Chris Mooney is a freelance writer and the author of two books, 
So now PZ getting thrown out of Expelled (and Dawkins getting in) triggers New York Times coverage.
If you ask me, this really helps the Expelled people, who want nothing more than controversy. And Dawkins completely doesn't get it:
Dr. Dawkins said the hoopla has been "a gift" to those who oppose creationism. "We could not ask for anything better," he said.
How exactly does that work? How does "hoopla" over an anti-evolution movie help the cause of opposing creationism?
No, I suspect this is a gift to Expelled, a gift to Ben Stein. The controversy raises the profile of the movie, people--especially a movie like this, which is by its very nature courting controversy and baiting evolutionists.
Why is that hard to understand?
Comments
Chris,
You may be right, but with all due respect, I think this will play out the other way. (I'm actually writing something that will address this in more detail a bit later)...
This is a classic issue for anything like "framing" to deal with ... sometimes the best framing may be nothing (which is I think your point). But here we have at least two positives:
1) The internet traffic on this issue is immense. Without giving details, this could be the biggest hit-count day ever on sciencblogs.com, and all of the discussion is negative on expelled. Quantity can matter.
2) This is an irony (despite certain limiting and outdated definitions of irony) from Ben Stein's perspective. Dawkins points this out in the video (if you want to see the video it's on my site, near the top). That the ID people are hypocrites may not have been difficult to ascertain before, but not it is beyond doubt.
Cheers,
GTL
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 22, 2008 1:24 PM
I'm with Greg, Chris. I can kind of see your point and if people turn up in droves to see this movie, you'll be right.
But that's not going to happen. What point Stein or his ilk may have had (or sympathy gleaned) about academics being kicked out of academia because of their beliefs is laid waste and exposed for the cynical hypocrisy that it is.
It's a brilliant own-goal on the part of the creos. I sympathize with your concerns, but I don't agree with you at all. It's a boon to our side and an embarrassment to theirs.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | March 22, 2008 1:30 PM
Chris wrote:
I think in most cases the mere hoopla does help the movie. What has to be done is to expose the lies within the movie, like how Darwinism leads to Hitler.
But the movie, based only on reviews I've read, sounds Rovian.
Here's a taste from my blog post on it:
The film apparently doesn't work at the level of rational argument, it sounds more like its about psychological manipulation and it exploits how we judge the thoughts of others. It will probably be effective, in a limited way, in increasing the divisiveness of the theist/atheist debate and push a certain group of theists deeper into a delusional interpretation of science, history and the nature of the current culture war. Atheists will be provoked into becoming more insulting and dismissive of all theists.
There's something very Rovian about this movie. It may work to the advantage of the Republican think tanks that want to prevent the political compromises some evangelicals might want to make with the Democratic side.
It wasn't too long ago that this debate seemed to take place at a higher level. When people argued about why irreducible complexity wasn't a valid biological concept and the arguments were academic. But after the Dover trial things started to get nasty.
Knowing now that they can't win either a legal or scientific battle the proponents of ID and creationism have shifted into a new strategy. I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to do with this Expelled movie (I haven't even seen it) but it wouldn't surprise me if increasing divisiveness and pushing the argument down to lower levels is exactly what they want. Their reasons are probably political and have little to do with either being accepted as science or promoting academic freedom. This is, rather, a Swift-boating of science and academy.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 1:34 PM
We must visualize this:
Expelled! The Movie To Be Pulled From Theaters Following Myers/Dawkins-Gate Screwup
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 22, 2008 1:38 PM
This isn't 'hoopla' Chris, the producers of this film were caught with their pants around their ankles. If anyone who isn't already a proponent of ID bothers to click on the link to Pharyngula after reading the Times article, they will be able to see how dishonest and manipulative these people are.
Posted by: Darek | March 22, 2008 1:47 PM
You know, I've been avoiding your blog for the last year or so, but Jesus God, man, you used to be an astute observer of science, politics, and culture. What the hell happened to you? Alcohol? Drugs? Nisbet?
How many times are you going to shoot yourself in the foot before you realize that whatever it is you're doing, it's not framing, and it's not working.
Posted by: HP | March 22, 2008 1:49 PM
could you folks please try, just this one time, to check your highly developed critical faculties at the door, and accept that most Americans don't see it your way, and won't? All they'll know is that Ben Stein has a new movie out and it's really controversial and getting a lot of attention.
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | March 22, 2008 1:58 PM
Chris, what part of your framing method involves calling the "most Americans" you refer to as stupid? I thought this is what you tell everyone not to do. What's going on?
Posted by: Badger3k | March 22, 2008 2:12 PM
So, The Republican War On Science only helped the Republicans? Perhaps I missed something, having checked my critical faculties at the door.
Posted by: Ed S. | March 22, 2008 2:12 PM
I agree with Norman, the higher publicity will likely help the producers recoup their losses, however *seeing* this film does not necessarily lead to people agreeing with it. It sounds like it's pretty poorly done and even the average American Chris is describing notices when there's too many references to Hitler and Stalin. The impact on public debate will likely be minimal - creationists seeing the movie were never really interested in learning anything in the first place and are going to have a fun time laughing at video quotemines. Generally uninformed noncreationists probably won't see it and even if they do, one starts to notice that Stein's character doesn't really mesh with the whole 'feel bad around Dachau' vibe. Those who are already informed obviously won't change their opinions either, given the obvious dishonesty.
That was my certified block-paragraph on the topic, hope it was delightful.
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | March 22, 2008 2:15 PM
The article concludes:
Dr. Dawkins said the hoopla has been "a gift" to those who oppose creationism. "We could not ask for anything better," he said.
---
I would say it is the other way around: Dawkins and PZ are gifts to the creationists, they could not have asked for anything better in promoting their film and arguments.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | March 22, 2008 2:19 PM
Mathis did something wrong and stupid. Of course he should be called out on it.
Should the fact that Mathis is using the police to turn scientists away, publicly, be ignored?
It's a gift because it exposes the hypocrisy for all to see.
Posted by: mlf | March 22, 2008 2:21 PM
Chris,
And why should we continue to "enable" you and Matt Nisbet, seeing as how the two of you are doing a great disservice to the reality-based community?
Posted by: Dan | March 22, 2008 2:25 PM
Matthew C. Nisbet said: "I would say it is the other way around: Dawkins and PZ are gifts to the creationists, they could not have asked for anything better in promoting their film and arguments."
That's right Matthew, any scientists that are escorted from the theaters by police, in front of there family and friends, should just keep quite about it. It's for the greater good, after all.
Posted by: mlf | March 22, 2008 2:25 PM
Why is that hard to understand?
I think you're mistaken about this, Chris. If this was a big-budget movie getting a wide release, then sure, the extra publicity would probably just get them more bodies in the theaters. But I think it's becoming pretty clear that this is a low-budget hack job that may never see a commercial release, only being shown to target audiences at churches and the like. I really don't think they want any exposure in the secular press at all, because they'll look so bad.
The carefully selected audiences may be eating up the propaganda of the film, but if they start reading in their local papers about how dishonest the movie is, it may force them to think twice (or even once) about what they've seen.
Posted by: Kurt | March 22, 2008 2:30 PM
Point of fact, Chris, you said:
could you folks please try, just this one time, to check your highly developed critical faculties at the door, and accept that most Americans don't see it your way, and won't?
Right, so we should stop trying to impress upon them scientific knowledge, and where they're flat wrong? What's the point of the National Center for Science Education, again?
Posted by: Dan | March 22, 2008 2:31 PM
Ed S. wrote:
All such books and statements are a double edged sword. I've already noted this before on another thread here, but, again; Chris Mooney is also semi-quoted over at the Expelled Movie Blog:
So, Chris, were you enabling them too?
Maybe a little bit, but in the end Chris did more to call attention to the problem than any other writer I read at that time. You can't really say anything that can't be used by both sides in some way. There is no such thing as a perfect frame.
If you want to be more effective, then take time to learn about the people who's minds you want to reach.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 2:32 PM
most Americans don't see it your way, and won't? All they'll know is that Ben Stein has a new movie out and it's really controversial and getting a lot of attention.
I agree that this is essentially true ("all publicity is good publicity" in the entertainment industry), but the effect of an event on Americans in general is not necessarily the only relevant effect.
For instance, Ben Stein has been stumping for politicians. It is not the case that all publicity is good publicity in politics. This event may drive a wedge (if I may use that word) between Stein and the other Expelled people and their supporters.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 22, 2008 2:45 PM
Greg Laden wrote:
And that's pretty much what PZ is trying to do. He's trying to shame the Expelled movie makers in front of their own potential audience as well as others within the production who thought they were honest.
It will have some effect, but it will also necessarily do what Chris fears too.
Which is more important? I don't know the fundy religious mind well enough to tell.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 3:00 PM
"No, I suspect this is a gift to Expelled, a gift to Ben Stein. The controversy raises the profile of the movie, people..."
So we should all just keep out mouths shut and let this bafoons carry on? If the vast majority already agrees with Stein and his ilk, then this seems like a silly strategy.
Every second that can be taken when the idiocy of these positions is made public, and here it is done an extremely humerous way, seems to me an opportunity. Will there be fallout in terms of inriching the coffers of these film makers, yes, of course, but if that means 1 percent of people change their minds about intelligence design, I say money well spent.
And, I would hope, the New York Times would stop letting Ben Stein write an op-ed column for their Business section.
Posted by: Dave Bacon | March 22, 2008 3:10 PM
Chris' argument seems to be the "any publicity is good publicity" one. A commenter on one the other threads (which several thousand comments in aggregate, I've no recollection of which thread...!) who pointed out, paraphrasing, "If any publicity is good publicity, then why doesn't someone shoot up a church and claim she/he did it to advance of Teh Darwinista Conspiracy uncovered in Expelled?" (And several other examples, but that was the one which stuck in my leaky mind.)
However, Chris may have a point. A common stereotype is USAians have a poorly developed sense of irony. As such, the irony of someone in Expelled being expelled from Expelled could be lost; the double irony of the guy standing next to him could also have been expelled for exact the same reasons but wasn't could be lost; and the triple irony of Expelled doing exactly what they say the movie is protesting against (expelling people) will be lost.
Does that translate into more people seeing the movie when it's released? Perhaps.
Does the incident increase the number of people who have heard of the movie? I'd be astonished if that wasn't the case, and do concur more people may try to see it as a result.
Does seeing the movie turn one into a blithering idiot (or IDiot)? No evidence: To-date, most of the people who have seen it either already are blithering IDiots, or else are very well informed. It's the effect on the wide variety of lay people, who probably (in the USA) are inclined to believe in Teh Sky Mistress, that is unknown. (And, not very clear to me, is the question of how good the overall grasp of science, reasoning, and evolution is amongst such people? And there's a wide variety of people here, so unlike the Teh Sky Mistress generalization, I'm not sure there is single simple generalization?)
Yet the issue is not just one of science, irony, IDiocy, evolution, and so on; it's also how well tuned is the movie-goer's BullShite detector? And desire for entertainment? Here we do have some professional (movie critic) input: The movie is easily seen to be pure BullShite and is not entertaining. It's dull, ham-fisted, and (it seems) poorly shot.
It's alleged to only be opening on c.100 screens (at least prior to this incident), and at the "dead" time of the year (for movie releases), suggesting the producers(?) don't have much, ah, "faith" in any wide success. And I've not heard of any plans for an international release. (I'm a bit surprised it's not straight-to-DVD, where it probably will enjoy a continuing circulation amongst the IDiots.)
It might become a "cult classic" as a Really, Really, Bad, Like Seriously Bad, Movie.
Posted by: blf | March 22, 2008 3:11 PM
I recently read Susan Jacoby's _Freethinkers_, and when I read about how Susan B. Anthony kept her agnosticism quiet and Margaret Sanger denied her ties to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and subsequently Stanton being largely written out of the history of the women's suffrage movement because of her outspoken atheism and authorship of _The Woman's Bible_.
Minimizing Stanton's role and her views on religion probably assisted Susan B. Anthony in merging her efforts with the Women's Christian Temperance Union and getting suffrage passed--but it also assisted in passing Prohibition and censorship laws, and incredible disservice to the memory of Stanton.
Nisbet and Mooney's view seems to be that we'd be better off with only people like Susan B. Anthony and without people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton trying to ruin things.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 22, 2008 3:13 PM
Corrected version of previous comment:
I recently read Susan Jacoby's _Freethinkers_, about how Susan B. Anthony kept her agnosticism quiet and Margaret Sanger denied her ties to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and subsequently Stanton being largely written out of the history of the women's suffrage movement because of her outspoken atheism and authorship of _The Woman's Bible_.
Minimizing Stanton's role and her views on religion probably assisted Susan B. Anthony in merging her efforts with the Women's Christian Temperance Union and getting suffrage passed--but it also assisted in passing Prohibition and censorship laws, and incredible disservice to the memory of Stanton.
Nisbet and Mooney's view seems to be that we'd be better off with only people like Susan B. Anthony and without people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton trying to ruin things.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 22, 2008 3:14 PM
In the long run, I think this event is a big negative for the IDeologues. Sure, it lets more people know that there's a new movie coming with Ben Stein in it. This may increase the audience initially. However, from the accounts I have read, the movie is heavy-handed, ineptly made and boring. Word will spread, and Expelled will die a quick death. After all, there was plenty of advance publicity and controversy over the likes of Battlefield Earth and Heaven's Gate. They still tanked, and are now the prototypes of heavily-hyped duds.
Also, publicizing an incident like this simply adds to the evidence that the IDeologues are deceptive, humorless and stupid. It may not convince the true believers, but I think it will have some effect on swinging the undecideds against the ID propaganda mill.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 22, 2008 3:15 PM
Let me see if understand this line of reasoning. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are misled into giving interviews to the producers of this movie. When they find out that their interviews are going to be used to promote pseudoscience, they should do what John Kerry did in 2004 and ignore the misrepresentation and hope it all goes away. That'll work.
Posted by: Todd | March 22, 2008 3:16 PM
I don't want to get too involved here, but why are we talking about this "helping" Ben Stein? Stein's "gift" came in the form a check and he's only holding up his end of the bargain. He's a celebrity prostitute and he's getting payed either way. Our real targets are those in the production crew.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 22, 2008 3:18 PM
Larry Moran has some good posts up about editorials in Science about science education. We need less framing and more about science as a process.
Posted by: michaelf | March 22, 2008 3:18 PM
Obviously it has the downside of calling attention to a crappy film that's been below most peoples' radar. But what would you suggest as an alternative? Should PZ not have blogged about it? Should Dawkins have said, when interviewed, "this has the unfortunate downside of calling attention to this ridiculous dreck"? (Perhaps he did; would the NY Times print it?) Should they not have given interviews to the media? What, concretely, are you saying here?
I think everyone involved knows that it's unfortunate to draw too much attention to this movie. At the same time, there's undeniably delicious irony and glaring hypocrisy involved that strikes at the heart of their promotional strategy, and that's not something you throw away. So yes, there's downsides to everything, everybody understands that. You're not the only adult in the room.
Posted by: poke | March 22, 2008 3:22 PM
Dan: "Right, so we should stop trying to impress upon them scientific knowledge ..."
Way to strawman, Dan.
The problem is that a lot of Americans get their information in bits and pieces from word of mouth, maybe a little news from a music station, and so on. We should take into account that just about everything we say is going to be heard through some pretty noisy filters. The point is not to stop trying to get people to understand what the scientific consensus is, but rather to take those noisy filters into account when communicating.
Kurt: "The carefully selected audiences may be eating up the propaganda of the film, but if they start reading in their local papers about how dishonest the movie is ..."
And what about the people who hear about the movie by word-of-mouth from someone from church rather than through the paper?
I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mooney is. Whether this ends up good or bad depends on what gets through the noisy filters. If word gets around that the screeners of the movie are hypocritical, that could be good. If the buzz is that some "Darwinist" tried to crash the gate and make trouble, that's a whole other story. One big catch is that the latter story is friendlier to the biases of the movie's target audience and may get passed along by church gossipers who don't read the NY Times.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 22, 2008 3:28 PM
poke spoke:
No, but maybe there needs to be a little more balance in how we present ID proponents. They're not all liars and hypocrites, some of them are the trusting victims of liars and the deluded. PZ's blog might focus a little too heavily on the freak show aspect of religion.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 3:45 PM
Did any of you ever hear about something called the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Do you recall the John Kerry election campaign staff saying, "When the American public hears the truth about John Kerry's war record ..." Do you really think the American public every really heard the truth? Do you really think the American public is going to hear the truth about this film? Sorry, folks, I'm with Chris. I've done my time clashing with the Discovery Institute folks and am no fan of these trashy films. But this isn't about clutching on to the truth and going down in flames. It's about understanding how these communication and p.r. dynamics work, and making sure you don't get played, over and over again.
Posted by: Randy Olson | March 22, 2008 4:11 PM
PZ, as quoted on the Expelled! blog:
PZ is exactly correct on this. Sure, this negative publicity just disgusts us 10% to the point of vomitting. But for everyone else (who, not coincidentally, is the target audience for the movie), this incident just feeds the controversity and is very valuable free publicity.
Sure, PZ, Dawkins and others will tell the truth (don't get me wrong, this is very important to point out their hypocrisy). And many people will indeed realize how stupid Ben Stein and the rest are.
But Mooney is absolutely correct this is also a 'win' for those who support Expelled. Creating buzz, even when negative, will sell tickets.
The only question is whether or not this is a bigger win for science and critical thinking, or a bigger win for Expelled!... based on whether or not it increases or decreases how many people end up hearing (and believing) their message.
So while I'm with everyone else here, hoping that this free publicity doesn't help them too much, I guess we'll all find out together when the movie comes out who the real winner of this incident is.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 22, 2008 4:15 PM
I wrote:
Yes, I pride myself on my mad word-makeupage skillz... either that, or I didn't properly edit my last post.
lol
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 22, 2008 4:18 PM
Others who have seen this movie have pointed out that it's just plain old boring. This, by far, is the main reason why this movie will be a failure.
Just remember, that for most people who don't follow the evolution/intelligent design debate, what we consider to be a huge buzzworthy incident, is barely worthy of a mention in the newspaper. Here's an example:
http://wcco.com/local/man.kicked.out.2.682830.html
But by all means, we should continue to try to frame this event as an incredible negative for their side. They want (and need) the free publicity, but if we can demonstrate how hypocritical they are, then the scandal will outweigh any buzz they've received.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 22, 2008 4:27 PM
Let me tell you a little story about the flip side of this controversy. The movie "Jesus Camp" premiered alongside my movie "Flock of Dodos" at the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival. It was picked up for distribution by Magnolia Films. They put together a distribution plan based on the gamble that the film would enflame the religious community and the controversy would drive huge box office. They released it in about 20 theaters in September of 2006, almost ALL in "red states" (back when the red/blue divide was a little more intense than it is now). The goal was to have religous groups picketing the theaters, and thus generating major publicity (like articles in the NY Times).
Ted Haggard was in the movie (and this was before his big fall from grace). The distributors hope was that Haggard would go to the press and protest it loudly. But that didn't happen.
Instead, the churches quietly told their flocks to just avoid it. Very little was said. Indiewire magazine said the opening night in Denver, with a post-screening panel discussion, drew only 40 people. The movie made only $17,000 on its opening weekend.
It scored a little bit of business when Haggard imploded and when it was nominated for an Oscar, but never broke $1 million at the box office, which had to have been at least how much was spent on prints and advertising.
The point is, the religious folks knew how to not play into the p.r. machine of their opponents. Call them all the names you want, but while you do so, you might want to study their marketing and p.r. savvy.
Posted by: Randy Olson | March 22, 2008 4:47 PM
I have to agree that while I think it was absolutely hilarious how things worked out, it is going to make PZ and Dawkins (and hence the scientific community) look bad. They have no evidence to what actually happened (i.e. a film of the incident) so people are going to believe what they want to believe. If the situation is spun such that they look like they were making trouble, there is no proof to the contrary, unless someone talks to the security guard and he comes down on one side or the other.
If people go to the movie and see clips of these same scientists more or less mocking people's religious beliefs (which is the clip PZ posted today), who do you think the general public is going to believe? Certainly not a bunch of uber-rational scientists who are out to get rid of religion. No, they're going to be sympathetic to the side that looks like it's trying to protect religious beliefs (even if they weren't sympathetic to them before) and try to ignore the fact that there are inconsistencies or flat out lies in the movie.
Posted by: Cherish | March 22, 2008 4:47 PM
I wonder, given that the film is not yet officially in general release, if they even have a real "distributor"? And even if so, will the general theaters actually bother to show it.
yeah, publicity can get them to sign on, but publicity about there being evictions will NOT. they'll look at the stories, look at the whole "I have to have police and paid security here just to show this documentary???" (which already is a low-revenue product under any circumstances), and likely just say no. their profit margins are low enough without having to have the added expense.
now yes, this means that just like the dumb public that only reads half an article (the half that might mean something to them), these theater owners also are only reading half the article (that half which matters to them), but its two sides of the same fact.
if the movie is already a given as a "hit" (Passion of the Christ, or even Monty Python's Life of Brian), theater owners will embrace it regardless of any added expense in security.
but if its just a documentary, and the reputation is already out (regardless of the p.o.v. factor) that its a bad one, then throwing in potential "controversy" and security costs will easily be enough to get the theater owners to just keep it out and hold onto the latest Will Smith flick for another week.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | March 22, 2008 4:51 PM
Chris and Matthew, why don't you just ignore the whole topic if any mention of it is simply of benefit to the fundies?
Posted by: Sigmund | March 22, 2008 5:19 PM
Battlefield Earth had a lot of hoopla too.
Posted by: Boo | March 22, 2008 5:24 PM
Randy Olson wrote:
How well did "Flock of Dodos" do? It seems like both of those themes have limited market appeal.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 5:39 PM
Chris Mooney writes:
My highly trained critical faculties honestly disagree with you. Some of what you have said about communication issues is sensible, but here you've gone of the rails into nonsense.
Sure, most Americans don't see it our way. But most Americans don't know which way to see it. Most people don't know much about ID, and the movie can tap into a default presumption of fairness. How do we respond?
Ignoring it entirely is not a sensible option at all. Inflated rhetoric about the movie producers being liars and scoundrels may backfire, and extended justifications which require a whole pile of background information don't play well. On the other hand, a simple event like this one, with immediate comic impact and gold plated irony and hypocrisy, gets the point across right away.
Now, of course the IDists will be trying to spin this into gatecrashing and attempted disruption by Myers and Dawkins. But note... they are now the ones backfooted. The vast bulk of Americans, who are not determined supporters of ID but bemused onlookers, are going to see the immediate events and the default presumption for those onlookers is that Myers was unfairly treated.
There are hard core IDists and creationists that you can never persuade. But most Americans, who deal in occasional bites from either side, have here a simple straightforward and above all FUNNY event that reveals the mentality behind the ID movement as in a spotlight. You won't persuade everyone, and you don't have to try.
Here are two guys who had a very good thought for how to make a positive contribution. They staged a little fireside chat. It was genial, and funny, and showed them relaxed and amused about the whole thing. They put it on video, and put it on youtube. See Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers on being expelled from Expelled.
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | March 22, 2008 5:42 PM
I have suspected that the reason they refer to the movie shown from Feb through March as a "rough cut" is because they have footage in it that they have no rights to, and that Copyright Clearance is the main reason that the film's release was shifted from Feb to April.
The news that biologists bring us that the Harvard animation was in fact being used is now supporting that belief. Therefore, I expect the next phase of the contraversy is for the Harvard animation owners to chime in. Despite the fact that they are showing this movie around the country for free, they are showing it for a commercial purpose. Then they also sell it on a DVD.
I seriously suspect that they are deserving of the maximum penalty of copyright violation.
To run from these people for fear of generating publicity is cowardly and a retreat.
Posted by: rpenner | March 22, 2008 5:43 PM
I disagree that this is going to help them in the long run. It is highlighting the fact that the movie is a piece of crap being promoted by a bunch of stooges. If the movie was just controversial, it would be one thing. But it is badly done, and no one but the dedicated, sheltered culture warriors could miss it.
However, this actions like these by the Expelled folks give us simple examples to impeach their credibility, when the culture warriors start pressing to show it in schools or start citing it as an authority.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 22, 2008 6:02 PM
Randy Olson:
The catch with that one is that in that case, John Kerry's lack of prompt response hurt him. Of course, the Swift Boat Liars immediately had a large forum, so there was no way that not responding would have choked off attention to them, and that's a pretty big difference from the case of the screenings of Expelled. Still, that's a dicey example.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 22, 2008 6:02 PM
Also is there any history of controversy and bad press increasing right-wing turnout, especially for documentaries?
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 22, 2008 6:10 PM
Do note that PZ did not deliberately get himself kicked out in order to make a point. Undoubtedly he intended to blog about the movie, and would have taken no prisoners in doing so, but he wasn't protesting or disrupting the show.
The thing that will make these Bensteinian intellects look silly is not that they threw a well-known atheist blogger out of the theater under flimsy pretenses, but that they failed to recognize perhaps the world's most famous atheist standing right there in the same group. Analogy: Before the last election, the Bush League became notorious for throwing people out of stump-speech audiences if they were known or suspected non-supporters of Bush. If they'd ejected the president of the local College Democrats but let Michael Moore take a seat unhindered, they'd have more closely approached what the IDiots did here.
Certainly some people will believe rumors about nasty old atheists disrupting the film, but then again, what are people who oppose the ID scam supposed to do? Should we all avoid seeing the film? I personally would have no stomach for it, and definitely would not give money to the ID crowd by buying a ticket, but I think it's great that some real biologists are holding their noses and watching it. More than any film critic or mealy-mouthed NYT editorialist, a biologist can actually understand -- and explain -- the deceit in depth.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | March 22, 2008 6:30 PM
Oh, come one now. This is ridiculous. So now you're going to argue that the best response to creationist arguments is silence and neglect? Nonsense.
This is pushback. This is confronting creationism directly. Yes, it brings it to wider attention, just like flipping over a damp rock and shining a flashlight under it brings unpleasant things to view. What you're neglecting is the important fact that it also helps increase awareness of the dishonesty of these scumbags.
That's the message. They want to claim that they are unfairly excluded. The appropriate response is to show that they cheat, lie, and mislead, and they don't deserve to be treated fairly.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 22, 2008 7:11 PM
"Why is that hard to understand?"
Speaking of hard to understand, how is it hard for Mooney to understand that no matter what point anyone ever makes based on something from the film, it can be immediately countered by the PZ/Dawkins incident?
If the entire basis of the film is to garner public sympathy for those excluded from expressing their ideas, then how can the film's producer justify the expulsion of PZ Myers from seeing a movie he's featured in?
That counter easily destroys any sympathy the film may garner from a neutral audience (makes a great sound bite too!).
The public may not be well informed regarding ID and evolution, but the vast majority can recognize this kind of blatant hypocrisy and be appalled by it. It's not hard to understand or see.
Posted by: JD | March 22, 2008 7:33 PM
In principle, controversy should be expected to help such a movie, and I think this is what the producers wanted. But that's now how Expelledgate worked out.
Instead, the IDologues have shown themselves to be so scared that they kick someone out who is interviewed in the movie, and so stupid that at the same time they don't recognize Richard Dawkins, even though -- having access to teh intartoobz -- they ought to have known he was in town because he was on the program of an atheist conference! Speaking of which, scheduling a public preview of their movie -- and, yes, it was public, because anyone was able to reserve a seat online, as PZ did -- at the same time and place as an atheist conference that was announced on Pharyngula among other websites comes across as rather silly, too.
Exactly.
Plus, as has been pointed out, the movie is made in an astonishingly incapable manner, with jumps in the cutting, irrelevant close-ups of Dawkins' nose, and so on. And then there's the obvious copyright violation. Really, I don't see anything to fear here other than fear itself (or the Kerry response -- "being a gentleman, I am above responding to such obvious lies").
Hint for the framers: I used the word "Expelledgate". I didn't come up with it, but I think this is how we should frame this hilarious affair. Stein and Mathis have been caught with their pants around their ankles, and with their empty skulls open. Let us point and laugh.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 22, 2008 7:37 PM
...and they are in fact being treated fairly, you mean. Frame: "Not expelled, but FLUNKED!"
It's neither "rocket science" nor molecular biology...
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 22, 2008 7:42 PM
Hi PZ,
Your approach definitely works with your readers. They are loud, they are numerous, and they love it. It's like watching gladitorial combat or something.
But with all due respect, I fail to see the broader strategy to what you and Dawkins are doing. It seems to me that you have given Ben Stein just what he wants, just like Bill O'Reilly gave Al Franken precisely what he wanted--delicious controversy.
I'm not saying there's no way to respond to Expelled, but I don't think you've found it. Seriously: Listen to Randy Olson. He knows a thing or two about the marketing of films, Or listen to me about the marketing of books. Believe me, with the exception of a plagiarism scandal or something, virtually any author would love a New Your Times article about the controversy their work has caused.
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | March 22, 2008 8:17 PM
PZ Myers: "So now you're going to argue that the best response to creationist arguments is silence and neglect?"
If the creationists happen to be in a bad position where they happen to be dying for lack of attention--as had been the case with Expelled--then bringing attention threatens to revive them. Whether the cold shoulder works depends on the threat, of course, but sometimes it's appropriate.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 22, 2008 8:27 PM
I did a short film a couple years ago with Mark Dowie, author of the Pulitzer nominated book, "Losing Ground." He cited Saul Alinski, the famous grassroots organizer, who coined the term "Total Tactics," meaning there is no single right way to achieve an agenda, but rather a need for a variety of approaches.
Rabble rousing from PZ and Dawkins is essential in keeping the fires stoked and grabbing the interest of supporters. But there's a need for the complementary campaign to be at work. Which is exactly what PZ was calling for last week on his blog by asking his readers what can be done to counter this anti-evolution media offensive. Had there been something in the works, the p.r. generated from this little brouhaha could have been co-opted to promote what the evolutionists are doing.
It's about total tactics.
Posted by: Randy Olson | March 22, 2008 8:50 PM
JD: "The public may not be well informed regarding ID and evolution, but the vast majority can recognize this kind of blatant hypocrisy and be appalled by it. It's not hard to understand or see."
It's not hard to understand or see--if you get a chance to see it. As I said before, a lot depends on the channels through which people get to see the story, since that determines how the story gets framed. We're already seeing a frame where Myers and Dawkins are treated as gatecrashers, and Myers as a disruption waiting to happen, even using an ambiguous quote mine of his own words against him:
The worst thing about that quote is that even in context, it is hard to tell if Myers is joking or only half-joking. The second worst thing is that it is in the next-to-last comment of the blog post in which it appears. :(
There's no guarantee that the hypocrisy frame will become dominant.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 22, 2008 9:10 PM
Hate to break it to you Chris but you do have one thing on your side that really helped your book: it told the truth. It was also a damn good, well researched and written book.
In addition, you were marketing in *favor* of purchasing your book.
How do you do the opposite? How to you deter "the masses" from a work that otherwise attracts them?
You claim here (and on other topics over the last year or two) that the PZ/Dawkins media fest is attracting "their" side too much attention, yet in this, and in your "framing" arguments you merely keep telling them they're wrong but never actually tell them anything *positive* they should do. Only "don't do what you're doing". I see it repeatedly in these little internal SB flame wars, and I don't really find it terribly useful, nor by my reading does PZ.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | March 22, 2008 9:12 PM
I think there's a strong argument to be made that the "conflict frame" Nesbit and friend(s) like to decry is the very reason that Creationists can no longer infiltrate school boards covertly. The "loud and numerous" serve the useful purpose of being loud and numerous. Do you really think the fact that there are now hundreds of people taking an interest in this problem is a bad thing? I don't know what initially got you interested in these issues, Chris, but I'm guessing it was more likely a big eye-opening controversy rather than a weaselly essay on how we should frame the issue. What gets dismissed as "preaching to the choir" is probably the most important thing anybody does.
Posted by: poke | March 22, 2008 9:12 PM
Yes, this is certainly awful; why it's as good for the Id/creationists as Iraq is for the GOP. This is almost as tragic for us as that documentary NOVA did about the ID trial in Dover. If only no one had written on it or filmed it.
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 22, 2008 9:55 PM
NYTimes, slashdot, digg, stumbleupon, boingboing, DailyKos...hundreds of thousands of people (millions?) now know about this episode. 99% of them are not scientists, not science bloggers, not atheists. Yet they all understood it and laughed at Stein and Co. not at Myers and Dawkins. And these people will tell this to their spouses and friends and colleagues. I think this is a PR victory for our side, hands down.
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2008 10:00 PM
Not to mention that now, when one googles 'Expelled' at least some of the mentions of this incident from our side are high on the list (which was not the case until last night). Google memory is probably the most important positive result of this. Many people, when they hear about this movie opening in their town, will google it to see what it is all about....
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2008 10:02 PM
Not quite sure you guys understand how this p.r. game works. Lemme tell you a horrible Hollywood tale. A few years ago an actress friend of mine was up for a lead role in a show. The two finalists were her and Rebecca Gayheart, the actress who ran over and killed a 9 yr old boy in a crosswalk and pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter. Guess who got the part. My friend's manager talked to one of the producers. He said although it was a terrible tragedy, she had more name recognition because of it, and that was what they were looking for.
Don't think this supposed bad word of mouth in the NY Times and elsewhere is hurting "Expelled." You don't seem to know how lousy this p.r. game is.
Posted by: Randy Olson | March 22, 2008 10:22 PM
poke: "I think there's a strong argument to be made that the 'conflict frame' Nesbit and friend(s) like to decry is the very reason that Creationists can no longer infiltrate school boards covertly."
I don't know where you got the idea that the creationists were covertly infiltrating school boards. As far as I've seen, the creationists were fairly overt, except in wrapping up their beliefs as "intelligent design," which was designed to try to get around current case law. Bear in mind that the creationists' legal constraints came about because of groups that worked with the moderate religious. Heck, IIRC, the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case were religious, and might not have brought the suit if they saw it as science versus their religion.
Coturnix: "NYTimes, slashdot, digg, stumbleupon, boingboing, DailyKos...hundreds of thousands of people (millions?) now know about this episode."
And what are the political and religious persuasions of those who read these? I'm reminded of the Nixon-Kennedy debate, where supposedly those who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, while those who saw it thought Kennedy won. The target audience for Expelled is not necessarily looking at the same media that we are, and they are not necessarily using our frames. Jeffrey Overstreet's framing of the situation could be a harbinger of what we might expect from Fox Noise or other conservative outlets.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 22, 2008 10:36 PM
I seem to be seeing two contradictory arguments:
1. All publicity is good publicity, therefore even publicizing an incident which is embarrassing to ID can still benefit their cause.
2. Those opposing intelligent design should be careful not to seek publicity for their view which could be portrayed in a bad light.
Argument (1) is clearly false as stated--some publicity is truly embarrassing and damaging to a cause. I think that's clearly the case in this incident. One may argue that the Scopes trial gave the nation a false sense that fundamentalism was defeated and allowed it to make a comeback, but I suspect the causes that drove the 1980s resurgence of fundamentalism still would have occurred if Bryan hadn't been made a fool of by Darrow and in public reporting by Mencken.
Argument (2) is something that certain groups should be concerned about--I'm glad that the NCSE doesn't take a position on religion--but I think individuals speaking on their own behalf should say what they really think, and Myers and Dawkins have no duty to be accomodationist with any groups they disagree with. There's nothing preventing groups from dissociating themselves from any remarks or positions they disagree with.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 22, 2008 10:39 PM
I still think dishonesty is an exception to the rule of "all publicity is good publicity". What about A Million Little Pieces? This was the hottest book around when everyone thought it was a true story. Then it was discovered to be in large part made up. It has completely fallen off the radar, and I doubt that a sequel will go anywhere. Lots of people may not grasp the dishonesty of ID "theory". They can, however, recognize the dishonesty of the Expelled crew, and their uncanny ability to "screw the pooch".
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 22, 2008 10:58 PM
Chris C. Mooney wrote:
We'll see, won't we? The results will be tested soon enough.
If the movie is some sort of blockbuster hit, then there is a high probability we all contributed to that and we'll all have learned a costly lesson -- and Chris can say "I told you so." ... Depending on if the audiences aren't laughing at the film and cheering Dawkins and PZ on.
The movie wasn't doing that well before. Even modest success at the box office will probably be our fault.
I know I would love a New Your Times article about anything I produced. However, even if the movie makes money we might still undercut the message. Gather up all the old higher level criticisms that documents why ID isn't science, why Darwinism lead less to Hitler than Martin Luther did, why IDiots really got "fired" and start submitting your own movie reviews to local papers.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 11:01 PM
The point that escapes me is what exactly did PZ Myers do that was wrong? Oh, that's right, he tried to watch a movie. What a fucking anarchist.
If you watch the movie, Ben Stein wins.
Posted by: Todd | March 22, 2008 11:08 PM
Granted, but on the flip side, Eliot Spitzer has garnered all sorts of p.r. lately and now he has phenomenal name recognition. Doesn't seem to have helped him much. So name recognition isn't always everything. It seems to me that the argument that this kerfluffle will only cause more people to go see it is, somewhat, contingent on the media environment surrounding the movie. Given the complete closing out of the media by the producers of Expelled I am not at all convinced that we will see a Lat Temptation of Christ effect.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | March 22, 2008 11:11 PM
Randy Olson wrote:
But the point isn't to hurt the film maker's bottom line, the point is to expose them as liars and fools. And that is what they are.
If the American public can't see that... then we're in real trouble.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 11:34 PM
afarensis, FCD wrote:
Even if it's not Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ flop, but rather a blockbuster like Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ we aren't looking at a movie that changed the world much. There were no mass conversions because of it. All it did was make money.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 22, 2008 11:42 PM
Chris-
seriously, stop hanging around with Nisbet.
That boy's a bad influence on you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 23, 2008 12:27 AM
It seems Mooney further embarrasses himself with nearly every comment.
Apart from the incredibly arrogant remark that we "check our critical thinking at the door" presumably because America is too dumb to see it our way, Mooney implies that most of the criticism of his ridiculous position is the result of PZ Myers comments:
"PZ, Your approach definitely works with your readers. They are loud, they are numerous, and they love it. It's like watching gladitorial combat or something."
I'm confident most don't need PZ to show the absurdity of Mooney's position. It's rather obvious. As obvious as the hypocrisy shown by Mathis' treatment of PZ and Dawkins. A point Mooney seems oblivious too (did he check his critical thinking at the door?).
"...I fail to see the broader strategy to what you and Dawkins are doing. It seems to me that you have given Ben Stein just what he wants, just like Bill O'Reilly gave Al Franken precisely what he wanted--delicious controversy."
No, once again, you have it backwards. In this case, Mathis is the "O'Reilly" character whose embarrassing actions were made a point of ridicule. Anyone who has seen the clip can see Billo comes off as a drooling fool. That was the result that stood out, not Franken's book sales. Franken loves to show the clip. O'Reilly...not so much.
Mathis' actions toward PZ stand out just as poorly as O'Reilly's did. Mathis will forever be tarnished by pimping a film about alleged expulsion of criticism by personally expelling his critics. The hypocrisy and stupidity of Mathis' actions are easily seen and understood.
That will be the lasting message for neutral observers.
If the incident does increase viewership, hopefully it will be something akin to the movie "Reefer Madness." A film that was created to portray a serious message, but now has become something the producers had not at all intended.
Posted by: JD | March 23, 2008 12:37 AM
"And what are the political and religious persuasions of those who read these?"
All over the place...except the extreme Right Wing which will not be persuaded by anything anyway, thus not our audience. The audience that did not know and did not care before, but now has made the connection between them and hypocrisy. The word "expelled" will now, in many minds, elicit the frame "lolz".
Posted by: Coturnix | March 23, 2008 1:05 AM
JD wrote:
No he hasn't. He's actually got some history on his side. And, except for Randy Olson, none of us here have any movie marketing or PR experience. Some of the Expelled people do have that experience.
However, this situation is unique enough that their experience may not count for much. No one knows what the great monkey mass out there will really make of this incident.
Just wait, see... and then learn. There is no use for name calling or arrogance. Just put your bets down on the out come and wait.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 23, 2008 1:37 AM
How do you possibly know who and who does not have that kind of experience? Presume much?
Yes, and speaking of arrogance, you (and Mooney) should practice what you preach.
Posted by: JD | March 23, 2008 1:57 AM
"There's no guarantee that the hypocrisy frame will become dominant."
Conjecture: The best guarantor or meme success is usually simplicity and ease of understanding, which leads to ease in replication and thus greater reproductive success. It is why there is currently a race to the bottom in terms of the complexity of arguments in, e.g., politics, with substantive debate largely giving way to soundbytes and bumper sticker sloganeering.
If such a thing holds true, I think the hypocrisy meme is the better candidate for dominance. It is simple while the DI's rationalizations are convoluted and require background knowledge.
Posted by: