31 July 2010

BREAKING: Bloggers Are Misunderstood

UPDATE:  Seems this post got some attention, thanks to links and tweets from Bora.  (I like Bora a lot.) And folks aren't happy with me.  Someone even went as far as dusting off the old fallacy of moral equivalence - I think communities who care about how they are perceived have an obligation to do outreach, so apparently I think women who dress in suggestive clothing shouldn't be surprised if they are raped.  The only thing that argument does is trivialize rape, and sadly, those comments sorta prove Heffernan's point.

Here's the point that perhaps I could have made more clear - we all know someone took an unfair shot at the science blogging community. Science bloggers have a choice - they can call that person stupid, or they can view this unfair shot as a fabulous PR opportunity.

What would happen, for example, if Heffernan were invited as a speaker at ScienceOnline2011?  Would science bloggers throw tomatoes at her?  Or would they take the time and demonstrate the patience to calmly, rationally, educate her on their community and what it offers?  Isn't that a better strategy and wouldn't that create a better outcome?  And wouldn't that encourage more people to read science blogs?

What did the Washington Nationals do with Miss Iowa this week?  They took a PR turd and created a nice opportunity to bridge a cultural divide.  Basically the same deal here.

I've been kicking an idea around with some great bloggers from different communities on exactly this issue.  I hope the folks who have commented on this post will be willing to join us when it's ready - Nothing would make me happier...

I read with interest Virginia Heffernan's piece in NYT Magazine over the weekend, giving her spin on the whole SciBling exodus thing.  Frankly, I'm about done with the meta-discussion and kinda want to get back to reading good stuff about science too.  But there were a couple of things in her piece that made me scratch my head.  First:
I was nonplussed by the high dudgeon of the so-called SciBlings. The bloggers evidently write often enough for ad-free academic journals that they still fume about adjacencies, advertorial and infomercials. Most writers for “legacy” media like newspapers, magazines and TV see brush fires over business-editorial crossings as an occupational hazard. They don’t quit anytime there’s an ad that looks so much like an article it has to be marked “this is an advertisement.” 

I'm pretty sure the issue was that the "ad" needed the disclaimer but didn't actually have it.  I'm also pretty sure there would be a few defections from the "legacy" media types if content at NYT was for sale. 

The other item, though, got me thinking a bit.
What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats. 

My first reaction was simple and snarky:  "of course we've never seen 'incendiary rhetoric'  from, say, the New York Times op-ed page."  And then I thought Ms. Heffernan isn't reading the same blogs I am because I see plenty of good science there all the time.  Ms. Heffernan is clearly smart enough to know she's painting a community with a rather broad brush.  David Dobbs sorta shrugged this criticism off - "this is neither novel nor surprising."

But then I thought maybe the science blogging community, rather than taking offense, might get beyond the over-generalization and take her comments to heart a little bit - especially if they want to be taken more seriously by people outside their own community. 

Right now the most prominent voices in the science blogging community - at least in terms of "share of voice" - are probably PZ Myers and a guy who calls himself "Orac" (though his real name isn't hard to find.). Thanks to all the ScienceBlogs defections, Myers probably accounts for more than half of all the traffic on that network.   I read their blogs regularly and I know they're both very smart.  I'm pretty sure neither of them presume to speak for an entire community.  But to put it kindly neither one pulls punches.  They can be downright NASTY.  Of course they have a right to be nasty, and frankly I personally think their targets deserve to be called out in some way, though my style is a bit different.

But here's the thing:  the scientists and science writers/bloggers I talk with care very much about how they are perceived beyond their own community.  They are concerned about the waning influence scientists have on policy, on public opinion, and on culture.  At the same time, they think they have a critical job as "media." If you care about your role in media and how you're perceived, you should think about how the most prominent voices in your community "represent" you.

When people outside the scienceblogging community think of science blogs, they think of PZ Myers and Orac.  And if they don't have the back story, they are not likely to get beyond the most provocative things these two have published.  And they're going to react the way Heffernan did.  By the way, Heffernan has a PhD in English Literature from Harvard. PZ Myers reacted to her column by writing a blog post tagged "stupidity."

I have some personal experience here.  When I spoke at ScienceOnline2010, I asked people to work with me on reaching out to other bloggers in other communities.  In doing so, I delivered a message that wasn't all that well received - it's hard to convince someone to reconsider a position when you're calling them a dick.   And let's face it - the most popular blogs on that network devote much of their time calling people dicks. 

It's not my place to tell PZ Myers or Orac or anyone else what they should publish on their own blog.  And I'd bet Myers and Orac would be the first people to say they don't presume to speak for anyone but themselves.  (I'd even be willing to bet they're probably nice guys.) But I know this - the scienceblogging community cares a lot about what people outside their community think of them, yet they do very little real outreach. Of course there's a place for provocative thought and for these two great writers - but the scientists and bloggers who want to be known for their own thoughts and their own work have to do more to make sure they're not drowned out by the loudest voices.

A consensus seems to be developing among science bloggers that says "if Heffernan knew us, she wouldn't have written that."  I say if science bloggers took the time to introduce themselves and their work to people outside their own community - people like Heffernan - she would have known you.

19 comments:

mr_subjunctive said...

So it's the bloggers' fault, especially Orac and PZ's, that Heffernan wouldn't read closely enough to find out what the whole uproar was about? I'd think if you're the journalist, and you're writing a piece on a subject, the responsiblity for describing the subject correctly is yours, not the subjects'. I mean, it's Heffernan's name on the piece, is it not?

anthrosciguy said...

It's also your fault that she didn't realise that "the issue was that the "ad" needed the disclaimer but didn't actually have it". Not her fault because she simply didn't read any of the easy to find blog posts about the affair, but yours. Right?

David said...

actually, yes, it is the bloggers' fault - if you actually care about what people think. sorry folks, but if you're not willing to introduce yourself to people, you can't expect them to give you the benefit of the doubt, or even get it right. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying it's reality.

welcome to the real world, folks. people generalize, don't take the time to get the facts, and make wildly overreaching conclusions - unless they know you.

Dirk Hanson said...

A HUGE problem not mentioned: The inability of science bloggers to grasp exactly how and why their chosen anonymity is so often a stumbling block in communicating outside the confines of the SB net. Are they writing op-eds, or science articles? If it is the latter, why not sign them, as journalists in most cases are required to do. Talk about your lack of accountability...

Dana Hunter said...

Two things you said:

"When people outside the scienceblogging community think of science blogs, they think of PZ Myers and Orac. And if they don't have the back story, they are not likely to get beyond the most provocative things these two have published. And they're going to react the way Heffernan did."

I came from outside the scienceblogging community. I knew only PZ. I didn't have the backstory, but hey, look - there was this whole other network of sciencebloggers to explore. I'm not an unusual person. I don't think my story - lured by PZ, stayed for the science (including his) is unusual in the least.

"people generalize, don't take the time to get the facts, and make wildly overreaching conclusions - unless they know you."

Pot, kettle. Bravo for giving us such a fascinating demonstration.

Dana Hunter said...

Oh, and in addition - I've seldom read a such a perfect exemplar of the "blame the victim" mentality. Would you like me to send you a photo of the clothes I was wearing when I was sexually assaulted so you can explain to me how I brought that on myself, as well?

Ruth Seeley said...

I've commented on the Heffernan piece elsewhere (on David Dobbs' post, I believe). But one thing I forgot to say there is: what strikes me as odd is the ethnocentricity that clings to the blogosphere. I don't think of the ScienceBlogs folks as the last word in the science blogosphere because most of the science blogs I read are British ones. And yet the vast majority of the SciBling folks (both those who left and those who stayed after PepsiGate) seem to be North American and even more, American. So to draw any conclusions about even the science portion of the blogosphere from only one aggregator blog like ScienceBlogs does show a troubling lack of doing one's research/homework. And yet the analysis of the snarky tone and the feisty stance is not completely wrong....

Not_just_scienceblogs said...

"But then I thought maybe the science blogging community, rather than taking offense, might get beyond the over-generalization and take her comments to heart a little bit - especially if they want to be taken more seriously by people outside their own community."

It's the same mistake Heffernan made - the science blogging community is not Scienceblogs, they are just one network, tho the largest. The overall science blogging community didn't really disagree with what she said, mostly current and former Scienceblogs contributors did. She made a number of valid points and the only refutation was 'she endorsed Watts so she is stooooopid' but they do have a lot of chaff on thta site and it hides the wheat

mr_subjunctive said...

Well, ya know, this is the first and only post of yours I've read so far, David. I got here 'cause someone I follow Tweeted a link; otherwise I've never heard of you before. So by your logic, whatever wild and erroneous conclusions I draw about you and your motivations are . . . your fault, because you haven't introduced yourself properly to me?

Okay, then.

Mike the Mad Biologist said...

First, I would be happy to be part of what you're doing. But a lot of this should be chalked up to bad journalism by Heffernan. If you read her response at Neuron Culture (David Dobbs' site), she, among other things, talks about how she didn't comprehend the whole 'denialism' problem/issue, even as she quote-mined from a blog called...Denialism Blog.

I don't think she's been very honest, and the attitude in her apology ("Hey, sorry I smeared Sb and science bloggers in a magazine read by millions. Ok, thanks, by!") speaks to a superficial vapidity, but I'm willing to chalk up the poor response to shock, and give her a second chance (much against my better judgement).

GrrlScientist said...

the general scienceblogging community likely hasn't heard of heffernan or of scienceblogs, and the general science blogging cmmunity wasn't misquoted by heffernan, either. the fact that she feels perfectly free to take half a sentence that i wrote out of context and twist it to mean exactly the opposite of what i was saying says a lot to me about her professional ethics and her reading comprehension. i short, both stink.

on the other hand, if heffernan is an example of the sort of journalists that are hired by the NYTimes/NYTMag, then all of us should be hired by then in a heartbeat since we'd have to be both drunk and brain dead to write such blatantly inaccurate commentary.

and the fact that she holds "watts up with that?" as a good science blog reveals the level of her stupidity and inability to spend five minutes on teh googlz fact-checking her facts before giving her copy to the fact-checker (who was probably asleep that day).

Dirk Hanson said...

GrrlScientist:

You were treated particularly unfairly through selective quotes in the Heffernan article. Everybody quote-mines, print or blog, but Heffernan broke the basic rule: Play hard but play fair.

WonderingWilla said...

I've read your update about the PR opportunity and sort of see your point, don't agree with it, but see that you're looking at it through the prism of your work. That said, you did not make that clear *at all* in the original piece. No wonder you got the response you did.

I've been a reader of ScienceBlogs since '07 or '08, a new parent looking to understand the insanity behind vaccine denialism. While I cannot remember I must have started with Orac, PalMD, and/or Denialism, but branched off from there to explore all sorts of topics from archeology to epidemiology to zoology. So, I found Heffernan's treatment of the recent blow-up beyond inexcusable in that it was blatantly obvious she had not bothered to spend much time with the blogs at all. Having a hard time understanding why she should speak at a meeting of these folks. Isn't that like having Sarah Palin speak at an event of an industry she knows nothing about nor bothers to find out about? Like this: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/24/palin-real-estate-speech/

While I am not a scientist, having an engineering degree, I do know what science looks like and found the blogs much more helpful in understanding issues than science journalism of the day (Is that what Heffernan does? I have no idea.) Like most journalism, science journalism in the MSM relies far to heavily on the tired 'both sides' approach, which is ridiculous in the example of vaccination, or climate change, or evolution, or any of that, but you'd never know it to read an example of science journalism.

I have no idea what the flap over Denialism was, but at least I am not writing an op-ed piece about it in the 'newspaper of record' I have never had a problem with that blog.

Given your PR background is it possible that your natural inclination and goals are not necessarily the same as the bloggers in question. If these were your clients, how would you explain what you perceive their goals are and should be? How would you take their concerns for the integrity of their connections in designing a strategy to represent them? Do you offer a valuable service to them considering you expect them to approach someone who can't even do her job? What is accomplished by doing so?

WonderingWilla said...

I've read your update about the PR opportunity and sort of see your point, don't agree with it, but see that you're looking at it through the prism of your work. That said, you did not make that clear *at all* in the original piece. No wonder you got the response you did.

I've been a reader of ScienceBlogs since '07 or '08, a new parent looking to understand the insanity behind vaccine denialism. While I cannot remember I must have started with Orac, PalMD, and/or Denialism, but branched off from there to explore all sorts of topics from archeology to epidemiology to zoology. So, I found Heffernan's treatment of the recent blow-up beyond inexcusable in that it was blatantly obvious she had not bothered to spend much time with the blogs at all. Having a hard time understanding why she should speak at a meeting of these folks. Isn't that like having Sarah Palin speak at an event of an industry she knows nothing about nor bothers to find out about? Like this: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/24/palin-real-estate-speech/

While I am not a scientist, having an engineering degree, I do know what science looks like and found the blogs much more helpful in understanding issues than science journalism of the day (Is that what Heffernan does? I have no idea.) Like most journalism, science journalism in the MSM relies far to heavily on the tired 'both sides' approach, which is ridiculous in the example of vaccination, or climate change, or evolution, or any of that, but you'd never know it to read an example of science journalism.

I have no idea what the flap over Denialism was, but at least I am not writing an op-ed piece about it in the 'newspaper of record' I have never had a problem with that blog.

Given your PR background is it possible that your natural inclination and goals are not necessarily the same as the bloggers in question. If these were your clients, how would you explain what you perceive their goals are and should be? How would you take their concerns for the integrity of their connections in designing a strategy to represent them? Do you offer a valuable service to them considering you expect them to approach someone who can't even do her job? What is accomplished by doing so?

WonderingWilla said...

I've read your update about the PR opportunity and sort of see your point, don't agree with it, but see that you're looking at it through the prism of your work. That said, you did not make that clear *at all* in the original piece. No wonder you got the response you did.

I've been a reader of ScienceBlogs since '07 or '08, a new parent looking to understand the insanity behind vaccine denialism. While I cannot remember I must have started with Orac, PalMD, and/or Denialism, but branched off from there to explore all sorts of topics from archeology to epidemiology to zoology. So, I found Heffernan's treatment of the recent blow-up beyond inexcusable in that it was blatantly obvious she had not bothered to spend much time with the blogs at all. Having a hard time understanding why she should speak at a meeting of these folks. Isn't that like having Sarah Palin speak at an event of an industry she knows nothing about nor bothers to find out about? Like this: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/24/palin-real-estate-speech/

WonderingWilla said...

(cont) While I am not a scientist, having an engineering degree, I do know what science looks like and found the blogs much more helpful in understanding issues than science journalism of the day (Is that what Heffernan does? I have no idea.) Like most journalism, science journalism in the MSM relies far to heavily on the tired 'both sides' approach, which is ridiculous in the example of vaccination, or climate change, or evolution, or any of that, but you'd never know it to read an example of science journalism.

I have no idea what the flap over Denialism was, but at least I am not writing an op-ed piece about it in the 'newspaper of record' I have never had a problem with that blog.

Given your PR background is it possible that your natural inclination and goals are not necessarily the same as the bloggers in question. If these were your clients, how would you explain what you perceive their goals are and should be? How would you take their concerns for the integrity of their connections in designing a strategy to represent them? Do you offer a valuable service to them considering you expect them to approach someone who can't even do her job? What is accomplished by doing so?

WonderingWilla said...

Please delete the triplicate replies. This was one hard post to respond to. Thank you.

David said...

ok first of all getting comments from anyone is cool, but comments from both Mike the Mad Biologist and GrrlScientist made my day. (I like birds.)

And I'll try to be clear: Heffernan made sweeping generalizations and I think she should basically apologize for a lot of stuff. She got it wrong. She basically did to GrrlScientist what Brietbart did to Shirley Sherrod. And she got defensive when she got called on it.

But what better revenge than to convert her? Get her to think so highly of you that she comes to you first when she has questions, and sings your praises to others? To have your content featured in NYT Magazine? I say it's possible...

David said...

And Wandering Willa, I want to chew on your comments - great points all. I'll write something soon.