Deltoid

Hilarious. It's been what, 10 days since he got the Times kicked off EurekAlert for breaking embargo on the polar bear story? With such rampant incompetence and disregard for journalistic ethics, how does he manage to keep his job?

Posted by: V. infernalis | March 8, 2010 9:14 PM

With such rampant incompetence and disregard for journalistic ethics, how does he manage to keep his job?

I'm afraid the evidence at this point suggests that this is how he managed to get his job.

Posted by: Thers | March 8, 2010 9:51 PM

1) Break Embargos, get scoops

2) !!!!!!!!!!!

3) Sunday Times Profit!!!!!

Posted by: Pinko Punko | March 8, 2010 11:23 PM

Pinko Punko you forgot:

4) Get kicked off of all the sites giving access to embargoed papers.

5) Sunday Times gets a bad reputation for science reporting.

Posted by: Rattus Norvegicus | March 8, 2010 11:59 PM

Uh oh. The Climate Conspiracy is BANNING Leake to hide the TRUTH!

Posted by: llewelly | March 9, 2010 4:00 AM

Although the Schadenfreude tastes good, at least in the short term, this JAMA ban on access (and the PNAS ban) will have little real effect on their reporting. They have a sister paper (the JAMA press release about the ban seems to relate only to the The Sunday Times) and stable mates, and there are other, journalistic, ways of getting the same story that could well circumvent an embargo anyway.

The JAMA press release, therefore, raises some questions.

Do The Times staff still get pre- and post-embargo access to JAMA materials? If they do, then why? They are not "unrelated".

Since Leake has been named in the JAMA press release, does he get access rights to JAMA articles if he's writing for The Times, or someone else?

I don't think it would have been Leake's decision to go to press on this; more likely the editor's decision I'd have thought (though Leake would presumably have had discussions with the editor on the pros and cons of doing so). If it wasn't Leake's decision to run, would it be fair to embargo him with papers other than The Sunday Times? I think not, as that would seem to run counter to natural justice -- though, given his somewhat jaundiced and inaccurate output, I am in some accord with the cries of "tough sh*t" that I can hear from the chorus.

Also, on one level I have some sympathy for The Sunday Times and other Sunday papers in general, as the embargo expires a day and a half after they go to press. That sympathy doesn't extend far, though. The Sunday Times initially agrees to the embargoes (and what are agreements for otherwise?), and the other Sunday papers seem to cope. They could also easily run it on the Tuesday in their sister organ, The Times. Moreover, they could trail the story in The Sunday Times print edition, in say a line or two, and point to their online edition with a time when the embargo is lifted and the story available.

Posted by: P. Lewis | March 9, 2010 5:27 AM

It was once said that there were two certainties in life: death and taxes.

Rupert Murdoch has disproven that on both counts.

So far.

Rupert understands power, media and newspapers. He has nothing but hatred and contempt for 'journalism'.

If you want to whine about it, go ahead.

If, like Tim and others, you want to do something about it: come visit sites like stopmurdoch and start taking simple action to hold his ridiculous rags up to public contempt.

Nobody can do it alone.

Posted by: stopmurdoch | March 9, 2010 10:06 AM

Thanks for all the links, mentions, and kind words about Embargo Watch. I've just posted Leake's response to PNAS:

http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/the-sunday-times-jonathan-leake-responds-to-pnas/

Posted by: Ivan Oransky | March 12, 2010 1:34 PM

I agree, Leake's article clearly overstates and ad that was judged to have overstated - hypocrisy? Seems so. A longer breakdown of the issue is here: http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/03/asa-judgement-for-climate-ads-being.html

Posted by: anarchist606 | March 14, 2010 12:05 PM