney.

Now Erickson has looked at poll after poll saying the American people know Republicans are to blame for the latest shutdown of the government.  He sees the polls that show significant drops in support for his party.  He sees the guys at Princeton who accurately predicted the last election say if America voted today, Democrats would easily take back the House of Representatives.  And you can guess what he says:

Polling shows more Americans blame the GOP than Barack Obama. I think this means the GOP is winning. You’ll need to let me explain.

No, I really won't.

Shutting the government down doesn't just mean we can't go hiking at Yellowstone this week, as much as that sucks.  It means we aren't inspecting food imports or preventing outbreaks of food-borne illnesses.  We're not researching cancer cures.  We're not paying survivor benefits to those who just lost a loved one in Afghanistan. We're not paying thousands upon thousands of people, public and private sector, who are just trying to do their jobs.

Defaulting on America's debt is more than just telling the rest of the world our word isn't good anymore. It adds the one thing today's global financial system simply cannot withstand - a huge, steaming pile of uncertainty.

If politicians can't agree on an annual budget, a "clean," temporary continuing budget resolution has always been the non-controversial, even perfunctory fix. Essentially it says keep things going until we strike an agreement.  When the government needs to sell bonds to meet its cash obligations, raising our agreed-upon debt limits has also been a non-controversial, even perfunctory fix.  People in both parties have voted against both fixes to make a political statement, but never to actually stop either from happening.  They then get to their real work - a budget resolution and a series of appropriations bills. We've actually made progress on both - under this President, the national budget deficit has shrunk dramatically.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives has now equated a functioning government and a stable global financial system as "unconditional surrender" for his political party.  Seriously - if the economy wins, he thinks he loses.

He really needs to get out more.

Another thought.  Today I think about those people in the job I had over a decade ago - Congressional staffer. The younger ones tend to live paycheck to paycheck, like many Americans. A lot of them are being furloughed right now, dealing with any number of financial issues.  They're looking at the "clean" continuing budget resolution the Senate passed with bipartisan support - the one that would give them job stability for at least a little while.  And they're looking at the news reports that say it would pass the House.

Then they're looking at the one guy who won't let the House vote on it under any circumstances.  For some of them he's the boss.  For others he's the head of their political party.  And now he's saying that their job stability, however temporary, is his "unconditional surrender."

I wonder when some of them will start talking to reporters.

Payback's a bitch, Mr. Speaker.

Popular Science comments: not popular

Popular Science has decided to stop feeding the trolls:

Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off. 

It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

Mixed thoughts here.

Crisis and online PR professionals can easily see the logic in the editors' decision.  We tell brands all the time to control their own platform and not let critics attack them on their own website. There is always some risk in having a Facebook page or a blog that allows unmoderated comments. Brands and journalists have to be transparent to maintain credibility, while anonymous commenters don't have to own their words.  It's not a fair fight.  Further, when resources are scarce and you can't commit to moderating an overwhelming amount of abusive comments, sometimes it's best to shut them down.

The editors at Popular Science have gone a step further, and suggested there is real science to back up their decision.  They cite two studies suggesting basically the following:  blog post comments that assertively expressed a different point of view prompted readers to doubt the credibility of the blog post. They continue:

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

Sorry, but that's a bit more of a "logical" extension than I'm ready to accept. There isn't a "butterfly effect" that starts with "bro2001" telling a blogger he sucks and ends with NIH getting gutted.  But it was this line that really gave me pause:

And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

Preventing those who reflect a "grotesque" culture from making comments that cynically undermine doctrine.  That sounds more like a paranoid religious inquisition than something from a group of science advocates. Last time I checked, stifling dissent wasn't much of a recruitment tactic. It certainly doesn't fit the mold of science - even those topics where the data are overwhelmingly clear, like climate change or evolution or vaccines.

In the big picture, closing comments on the PopSci blog isn't going to have a huge impact either way.  The real problem is this - Popular Science isn't really reaching an audience that isn't already interested in science. This decision isn't going to enhance their own credibility with anyone new, because they're not pushing hard to expand their audience.  Very few people in science communication are, and they are really hesitant to start.

Yes, trolls suck, and yes, plenty of people have used sophisticated communications strategies and tactics to obfuscate science for financial or political gain.  But if the editors at Popular Science are interested in good policy, we need more interaction between people who don't agree, not less.  Scientists and science communicators will improve science policy if they conduct more and better outreach.  (And the best way to do that is to work with the people who do outreach for a living.)

Instead, this decision only serves to isolate science advocates further from their critics. It also serves as an excuse for critics to exclude scientists from their discussions. To quote Dr. Alice Marwick, "when people with likeminded beliefs congregate together, they collectively move to a more extreme position."

Trolling is a bush-league tactic performed by cowards. But this decision to further isolate the scientific community doesn't help.

Why is Chipotle running PETA ad campaigns?

Chipotle Mexican Grill has tried very hard to differentiate itself from its perceived competitors by asserting their products are more wholesome.  Their major proof points: they essentially oppose certain farming practices, as well as genetically modified foods (this position is more marketing than science), and their meats are free of antibiotics and hormones.  In pushing this messaging they've angered many in the agriculture world, but they've also gained some allies and done well financially.  The company has launched a new ad campaign to drive home these points, and they've decided to prioritize the digital and social channels their target market prefers.  I think it has some strengths, and one really glaring strategic weakness.

First, Chipotle's new "Scarecrow" ad is simply gorgeous to look at.  Moonbot Studios put together a haunting, engaging story with imagery and music that reminds you of Roald Dahl books.  It focuses on an issue and resists the temptation many brands have to push the company name and logo - in fact, while you do see a familiar chipotle pepper in the video, you really don't see the brand name at all.


Second, Chipotle has produced a companion mobile game app for iTunes. It demonstrates that the company (and its agency) are thinking about their customer base - millennials. Like the video, the game also resists the temptation to push the brand and opts instead for some relatively soft messaging on their proof point issues.

This again demonstrates some knowledge of the target demographic - millennials are turned off by over-the-top corporate messaging.  The game itself is pretty simple - you basically tilt the device to navigate the scarecrow past obstacles - but it's clever, offers casual fun, and isn't at all intrusive.   I don't know what kind of metrics Chipotle has set up to determine success, but the video is approaching 5 million views and has gotten exceptional coverage.

But I noticed something in the ad.  When our scarecrow hero decides to open his own food stand, something is rather conspicuous by its absence - meat.   It's nowhere to be found, either at the scarecrow's house, in his kitchen, or even in the tacos he sells.  It's not just antibiotic-free or hormone free - it's completely gone.

It's not in the game, either.  Scarecrow is moving crates of "fresh vegetables," at least in the few minutes I tried the game.

It's obvious Chipotle gave this ad campaign a lot of thought. They very likely did opinion research before they started making the video.  And their research apparently told them the best way to sell to millennials was to compare meat that was being puffed up with drugs or held captive in boxes with no meat at all.  And yet Chipotle's top-selling items have beef, pork or chicken in them.

In this amazing ad campaign, with all the resources behind it and the earned media around it, Chipotle is distancing itself from its own product.  Somewhere there are people in a PETA office high-fiving each other.

I find this even more confusing than the time Chipotle said maybe it's ok for their vendor farms to treat sick animals with antibiotics, and then quickly said actually it wasn't.  (I care deeply about antibiotic resistance issues, but someone please tell me why it's ok to refuse to treat a sick animal.)

Overall, I think the folks at Chipotle (and Moonbot) should be very pleased with their campaign and the results thus far.  Over the long term, however, any marketing strategy that wants consumers to forget that you sell something isn't sustainable.

The Butt Fumble FOR SCIENCE