…and this is a 
That would be tough. She's written a diatribe in the NY Times on the Pepsico debacle, and it isn't just that she doesn't like many of the scienceblogs (including yours truly), but that she gets the facts wrong.
This was just bizarre.
I was nonplussed by the high dudgeon of the so-called SciBlings. The bloggers evidently write often enough for ad-free academic journals that they still fume about adjacencies, advertorial and infomercials. Most writers for "legacy" media like newspapers, magazines and TV see brush fires over business-editorial crossings as an occupational hazard. They don't quit anytime there's an ad that looks so much like an article it has to be marked "this is an advertisement."
Errm, many of the early departures in the wake of Pepsico were science journalist/bloggers — and the impression I got was that they were more concerned about the ethics of advertorials than the pure science bloggers. And the problem with the Pepsico blog was that it was an ad that looked much like an article but wasn't marked "this is an advertisement".
There is much in her rant that is clearly outrage that some of us (uh, yours truly again) have no sympathy for religious excuses, or indulge in "religion-baiting" as she calls it, but I'll pass over that — atheist-haters are dime-a-dozen, and it's not even particularly notable. But this final bit is absurd and discredits her completely: she lists some blogs she favors for her version of 'science'.
For science that's accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts's blog, Watts Up With That?
The first two are fine, but seriously: the pretentious weatherman who jiggers the evidence and makes up stuff about climate to deny the facts? If only she would have also mentioned a creationist blog or two, it would have made my day.
Skip Heffernan's ignorant noise. David Dobbs has a more judicious reply.
Comments
Posted by: Jason G. Goldman
|
July 30, 2010 8:57 PM
Additional responses from Bora, , Zen Faulkes and myself
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 30, 2010 8:59 PM
*giggle*
The choice of words is somewhat revealing.
Who's the Bill'O of Scienceblogs, I wonder ?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
July 30, 2010 9:08 PM
A dime a dozen for atheist haters? Surely you overvalue their stock!
As for scientific american dot com for science - hahaha! I dumped SciAm shortly after Martin Gardner's regular contributions ended. I wouldn't go to atheist blogs for science either - presumably such blogs would be about godlessness and not necessarily science. There do seem to be quite a few godless scientists with blogs worth reading though and the godlessness blogs often bring up scientific topics (after all science is so much more interesting than that religion crap) but still, blogs are not a primary source of information on scientific topics; suggesting otherwise would be akin to suggesting that Scully of X-Files fame was acting realistically when she did all her 'research' using google and whatever web page happened to come up. Yeah, because everyone knows everything on the internet must be true.
Posted by: raven
|
July 30, 2010 9:27 PM
Well, I'll toss in 7 pennies then.
She is just using the PepsiCo event as an excuse to lie about Sciblogs. Another liar for jesus. If their god man existed, why do they keep lying and lying like a demented Energizer bunny?
One of the best pieces of evidence that jesus was just a person at best is....Xians. Really, the religion these days brings out the worst traits in humankind.
Yep. Heffernan is also a routine, garden variety hater for jesus as well and I'm sure her list of hates is as long as any of them and just as boringly routine. Got to wonder about a religion where people have to check in to Mind Control Central and find out who is on top of the To Hate list today.
They hate atheists. They also hate Pagans. A lot. I get a Pagan newsletter from time to time. They all have names like Gandalf Greywolf or Teri no-last-name. They do this because they are afraid of being persecuted. Apparently getting kicked out of a rental, being fired, or having bullets fired your way by xians is common enough to worry about.
Posted by: subbie
|
July 30, 2010 9:43 PM
Infomercials?
Advertorials?
I hate what marketing dweebs have done to the English language.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 30, 2010 9:46 PM
Read the article. I can't believe it actually made it to The New York Times Magazine.
Such deception from scienceblogs.com *eye roll*.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 30, 2010 10:27 PM
Gee, PZ, I don't think Heffernan likes you very much, possibly because you don't kneel in church often enough to suit her.
Posted by: greymav
|
July 30, 2010 10:29 PM
In all honesty, advertisements that pretend to be legitimate articles should be banned.
So should advertisements that make invalid statements of fact (I'm looking at you, penis-enlargement ads!)
Posted by: gould1865
|
July 30, 2010 10:29 PM
I haven't been convinced that Pepsigate is any ethical crisis. The closest I came to being convinced was by Janet D. Stemwedel. Still, not convinced. Pepsi should be required to post who and what they are and about. It seems to me that if a blogger is worried about them, he/she would want them here, where he/she could keep an eye on them, and refute them right and left if necessary, or "smite them hip and thigh." That could be very good. I think I remember that Pepsi was a leader in withdrawing funds and support from South African banks because of apartheid. So somewhere, someone at Pepsi does not just talk, they also listen.
Bora's talus scree was amazing. I started it but did not finish it so am limited in my comment. For his family's sake, I hope his wife does not have him pick out the groceries, as he would not get home till the middle of the night. On a serious note, he considers blogging and the replies as if done in his living room. I don't know why he does but he said it more than once.
There were other good and judicious posts about Pepsigate including Jason Rosenhouse's.
I would like to say the readers don't care one way or the other, because I myself don't. However, some readers surprise me.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 30, 2010 10:41 PM
Then most of us differ with you on that point. It was an ethical crisis. That doesn't make you right.But we do. A good chunk of us understand scientific ethics, which having a PepsiCo blog run their PR department has none of. Others, like yourself, apparently don't.Posted by: casey.oneill.is
|
July 30, 2010 10:42 PM
So-called "SciBlings"?
Is that anything like "self-proclaimed anarchists"?
Posted by: James F
|
July 30, 2010 10:43 PM
Well, she was able to work "nonplussed" and "high dudgeon" into the same sentence.
Posted by: Rider1
|
July 30, 2010 10:48 PM
Off Topic!!!!
Just received this via email (it's funny what happens when you sign up for some things)
complete the American Morality survey and prove to Congress that Americans oppose homosexual marriage and the Gay Bill of Special Rights today.
http://www.traditionalvalues.us/morality.aspx?pid=th3
It's a link from Townhall Spotlight
Posted by: Kevpod
|
July 30, 2010 11:06 PM
I'll audit the petty stuff: Heffernan got her punctuation correct – periods inside quotes. PZ obstinately refuses to punctuate correctly, something akin on a low level to refusing to assimilate factual information.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 30, 2010 11:08 PM
#13
The way they worded those questions makes me want to violently assault them.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 30, 2010 11:15 PM
Dear lord Kevpod, are you still going on about the punctuaions in quotes? You've been complaining about this for over a year now.
Posted by: Volant Proboscidian
|
July 30, 2010 11:15 PM
Shplane @ 15, agreed. Those questions are on par with "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" as textbook examples of loaded language.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 30, 2010 11:29 PM
Kevpod @ 14
The rest of the anglophone world thanks PZ for his sensible punctuation and rejects both your low level refusal to let the matter drop and your high level obsession with the location of quotation marks.
Why, yes, I do speak for all non-US anglophones. Well, as much as Kevpod speaks for anyone beyond himself.
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
July 30, 2010 11:32 PM
She seemed like an idiot, but one of her observations made me think. She commented that there's a lot more culture in the science blogs these days: "Clearly I’ve been out of some loop for too long, but does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the “skeptical community” go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers?"
Maybe it's just a matter of my age and when I came into my political awareness (post 9/11), but I think I frequent these sites because of my reaction to an American culture which favors the idiot which came to primacy under Bush. Seeking comfort among people of a similar background is part of what lead me to Richard Dawkins website and then to Pharyngula. Prior to 9/11 and the Bush Presidency, I guess I just felt the country worked "well enough" that I didn't worry about it longer than to mark a ballot come election time. Even when Bush was declared the winner, I figured, "how much damage can one idiot do in 4 years?" I certainly didn't expect him to be reelected. When he was, I realized that it wasn't just the idiot in the White House, but the millions who put him there. That's what turned me into an Activist Atheist.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 30, 2010 11:42 PM
Dear Virginia:
There is something called academic literature. It is there to teach you scientific terms, current science, and to generally be the state of science as is occurring today. Among these are review papers which will better synthesize the current research on a given topic of your choice (these often have fewer authors and longer page lengths).
There are also several universities whose professors put up the reading and lecture notes online so one can feasibly follow along for free, or you can enroll yourself in a community college course on subjects of interest, they are often quite affordable and can be arranged around your own schedule.
While science bloggers will often write about science, including the scientific ethics of having a corporation's PR Department Blog treated as actual science-based blogging, they will often write about various topics around that including personal stuff, just like every other blog.
Certainly the demonic Pharyngula with its twitching horns and the blood of freshly slaughtered fetuses often goes into the science of why various godbots, you included, are wrong about things, as well as breaking down interesting peer-reviewed academic papers for lay people. Many of the other sciblogs are the same way.
But if you are looking for a substitute for either the current research or an introductory textbook on subjects you find interesting, I would kindly submit you check your local university's library before you make yourself look like an ignorant jackass who has no business writing for anything calling itself "New York Times".
Sincerely,
Someone who knows what the fuck she is talking about unlike you
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 30, 2010 11:45 PM
And yeah, the various wingnut dog whistles and the pimping of an infamous climate denialist blog as "scientific", pretty much encapsulates exactly how much she values science and science blogging.
Yeah, definitely just an ax to grind and is just using this opportunity to the best of her very very limited abilities to think her way out of a wet paper sack.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 31, 2010 12:09 AM
oh noes, the peak-oil crowd! how dare they even mention that oil is a non-renewable resource! dirty, anti-capitalist bastards.
Posted by: VAiora
|
July 31, 2010 12:17 AM
I wonder if they even know what they are saying. I thought you could not lie or make false information because your god will punish you.
It sucks that we have to point these things out to remind them they are doing it. However, attacking personal lives or what we do with things like ads, doesn't make us liars. Just because of that, don't listen to them, they have flaws is what creationists always wanna bring up. However when we bring up articles that show killings, murders, body mutilations, it's a blind eye because of faith, and they try to defend the cause.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
July 31, 2010 1:04 AM
Kevpod,
Here in the U.S., many of us who learned English grammar at least 30 or 40 years ago learned it properly despite being American.
In British (proper) English, punctuation which is not part of the original quote goes outside the quote marks. Which, let's face it, makes more sense.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 31, 2010 1:08 AM
why do you hate America? don't you know it's a scientifically proven fact that periods go inside quotes, and that refusing to do so is "something akin on a low level to refusing to assimilate factual information"?Posted by: tonysidaway
|
July 31, 2010 1:39 AM
This bio in Wikipedia doesn't exactly speak of Hefferman's knowledge of science. She's apparently a journalist best known for TV criticism, and the writer of that article also saw fit to write about one of her blunders in political reporting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Heffernan
Posted by: bassmanpete
|
July 31, 2010 1:46 AM
On the night of 4th/5th November 1980, while the US was electing Ronald Reagan for the first time, a programme called "The All American All Night Show" was shown on a commercial channel in the UK. It showed lots of (American) people doing stupid & bizarre things mostly, iirc, on quiz shows. One that stuck in my mind was management type men with their wives & secretaries. The women were being totally bitchy to each other and the husband/boss was being completely humiliated.
Anyway, after each segment the programme presenter would announce "Remember folks, all these people are entitled to vote tonight!" Some of the same people would still have been around for the two elections that returned Bush junior.
Note that the exclamation mark goes inside the quotes only because it was part of the original sentence. Just getting my little dig in at Kevpod.
Posted by: bulletproofcourier
|
July 31, 2010 4:17 AM
Off topic but I saw PZ's lecture in Vancouver BC tonight, it was great: My review part 1: http://bit.ly/9ZpfXn
Posted by: Aquaria
|
July 31, 2010 5:44 AM
In British (proper) English, punctuation which is not part of the original quote goes outside the quote marks. Which, let's face it, makes more sense.
In the 70s, in America, I learned to put the punctuation outside the quote in elementary school, and that rule held at five more schools I attended for jr. high and high school. I didn't have to change that until I used a fancy word processing program in the 90s, and that usage lit up in the grammar check.
I still do it if I'm not paying attention. It's very hard to break a habit of 20 years.
Posted by: SheepdogB
|
July 31, 2010 6:05 AM
Hello, I'm new here. I'll get to the Heffernan thing momentarily, but first I wanted to introduce myself and say that after occasionally checking out Paryngula I went on a dig through the last three months worth of postings and, realizing I had bookmarked nearly half of them for future reference, decided that I'd stick around. It's that good.
The Heffernan article is drivel. I can't really express it any better.
Oh, one more thing
To Cerberus:
I would like to compliment you because one of the things that attracted me here was the immense pleasure I derived from reading your comments. All the posts are great but yours stood out with an eloquence and intelligence that had me entranced. I don't mean to embarrass you but I must say I am impressed.
Posted by: blf
|
July 31, 2010 6:26 AM
When I handwrite, I put the punctuation under the quote. That way both sides can read it “correctly.”.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
July 31, 2010 7:05 AM
I knew there was I reason I spend a whole bunch of time reading scienceblogs, and no time whatsoever paying any real regard to "legacy" media.
Perhaps if "legacy" media hadn't utterly sold out it wouldn't be the abject joke that it is.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 31, 2010 7:35 AM
Ms Hefernan begins with the unstated assumption and incorrect premise that science bloggers are all in high socio-economic strata. She further assumes that the religious are all in lower socio-economic strata. This is demonstrably false. She then claims that criticism of religious belief and religion is the same thing as bigotry. No, bigotry is an unfounded worldview. Our criticism of religious ideas and institutions is amply supported with facts. So, not bigotry.
Massive journalism and logic fail.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 31, 2010 7:55 AM
Heffernan responds here:
http://www.neuronculture.com/http:/www.neuronculture.com/archives/for-virginia-hefferman-readers-some-contexst-on-the-scienceblogs-pepsi-fizz#comment-1859
Nearly starts right off with:
"Did no one quietly resign over PZ Myers’s Mohammad cartoons?"
I really can't think of any response to that kind of thinking that wouldn't just sound insulting. Bleh.
Posted by: valis667
|
July 31, 2010 9:37 AM
Scientificamerican? That's a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
July 31, 2010 9:52 AM
Interesting - I must have tripped an auto-censor - my morning comment lost. The HuffPo "science and religion" censor programmers moonlighting :-) ?
Posted by: johnnykaje
|
July 31, 2010 10:00 AM
So now she's claiming she didn't know Watts was a denialist, and just linked to him because his presentation was "detail-oriented" and "beautiful".
I don't know which is more embarrasing. I'd rather have admitted to be a denialist then admit that I just skim blogposts and have the chutzpah to tell others how to blog.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 31, 2010 10:48 AM
If you don't think there should be a clear and unambiguous delineation between those who are paid to have their content appear here and those who would PAY to have their content appear here, then you just don't fucking get it.
Posted by: hillaryrettig
|
July 31, 2010 11:21 AM
this is a prime example of why I've decided to stop subscribing to the NY Times, WSJ (Murdoch, yech) and even NPR and giving my money instead to bloggers and organizations such as MediaMatters.org. (Also Democracy Now!) The traditional media are fundamentally flawed, when they're not outright corrupt, and a fundamental contributor to the world's problems. Sooner we get rid of them the better. // When the world of micropayments arrives and I can "tip" Frank Rich and Paul Krugman and maybe a few others without supporting the rest of the mediocrities and incompetents and corrupteds I'll be happy.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 31, 2010 11:37 AM
Bora suggests writing a letter to the editor.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
July 31, 2010 11:55 AM
Newspaper journalist sure as hell do object to ads designed to look like news stories. That's why all reputable papers print the word "advertisement" above them.
And even that is a compromise with the advertising department. Most of us would rather not run them at all.
I don't personally know any journalist who actually resigned over one, but it's bound to have happened. You should hear the outrage in the typical newsroom when we're forced to run those things. But we know who signs our paychecks.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
July 31, 2010 12:20 PM
This reminds me of how I came upon what we in education call "The teachable moment" with a man I worked with many years ago. He was a lab tech in an animal testing facility where we worked. He took umbrage with an ill-informed newspaper article about the sort of work the lab did. He pointed out all the egregious errors of fact and overall "wrongness" of the piece. Then I said something to the effect that he knew how wrong the article was because the journalist happened to be writing about a topic on which he was well-informed and an expert. How do you know it's not all that inaccurate when the articles are about something in which you do not have the same in-depth knowledge? I definitely saw the light go on in the look on his face.
Most journalists, if they have advanced degrees at all, have a degree in journalism. A journalist becomes an "expert" in a field by writing articles about it. They never passed comps nor performed a literature search and most would not know what I'm talking about in this sentence.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
July 31, 2010 12:30 PM
On the topic of ignorant journalist horror stories, here's my favorite:
Talking to a classmate in a Russian class I discovered that he had returned from the Soviet Union (this was a long time ago) having worked there as a foreign correspondent. I found myself explaining to him some of the basics of the Soviet government (e.g.: the difference between the Politburo and the Council of Ministers. He had no idea. This is like a Washington correspondent not knowing the difference between the Republican party and the Cabinet. He explained to me that most news organizations do not like to hire journalists with advanced degrees in the topics they cover because then they have to pay them more.
In all fairness, I should mention that CBS news did hire Jonathan Sanders, a Ph.D. in Russian History, as a foreign correspondent covering Soviet matters for some years. Therefore, this practice of avoiding hiring someone who has verifiable expertise is not universal. Also, in fairness, I should mention that this all took place in the 1980s. I wonder how much has changed.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 31, 2010 12:34 PM
Virginia Heffernan writes
Ok, so let me get this straight... she goes to all this trouble to portray this place as a sewer full of bigotry, but what she is really upset about is the title of the site?!
Virginia, do yourself a favor, just pretend its called "Scientist blogs". Then maybe the fact that it isn't a carbon copy of the most recent issue of Nature won't bother you so much.
Hmm... Class war is it? What classes are we talking about here, the educated, and the ignorant? Because if those are the classes involved and words are the bullets, then I think the real problem is that you don't have any actual iniquities to point to on the part of scienceblogs. In such a case it's usually not a good idea to make stuff up to justify your outrage, as this approach is transparent, and makes you look hysterical and intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: pasadena beggar
|
July 31, 2010 2:24 PM
Could someone point me to the place on Ms. Heffernan's article page where one goes to write a comment?
I've looked the page over carefully at least twice and simply can't find it. Of course, I'm hopeless at that sort of thing.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
July 31, 2010 3:15 PM
@42: My communications degree is from Bethany College, 1976, and I sure as hell did have to pass comps. I passed with distinction.
Furthermore, even though it was just a BA, I had to write a senior paper, a sort of pared-down thesis.
Don't make sweeping assumptions when you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 31, 2010 9:11 PM
At least she spelt your name right.
Is that evidence that there was actually an editor on that piece?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 31, 2010 9:16 PM
johnlil @46: "the guilty flee where no man pursueth".
Posted by: Anna Haynes
|
August 1, 2010 11:14 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/books/l-another-semi-thin-man-406023.html
"To the Editor:
I would like to correct some factual errors..."
Posted by: Anna Haynes
|
August 1, 2010 11:22 PM
One recommendation for Ms. Heffernan - the NewsU course Covering Climate Change (link), for journalists. It's free; and while it won't immunize you against antiscience characters, it will instill an understanding of the climate science basics that'll provide some protection.
We all make mistakes; it's what you do afterward that matters.
Posted by: Zernk
|
August 2, 2010 8:44 AM
#35
Well, it's owned by Germans, so it's ok.
Posted by: Orac
|
August 2, 2010 1:30 PM
The antivaxers are joining in the party, as well:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/the-new-york-times-exposes-scienceblogs.html
Posted by: Leon
|
August 2, 2010 3:59 PM
She came so close there, yet (in common with most creationists) she missed the entire point: Yes, it needed to be marked as an advertisement, and it wasn't.This whole thing with people making light of the Pepsi incident is a part of the whole dumbing down of America. Kids learn about the mechanics of democracy: voting, parties, etc. But nobody learns any more about the reasons for--and importance of--the fundamental rights, such as why freedom of speech is important on principle. ("That's right Jimmy, we do protect unpopular speech--because popular speech doesn't need protection.") People don't really "get it" any more.
And similarly, we've become so accustomed to blurring the lines between paid advertisement and specialist advice--between sponsored opinion and expert opinion--that a lot of people don't see the fundamental difference between the two. That's bad news for us all.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
August 3, 2010 12:08 PM
PZ Myers hits the spot. :)