This morning Dr. Isis received the following letter from a "senior producer" (I put this in quotes because I didn't realize there were levels of producer. Apparently there are. Is this like a producer with tenure?) of a particular public radio show asking to speak about covering the Letters to Our Daughters Project:
Hello Isis the Scientist,
My name is Senior Producer and I produce the public radio show "Some Public Radio Show." We explore new ideas in science, technology, popular culture, and the arts. We're interested in learning more about your Letters to our Daughters Project. Do you have a few minutes to chat on the phone today?
Best,
Senior Producer
I thought it could be a great opportunity to spread the word about this little project to people within and outside of academia and, even beyond the scope of my own vanity, was thrilled to hear that someone else was interested in it. I also am a big fan and supporter of national and local public radio and though this email was pretty cool..
I offered said producer my cell phone number and invited her to call me.
Video 1: Dr. Isis couldn't help but feel proud that someone admired her Letters to Our Daughters Project and wanted to share it.
But, what happened next has left me feeling, frankly, strange and a little squeemy.
The producer called and we initially had that uncomfortable moment that comes when someone calls a pseudonymous person. I have spoken to other people by phone about blog projects and, when I answer the phone, can always hear the uncomfortable question brewing.
Do I really call her "Isis?"
For future reference, the answer is "yes."
Once the uncomfortable moment was over, the producer said that she had read recently my thoughts on pseudonymity and "appreciated why [I] write under a pseudonym." I thought, "Great! Someone who gets it!"
But then shit went south as she said, "but if we were to cover this story on our program, could we use your real name?"
Figure 1: I am considering buying this in convenient notecard form for exactly this type of situation.
To this she replied, "If we can't identify you by name on our program, then there really is not enough controversy here for us to do a story on this project."
I was pretty floored. I had expected sincere interest in the Letters to Our Daughters Project. At least an introductory question or two about it, but this interaction felt exactly like sex without the requisite foreplay -- awkward and uncomfortable. I tried to explain completely ineloquently that my entire life as a woman in science is controversy. In real life, each time I have spoken to undergraduate or graduate students about my life as a woman in science I have been asked about having a family and about how I am perceived by men in my field. In the blog world, I've been a trope, a bimbo, a cheerleader, annoying, and a bitch. I love that we have male allies in science who comment here and support gender parity, but the fact that the percent representation by women in many academic societies is not much different than the NIH payline means that there is still work to be done. But, this is all clearly esprit d'escalier because, as I spoke to her, I was so stunned that she had immediately asked if I would "come out" without any questions about the content of the Letters to Our Daughters Project that I was not nearly as clear headed as I am now.
To my explanation she replied, "It's just not worth it for us to put it on the air unless you're willing to be identified." We parted ways.
This leaves Isis the Scientist feeling all sorts of mixed up. I feel guilty because I appreciate the kind of publicity this could have brought to the project, maybe resulting in fabulous women offering to write letters instead of me soliciting them, and introducing a new group of women to amazing scientists like Pascale Lane and Barbara Goodman. I feel slightly cheesed that the focus of our brief phone conversation was my identity and not at all this project, and that it is my own selfish desire to protect said identity that is keeping the project small and here. But, many of you have made great suggestions of people to contact about the project. I will keep sending letters, hoping that some will bite, and that some of you will continue to share the letters you find helpful with your friends, colleagues, and students.
I suppose all I can is say is exactly what I said when I hung up the phone.
"Damn it."
Education & Careers
Life Science
Comments
not enough controversy here for us to do a story on this project
And people wonder why the motherfucking mainstream news media in this country suck so bad. What a dumbfuck asshole.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 8, 2009 12:11 PM
To this she replied, "If we can't identify you by name on our program, then there really is not enough controversy here for us to do a story on this project."
Did I miss something?
She called to ask you about the LTOD project but then it wasn't controversial enough without your real name?
I fail to see what exactly is "controversial" about successful women writing letters to encourage young scientists.
Or the controversy is over your real life ID and she's not interested in LTOD at all? If so, that is pretty skeevy.
Publicity would be great for this project. Stephanie Zvan seems pretty plugged into her local radio community...perhaps she could suggest a more receptive "senior producer" in her locality?
Posted by: ambivalent academic | May 8, 2009 12:28 PM
The whole reason why you and three-quarters of scienceblogging women write under fiercely-protected pseudonyms should alone signal to the producer something about why you even conceived the Letters to Our Daughters Project. I'm really surprised that you had this experience with a public radio entity since they seem to be more open to recognizing the playing field of online media.
The "senior" producer missed a great opportunity to further broaden what is already a great story. That the producer didn't think there was enough controversy for a story speaks to the stagnation imparted by decisionmakers in some media outlets. I can guarantee that working for the "senior" producer is some young woman reporter who grew up with blogs and other social media who could have taken this story and run with it like nobody's business. Unfortunately, those without vision are often the gatekeepers (and obstacles) to our most promising young journalists succeeding.
Persevere and we'll do the same on our end to promote this tremendously worthy project that is already impressing me with the contributions of the first two scientists.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | May 8, 2009 12:37 PM
I think you got caught in a difference in ethical styles between blogging and journalism. Anonymity is only supposed to be offered to subjects in extreme cases in journalism. Extreme, meaning they'll be thrown in jail, or loose their job, or . . . .
You want to keep yourself "pseudonyous" (not really anonymous, since I suspect a large number of people know who you are, and another number can make a reasonable educated guess). It's your choice to do that, but it does make it difficult for a standard journalist to cover the blog (as opposed to the real person you are, who can be covered). It's a choice, but I don't fault the journalist for having a different standard.
(don't know what the "controversy" means, unless she's imagining that our pseudonymity means deep problems in the system -- and I don't think that is the reason for your pseudonymity. )
(PS: if you want to publicize the project, you could let a non-pseudoymous blogger take it over -- the letters to your daughter project doesn't need to be pseudonymous -- and isn't, since the letters are from real people).
Posted by: neurolover | May 8, 2009 12:51 PM
I think that Ed Brayton might be someone to take this to. Not just for publicity for the project itself, which would be awesome, but his show could be used to express the issues with blogging under a pseudonym. Hell, make it a Scienceblogs roundtable with Isis, Orac, and a couple of the folks who work under their own names. It'd make a hell of a report on free speech and the risks associated with it.
Posted by: Ranson | May 8, 2009 1:14 PM
I have no influence beyond our show, but I would be happy to feature the project in an episode on how traditional gender expectations hinder women's advancement in the sciences. Maybe pair that with Pat Campbell from Fairer Science, who has some great data on what works to break down the barriers?
Given our audience and Dr. Isis's outspoken religiosity, though, it might be uncomfortably controversial. Not for us (we've survived assisted suicide, communism and vaccinations on the show), but for her. Not that she can't ably handle controversy.
Dr. Isis, if you're interested, let me know.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 8, 2009 1:14 PM
Archaic journalism rules. Just keep chipping away and eventually the walls will come down.
Posted by: Arikia | May 8, 2009 1:16 PM
The NY Times apparently feels comfortable using pseudonymous bloggers as sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/americas/07party.html
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 8, 2009 1:19 PM
In my humble opinion and as a long time public radio listener, it would be far more controversial (and certainly more intriguing) if the interview was conducted with "Isis" than with the goddess in human form?!? As in:
Who is the real Isis? I wonder what MRU it is? What is the big deal, why does she need to write under a pseudonym? Do male bloggers write under pseudonyms at the same rate as women? And where can I get some hot shoes?
In no particular order, those would likely be my questions if I was listening and had never read your blog before. And since when is being controversial the sole arbiter of what's newsworthy? The conservative media's bread and butter is making something out of nothing. Here is a case where there is actually a lot of something, and which is at the very least:
a) interesting subject matter (LTOD project and the pseudonymous blog),
b) educational,
c) a sure thing to be an engaging, charismatic (I don't think I'm going out on a limb in assuming Isis speaks as good as she writes) and otherwise totally hot interview, and
d) unique - it must be an every day occurrence for this producer or else he/she wouldn't have passed up the opportunity to put a goddess on the air!
Then again, maybe it was the blaring gleam of Isis in all her glory on a silver platter that blinded the producer.
Btw, totally off topic, but I've been wondering, Isis, why you don't use HOTmail? ;)
Posted by: Callinectes | May 8, 2009 1:22 PM
"If we can't identify you by name on our program, then there really is not enough controversy here for us to do a story on this project."
I'm trying to parse this into a sensible sentence, but I keep getting stuck on how your identity = controversy (unless they know something we don't - Dr. Isis is there some horrible secret scandal you're hiding? :P).
Posted by: LostMarbles | May 8, 2009 1:34 PM
Right. It's the controversy part that got me. I am not so sure this is archaic journalistic standards.
Yes. I am PhysioProf.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 8, 2009 1:36 PM
I could understand where they are coming from if it was for a tv show, since tv is an audio-VISUAL medium. But that sucks because they are missing the opportunity to get your take on the program. They should have interviewed you anyway and used some sound bites. Or had a narrator quote you. I mean really, it's radio, for crying out loud.
Since they are so hellbent on getting real names and institutions, a simple alternative is to defer to someone involved in the program who is not pseudonymous, i.e., Pascale Lane or Barbara Goodman.
Posted by: Physiogroupie IV | May 8, 2009 2:01 PM
It was nice? of you to keep her identity undisclosed. Since she's all about openness, why don't you share who it was?
Posted by: Jack | May 8, 2009 2:32 PM
I think it was totally a fake journalist who was set up to it by Zucker.
Or possibly a real journalist who was set up to it by Zucker, I really don't know what kind of connections he has.
Sneaky. Very sneaky.
Posted by: becca | May 8, 2009 2:43 PM
This is astonishing and disturbing. It is very common for minor, major, and in between news agencies to run a variety of stories using interviews with anonymous individuals. WCS is somebody privately knows something about who someone is, but in that case even this is not necessary because Isis does not come out of the woodwork, but rather, has a famous on line persona.
Honestly, this is so off base, that I wonder about the veracity of the claim of being a "senior producer" at any particular media organization.
Were you dissed or were you pwned? Either way, that person who called you was out of line.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 8, 2009 2:46 PM
Becca: Our comments crossed in the internet... great minds think alike.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 8, 2009 2:54 PM
I had a recent experience in which a journalist interviewed me for a story on scientist's response to the stimulus/ARRA/Challenge foofraw by phone. She alleged having followed the story on the DM blog and was greatly interested in talking with me, blah, blah.
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2009/04/slate_on_biomedical_researcher.php
I made it clear that I didn't want to be identified by anything that wasn't on-blog-record. Including my location.
You will note that while "a researcher in RandomState" was sufficient for quotation, an established pseudonymous blogger was not.
Perhaps I am simply not that controversial or interesting when interviewed...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | May 8, 2009 2:56 PM
Don't feel guilty. This person was clearly going to fuck the whole thing up anyway. Cluelessness is a spring of problems that you don't want anywhere near your lovely letters and daughters.
Posted by: yolio | May 8, 2009 3:20 PM
I, too, have heard way too many semi-anonymous interviews on public radio to completely believe that this is a real person. They often insist on using a first name. They could easily have just called you Isis. It actually might have generated more interest than a real name.
I also fail to see any controversy in the LTOD project. Or maybe I'm just too close to the topic.
Maybe it was Zucker... he really wanted to know who you are... but he doesn't really seem like the type to try and pull off a punk.
Posted by: Pascale | May 8, 2009 3:29 PM
All I can say is WTF. Controversial? I guess it is considered controversial in this hypercompetitive culture for senior people to help less senior people. My guess is that Ms Senior Producer didn’t get to be Senior by being helped or encouraged and she is damned if she is going to help anyone else (or even let anyone else be helped).
MSM reporters can keep sources anonymous when laws are broken and when the country is lied into war, and secret WMD operatives are outed, but keeping the identity of a scientist who is trying to help other scientists secret is too controversial?
Posted by: daedalus2u | May 8, 2009 3:31 PM
Why does there have to be a controversy, period? Can't it just be a positive story?
Posted by: ScienceMama | May 8, 2009 3:46 PM
By the way, the fact that you were approached for the story implies fame. The story could have amplified such fame, but the fame exists without it.
Something doesn't ring true about all of this. The media does lots of feel-good stories (senior women scientists providing letters of support to those in the future), and I can't believe they couldn't work around the pseudonym.
Just remember, goddess - "we love you, we really love you."
Posted by: Pascale | May 8, 2009 3:52 PM
I'm still stuck on the "this wouldn't be controversial enough" what is so controversial about promoting the stories of women in science with the hope of the encouraging future scientist!!! I. Don't. Get. It. Am I missing something?
Posted by: ScientistMother | May 8, 2009 4:02 PM
I didn't get it either. It was all tremendously skeevy. The more I think about it, the skeevier it was.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 8, 2009 4:04 PM
Fuck 'em.
Posted by: gnuma | May 8, 2009 4:26 PM
Paranoia for Fun and Profit: Next time, ask for the producer's phone number in your email reply, google to make sure it is a number associated with the show, and you call them. ;)
Posted by: Claire | May 8, 2009 5:05 PM
A year ago I quite television after 15 years to go back and finally get the physics degree. But I’ve seen unpaid interns given the title of ‘producer’ so senior producer may only mean they are on the payroll.
Posted by: Bruce | May 8, 2009 5:06 PM
Pascale- I was speaking entirely in jest in pointing at Zucker here.
I feel compelled to point this out because I'd hardly want to imply anything negative about someone I don't know (even less so when that someone is a scientist important enough to head APS and with good enough taste to appreciate Dr. Isis). Here's the dead giveaway: Greg Laden 'thinks alike'. Whenever this happens, one can safely assume I was joking. Or in desperate need of an exorcism.
Posted by: becca | May 8, 2009 5:24 PM
I have decided that TV, and most media, just DO NOT THINK the way we do, to mind boggling proportions. I'm so sorry to hear that this played out this way. I think your idea is amazing.
Posted by: sciencegoddess | May 8, 2009 6:21 PM
I did actually pre-vet this person by verifying their identity and what-not. I am convinced that is was a real person and that I was not just being Zuckered.
Can we all decide that, after Pascale's comment that it is ok to use "Zuckered" in place I "punked?"
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 8, 2009 6:32 PM
Do you think Greg Laden reads every one of your posts, faithfully?
Posted by: Funky Fresh | May 8, 2009 6:34 PM
To be honest, I think you had a lucky escape. Journalists are notorious for shaping stories into what they've previously decided they want them to be, and it's horrible having what you've worked for slaughtered until it fits that mold. Its also sounds like she wanted to angle it as an 'unveiling' of the mighty Isis by some sleuthing on her part...
The letters to our daughters project is a brilliant idea - it's going to grow of it's own accord - it's better to let it spread naturally than be tainted by some cheap journalism.
And for some unabashed flattery - I love this blog for many things, among them the fact it pulls no punches. As a 'daughter', the fact it is written by a woman makes it extra...motivating? (I'm failing at finding a less cliche word than 'inspirational')
C
Posted by: C | May 8, 2009 7:04 PM
Perhaps a few of us can start writing posts, and letters to the editor and whatnot, condemning this whole Feminazi/Gynofascist "Letters To Our Daughters" bullshit. I mean, seriously. Do you women in science really hate your sons so much that you would refuse to give them the same encouragement that you are giving your daughters? What a load of estrogen-fueled crap. Just because you man-haters find yourselves in positions of power, authority, and influence in your ivory-tower world of academia doesn't mean that we should allow you to turn it into a "No Balls Club." Bitches.
...there, soes that sound like enough controversy, my most worshipful, respected, and unreservedly adored Dr. Isis? I can probably dredge up a little more misogynistic seething, but I'll need to expose myself to Rush Limbaugh for a while first. (Wait, that doesn't sound right. Either way.)
I think I need to go wash my temporal lobe out now.
Posted by: Harold | May 8, 2009 7:47 PM
Harold,
I was groaning after the first sentence and by the end of the paragraph I wanted to soak my brain in bleach, but you've got ways to go before you reach the level of Limbaugh and his buddies.
Posted by: LostMarbles | May 8, 2009 8:13 PM
Heh. I kinda hoped I had just coined the term "gynofascist" (it was originally going to be "Matriofascist", but this sounded so much nicer), but I see it's already in use throughout teh internets.
Posted by: Harold | May 8, 2009 8:59 PM
Hah! Harold hit the nail on the head! Check out my controversy theory here.
Posted by: Zuska | May 8, 2009 9:03 PM
Stephanie Z
I would love to be on a show with Dr. Isis. She totally rocks and we agree and disagree enough that it would be fun. One caveat, if there are pictures, Isis has to agree to give me technical assistance on the shoes I would wear. I'm assuming to keep her anonymity,any pictures would be from the ankles down and I want to look good!
Posted by: Pat | May 8, 2009 10:22 PM
Greg Laden 'thinks alike'. Whenever this happens, one can safely assume I was joking. Or in desperate need of an exorcism.
Kaching!!!!! Another five dollar bet pays off!!!!! You are a machine, Becca. Starting to get a little boring, though.
Do you think Greg Laden reads every one of your posts, faithfully?
No, utterly obvoius sock puppet, he usually does not read this blog unless someone suggests he have a look at one thing or another. In this case, I was so astounded at this disrespect for my fellow science blogger Isis that I felt compelled.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 8, 2009 10:56 PM
@Harold-
"I can probably dredge up a little more misogynistic seething, but I'll need to expose myself to Rush Limbaugh for a while first. (Wait, that doesn't sound right. Either way.)"
oh, I don't know. I think it does sound right. Entertaining, anyway.
@Greg Laden-
"You are a machine, Becca. Starting to get a little boring, though."
Becca != Megatron. Becca = Hulk = BeccaSmash!
Oh Greggie, you know you like the attention. Besides, I only snark because I care...
Ok, I lied. I snark because it's fun. But I want everyone else to have fun too, doesn't that count for something?
Posted by: becca | May 9, 2009 2:56 AM
I think that you have shot yourself in the foot on this matter, and its entirely silly for you to attempt to elicit sympathy for it. Surely you understand that the 3-D world is not going to conform to the rules you've created for an online persona. How many news stories do you see on TV or read in print where a person who is interviewed is identified only by a screenname? If it's more than zero, I'd like to see some examples. And, as has already been stated, it is not standard procedure for a journalist to help cloak the identity of a story subject unless they are presently in some sort of demonstrable danger. "I want to keep my identities separate" is only a valid reason in the virtual world. You made the choice to segment your life, it isn't anyone else's job to help you do that, regardless of how necessary you perceive that split to be. And despite numerous appearances to the contrary these days, there is still accountability at work in the news, and that has to include a real name and location for interview subjects.
Secondly, you are far too hung up on the language that this person used with you. I have appeared on TV and print many times, and a lot of these people function on this same level. It's offensive, but it's not meant to be, so to focus on the offensive aspect of it doesn't accomplish anything. For a fledging project/cause/idea/company, media coverage can be hugely important. What you seem to be missing is that for a news story to happen, there are multiple agendas at work. The news people have their agenda, with all of its dust and scratches, so being surprised/offended when that agenda rears its head is a waste of your time. Furthermore, rejecting the chance for media coverage because of the existence of that agenda is mere short-sightedness, possibly verging on diva-hood. Reporters work with their subjects, but they do not answer to them. There are ways to get what you want out of a situation like this while simultaneously letting the reporters follow the dictates of their profession (and news directors). The suggestion to pass this to another person who doesn't mind being identified was a good one.
Attacking the reporter because she didn't magically understand every aspect of what you do and why you do it is rather unfair. You expect too much, you've reacted too big, and you've lost the chance to do (or help do) something that would have been valuable to your project.
Posted by: GeenaMarks | May 9, 2009 5:28 AM
GreenaMarks - the "journalist" wanted to do a story about something on the internet. If truly on the up-and-up, she would have taken the time to learn about internet culture first. What Isis is doing re: her identity is not something odd and different, it is practiced by thousands of bloggers, many of them famous under their pseudonyms. Should Isis' identity really be cheap enough to give away for the sake of one radio story? No media coverage is that important. The fact that she totally dissed something as crucial as identity means either that she is a terrible journalist or was doing exactly what Zuska laid out.
Posted by: Carlie | May 9, 2009 6:52 AM
In general I agree with GreenMarks. Isis wants to eat the cake and have it, too. Not revealing her real identity has been her choice. That choice carries a certain price that she now complains she has to pay. One cannot be simultaneously famouse and anonymous. "...rejecting the chance for media coverage because of the existence of that agenda is mere short-sightedness, possibly verging on diva-hood" sounds just right.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 9, 2009 7:48 AM
To both Geena Marks & Rivlin:
Matthew Alexander, author of "How to Break a Terrorist" is a known pseudonym and has been interviewed by numerous MSM outlets. His life is not in danger, but given his future career, would be limited in how much he could say if he gave his real name, same as Isis's motovations on this subject. So really, pipe down about how "Isis wants to eat the cake and have it, too. Not revealing her real identity has been her choice." The only reason you have to reveal your source's identity if they don't want it revealed is if you can't corroborate evidence, which is obviously NOT the case here.
Futhermore, GeenaMarks, "It's offensive, but it's not meant to be, so to focus on the offensive aspect of it doesn't accomplish anything." is patently false. If someone says something offensive to me, but I realize it's not meant to be, it's my job to point out that they are being offensive. Otherwise, they'll KEEP DOING IT and someday it will get them in real trouble. Hopefully, Ms. Senior Producer realizes her mistake now and won't miss out on the next great story over crap that's "not controversial enough".
And to the great Dr. Isis. I agree with C: uber creepy and probably not the coverage you wanted anyway. Besides, this story is way too cool to not get out there in a major way. Keep those letters coming!
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | May 9, 2009 8:13 AM
Here's one, just two days old:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/americas/07party.html
No. You cannot be simultaneously famous and psedonymous, because you are gibbering washed-up dumbshit whose inance ravings everyone knows to completely ignore. Isis, on the other hand, and some other pseudonymous bloggers are famous, because their opinion, commentary, and advice have demonstrable recognized value.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 9, 2009 8:17 AM
Sock puppet? Who's a sock puppet?
I think it's creepy that you would come around here to express solidarity for fellow science blogger Isis when you have treated her with such disdain in the past.
The thing about being defended by Greg Laden is this: Even if he srtikes your enemy down with his mighty sword to hop on board, you gotta worry that he's gonna turn around and stab you with it next for the attention.
Maybe he came here because he ran out of YouTubes and 20 word posts for the day.
Posted by: Funky Fresh | May 9, 2009 9:42 AM
Wow, GeenaMarks, you are kind of pathetic. You'd trade your integrity and self-respect for whatever media attention you could get?
This producer sought out Isis, not the other way around. I come from a family of journalists, and it is basic journalistic good practice that when you go into someone's culture to do a story on them, you respect their cultural norms and frame your story appropriately within those norms.
Posted by: Arlenna | May 9, 2009 10:31 AM
I'm just delighted that being punked will henceforth be known as being Zuckered. I will have to let him know next week - if he hasn't read about it already!
Lots of writers work under pseudonyms, and they are usually identified by those pen names when interviewed in conjunction with their literary works. I don't know why people choose particular pen names, but they do, and you often have to dig pretty hard to figure out their legal names. I don't see how a screen name (nom de keyboard?) is any different. Isis is the name we know her by, just as most kids know Mark Twain but may be fuzzy on who Samuel Clemens was.
Posted by: Pascale | May 9, 2009 10:36 AM
Pat, as I said, I'm all for it, but I understand completely if Isis doesn't want to deal with our audience.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 9, 2009 11:11 AM
I very much appreciate the offer. It's my understanding that the theme of this show is to discuss topics in the context of the guests' atheism. I think that is fine, and I have no problem discussing my faith with anyone, but I suspect that if you had a practicing Catholic on your show, your audience would be less interested in discussing my project.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 9, 2009 11:38 AM
This may be a touch lowbrow for this crowd, but...
GeenaMarks (or anyone else), have you heard anything about the recent controversy involving Mario Lavandeira and his "dumb bitch" comments made about Miss California during the Miss USA pageant?
No?
Have you heard the same thing about internet personality Perez Hilton?
This is an imperfect example, as I was easily able to find the "real" name of Perez Hilton online. (I'm assuming that's his real name.) But I've never heard a media mention him by anything other than his pseudonym, which they do far, far too often.
It's always important to be wary of the intentions of interviewers who may have ulterior motives. Just ask two of the featured interviewees in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers. Dr. Isis's conditions were entirely proper and consistent with the work she does on this blog. And the "Senior Producer"'s requirement of a "controversy" should have been enough to raise the suspicions of anyone.
Though I must ask this, Dr. Isis: If you spoke to this "Senior Producer" on the phone, how did you do it in a way that concealed your identity? I could probably extract enough information from such an exchange (at the very least, from the phone numbers involved) to get some solid leads.
Posted by: Harold | May 9, 2009 12:52 PM
Not at all, Isis. As PalMD pointed out when I interviewed him on medical denialism, we don't even ask about our guests' religious views before having them on the show. Some of the shows are intended to be educate about atheism, yes, but a large number of them are on more general topics that our audience relates to through their own atheism, not the guest's. Science is a big part of that programming.
If you weren't outspoken on the topic of your religion on the blog, it would probably never come up. Since you are, it's likely that you'd get questions about reconciling the positions and traditions of the church with your work, just as you have here.
I know that you can handle those questions. I would also understand if you didn't want to do that in the middle of promoting your project.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 9, 2009 1:31 PM
Isis: I have been a guest on this show two or three times, and an interviewer twice, and the matter of a guest's religion or atheism was never the topic. In fact, that would not have been interesting to me, as we were discussing either research, public outreach, or science education. I would say that the listeners would be most interested in your "letters" project, and I very much hope you agree to do it and that this is the main topic of the show. The pseudonym vs. press thing itself is interesting but it a distraction from your other important work, so it would make a great topic to include as well.
Alleged Sock Puppet: You need to get a better theme, because the relationship between science bloggers is neither interesting or important, compared to the interesting things they are saying and doing.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 9, 2009 2:00 PM
The relationship, Greg? Do you and Isis have a relayshunsheep? I think she basically ignores you.
Posted by: Funky Fresh | May 9, 2009 4:14 PM
Isis can afford to ignore Greg because her sock puppets stay very busy hanging on his every word ... :)
Hey, other than Greg making a couple of supportive comments, what ever could have invoked this ire?
Posted by: lambchop | May 9, 2009 7:36 PM
Hmm. Isis, I think the GeenaMarks thing is pure crap.
I would suggest getting interviewed, at a minimum, by something like the AWIS magazine. They have done a couple of stories on we women bloggers.
In one of them they interviewed me and totally respected my pseudonymity; they also did a story on FSP's book, I believe, or at least mentioned her twice in two separate stories.
While it would be nice to reach a wider audience (i.e., the public at large), maybe it would be better to start with your scientific audience, e.g. women who are already young scientists. And then go from there. Science and Nature both have blogs and are occasionally reporting on these kinds of things re: women in science, too.
If it takes controversy to get more media coverage, I suspect the story itself can generate its own controversy when some of these staunch anti-feminists get wind of it.
In fact, this post alone is already a little controversial, eh?
Anyway, my point is that you shouldn't beat yourself up about it this one potential interview. There will be more opportunities.
Also, I might be coming "out" sometime soon, and if/when that happens, I will happily volunteer to help you promote it (controversy and all).
Posted by: msphd | May 9, 2009 8:01 PM
Isis, this sucks the big nut. What a total asshat. But your project still rocks, and I look forward to future letters.
Posted by: Candid Engineer | May 9, 2009 8:03 PM
It takes gall to come here and pretend that you've done nothing to raise anyone's ire. Maybe next time Isis puts her pom-poms down, she'll answer herself.
The fact that people here do not engage your comments should tell you that you are not welcome among this commentariat. You can say that you'll leave, but we all know you can't seem to stay away from this blog. It must be the shoes that bring you back.
Posted by: Funky Fresh | May 9, 2009 8:50 PM
The fact that a member of the media, any member, is so blinded by the perceived need for controversy that they fail to appreciate the merits of the Letters to Our Daughters project is incredibly disheartening to me. Maybe a media outlet with a little more tact and vision will come across this project and recognize the value they can obtain from it, but I doubt it; Controversy, and the journalistic ethos of providing "balance" to the controversy, are just too rampant in the North American media. You were right to retreat, and retreat quickly, from this incident, because the project really is wonderful, and any distortion of the matter beyond your stated goals would be a travesty.
-deatkin
Posted by: deatkin | May 9, 2009 9:03 PM
I wonder, Dr. Isis, the next Carl Sagan? Of course he did not use a pseudonym.
Posted by: Danimal | May 9, 2009 9:06 PM
Real names are totally overrated, Danimal.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 9, 2009 9:09 PM
Funky, I'm pretty sure Becca is people, and Isis, whose blog this is, has the tools to block Greg if she doesn't want him commenting here. I don't know whether you've noticed, but your comments extend his engagement with a thread (and pull it off topic).
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 10, 2009 12:43 AM
Regarding said show, as the director I wish to assure our dear Dr. that the topic does not need to even touch on your religious beliefs. We cover topics interesting to atheists, which this project most certainly is. Your religious beliefs don't even have to come up. Many of our guests may or may not have been atheists, and it wasn't an issue because the topic was sooo freakin' cool, which is exactly how I characterize the Letters Project.
Oh, and at least 75% of Quiche Moraine wants you on the show. How can you resist?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | May 10, 2009 12:51 AM
Oh, and at least 75% of Quiche Moraine wants you on the show. How can you resist?
I would guess that Ana has no opinion or would say yes, so that is most likely 100%.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 10, 2009 10:32 AM
"... you are gibbering washed-up dumbshit whose inance ravings everyone knows to completely ignore."
Except you, CPProfane, the infantile bully!!!
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 10, 2009 11:05 AM
I never, ever, ever understand this rebuke. The people who level it are implying that you don't have the right to discuss your experience in a way that discomfits them. (ON YOUR OWN BLOG.) They are also illogically claiming that nothing constructive can arise from a non-diplomatic discussion of an event or an interaction. It's arrogant. It's self-unaware. And it makes me angry.
Player-hating is a fact of life. So are journalists who hate bloggers because they don't have jobs anymore.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | May 10, 2009 8:48 PM
Dr. Isis, you need to think faster on your feet when talking to media. The correct answer to this endowed-chair producer's question was:
"No problem. My real name is Janet Stemwedel."
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/04/outing_pseudonymous_bloggers.php
Posted by: Lab Lemming | May 11, 2009 7:14 AM
Lab Lemming- +eleventy
"I'm pretty sure Becca is people"
Well, I sure think I'm people. But I also think I'm a lizard. Those with staunch anti-AR positions may debate whether these are compatible.
Posted by: becca | May 11, 2009 7:47 PM
d00d, what the fuck is wrong with you, Laden? Are you that pathological that you keep coming back here?
Or maybe you're feeling the pressure to be as hot as Isis?
Posted by: Funky Fresh | May 12, 2009 12:13 PM