…and this is a 
It's nice when we add another blog to the stable here at Scienceblogs — it means another human face added to the collection, another set of opinions to enjoy or destroy, yet more scientific minds committed to engaging in discussion with the culture. After all, that's what we're all about, putting a human personality to this weird enterprise of science. And as everyone on this blog is particularly aware, we encourage all kinds of diversions and digressions and transgressions, freely stomping on sacred cows and stuffed shirts because we can. Feels good, doesn't it?
So what's with the corporate drones moving in next door?
They aren't going to be doing any scienceblogging — this is straight-up commercial propaganda. You won't be seeing much criticism of Pepsico corporate policies, or the bad nutritional habits spread by cheap fast food, or even any behind-the-scenes stories about the lives of Pepsico employees that paints a picture of the place as anything less than Edenesque. Do you think any of the 'bloggers' will express any controversial opinions that might annoy any potential customers?
There won't be a scrap of honest opinion expressed over there that isn't filtered and vetted by cautious editors before making it online, and it will all toe the Pepsi line. It's going to be boring. It's going to blur the line between blog content and advertising. It's going to be bloodless dull blogging that will diminish the Scienceblogs brand.
So don't say hello to them at all — don't even bother to read them. If you want to know more about food science, check out Tomorrow's Table or Obesity Panacea (more of an exercise physiology blog than a nutrition blog, but they did recently post on sugar-sweetened beverages. Didn't like 'em.)
Oh, and I don't care what the Supreme Court said. Corporations aren't people. I read blogs written by sentient beings, not committees of shills.
Comments
Posted by: Marella
|
July 7, 2010 6:43 AM
I think sugar should be taxed, do you think they'd like to hear that?
Posted by: Brian English
|
July 7, 2010 6:57 AM
OK, is this irony or not? I'm drunk browsing again and can't tell.
#1, Marella, is that spanish in origin? I'm sure I visited a town called Marella in upper Valencia back in the day......
Posted by: Phodopus
|
July 7, 2010 7:02 AM
Ahm, do they have an unmoderated comments section? ;)
Posted by: Jud
|
July 7, 2010 7:03 AM
Dunno, there may be something to be said for reading the blog and leaving citations to real peer-reviewed research or other scientifically-informed opinions in the comments.
Posted by: Brian English
|
July 7, 2010 7:04 AM
Scratch that #1 it's Morella
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morella,_Spain
Posted by: rienk.doetjes
|
July 7, 2010 7:07 AM
You know, if you and only a handful off other key bloggers threaten to leave the scienceblogs fold, I guess the powers that be will quickly change the rules, afraid to loose add revenue.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 7, 2010 7:09 AM
Looking at the comments on their first post, there seem to be plenty of critical anti-PepsiCo comments. Although comments are moderated, it doesn't seem that they're using moderation to silence criticism.
Like I said on the open thread, I don't really see what the big deal is. Sure, we can't really expect this blog to be unbiased. But they're at least being honest and upfront about the fact that the blog is run by PepsiCo. And, as large corporations go, Pepsi don't seem to be particularly bad: IIRC they were boycotted by the right-wing "American Family Association" because of PepsiCo's support of LGBT rights.
I'd say give them a chance. Obviously, anything they say about nutrition has to be taken with a pinch of salt. But threatening to boycott ScienceBlogs (as some people are doing) seems to me to be a huge overreaction.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 7, 2010 7:11 AM
I don't understand what is in it for ScienceBlogs. It is a serious threat to the credibility of every blog here.
Seriously, we're meant to believe that PepsiCo are at the forefront of world health and nutrition research and policy making? (Or at least, we're meant to believe that it is so in a positive sense? I can believe that they very heavily influence policy making when it comes to food labelling and advertising, for instance.)
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 7, 2010 7:11 AM
Also, if Pepsi are paying for this, hopefully ScienceBlogs will finally be able to afford to do something about its terrible interface and commenting system. Everyone here has been complaining about it loudly for a matter of years.
Posted by: Enzyme
|
July 7, 2010 7:13 AM
I have to admit, I've just added it to my RSS. I want to enjoy the spectacle of posts being killed by angry nerds.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 7, 2010 7:21 AM
Every blog is biased - the entire content is editorial, one way or another.
Most blogs are run by individuals or small collectives, rather than PR departments. PepsiCo already have global outreach via what are transparently advertising streams.
However, they also have a rather insidious approach to marketing in schools, which blurs the line between nutritional education and commercial activity.
Their presence on a science blogging network simply serves to muddy the distinction between PR and evidence-based policy making. PepsiCo was one of companies resisting hte introduction of "traffic light" labelling of foods, instead pushing the complex and bewildering "%GDA" system.
I think that there is every reason to think that their research output will reflect a large measure of self interest. It isn't pure science.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 7, 2010 7:44 AM
My guess is it starts with a Cha and ends with a Ching
Posted by: Jeeves
|
July 7, 2010 7:46 AM
Stop all the blogs, cut off the twitterfeed,
Quieten the comments with some droll screed,
Silence the trolls and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.
Let computers folding whirring away in the shed,
Spread online the message ScienceBlogs Is Dead,
Put crêpe bows round the white necks of lab goats,
Let the technicians wear black lab coats.
It was my North, my South, my East and West,
My shirking week and Sunday rest,
My retort, my flask, my burner, my bung;
I thought that it would last forever: I was wrong.
The neural net is not wanted now: delete every hub;
Pack up the journals and cancel the sub;
Pour away the solvents in the special drain;
It's very likely people here won't remain.
....
Right, hook WH Auden's coffin up to a dynamo and we can run a server farm of our own.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 7:47 AM
Don't jump to conclusions. Maybe they will be posting an analysis of all the health benefits their products provide. All scientific-like. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 7, 2010 7:47 AM
And they are now moderating comments
Here was mine
"And Science blogs dons their Fonziesque faux leather jacket, grabs hold of the corporate ski rope and jumps the shark."
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
July 7, 2010 7:57 AM
Take it from someone in journalism who has worked for both reputable news organizations and shameless bought-out whores (I was once required to write a feature article about brake pads -- in a ski magazine -- after the publisher traded publicity for an emergency brake job):
A few years from now, we'll be able to point to this as the moment ScienceBlogs sold out and everything changed.
Outside critics, for instance, will now be able to cast doubt on everything done here by saying "Oh, that's from ScienceBlogs -- everybody knows they're a corporate-supported shill."
Also, I guarantee every insider at ScienceBlogs has begun to add "What will PepsiCo think of this?" to their thoughts about daily operations.
The camel's nose is in the tent.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 7, 2010 8:02 AM
Great pun, but was it intended ??
:P
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 7, 2010 8:02 AM
Oh! You cynic, you!
Posted by: Coryat
|
July 7, 2010 8:03 AM
Jeeves:
That was fucking brilliant, nice work.
This is awful. I've always trusted scienceblogs as reliable, but this will probably be a wedge strategy. What can we look forward to from them? 'How to make a nutritionally rich pepsi-mentos fountain'?
GRRR.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 7, 2010 8:03 AM
Given that Pepsico seems to be permanently (for now) plastered across the top and sidebar ad space, I have to wonder exactly how much money is involved here. It seems like an awful lot.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 8:05 AM
SciCo.
Posted by: dfpinto
|
July 7, 2010 8:06 AM
After a bunch of statements based on one blog post, all which are entirely just wild speculation and conjecture, I like that your solution is:
Frankly, that's bullshit. Read the blog. Read the comments. Call them out if and when they're wrong.
So far as I can see, only a small handful of comments at the blog show an open-minded skepticism, the kind that should be applauded. The rest, just like this blog, show a complete unwillingness to even listen and a close-minded pre-judgement.
Way to go guys. Stay close-minded and you'll give the religious a run for their money.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 7, 2010 8:06 AM
One now has to wonder when Ted McGinley will be starting a blog on ScienceBlogs.
Posted by: LuoAnLai
|
July 7, 2010 8:10 AM
This will end badly.
Some idiot at Pepsico and some idiot at their super trendy social networking digital brand consultancy dreamed this up in some sugar fuelled brainstorming session thinging that it would be a good thing to 'connect' with 'e-fluencers'.
What's the science equivalent of 'greenwashing'? That's what they're trying to do and it harms Scienceblogs and Pepsico together.
The best outcome is that the torrent of abuse that cascades over both parties is sufficient for them to quickly and quietly shut the whole thing down.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 8:11 AM
Fuckin' A, Rev! Ted McGinley is intelligent, insightful, and, in his spare time, has been a leading theoretical physicist for decades. What's with the hatin'?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 7, 2010 8:11 AM
dfpinto, you're missing the point. ScienceBlogs has built a reputable stable of blogs because they carefully vetted each blogger as an expert in their field and who had already put up a substantial and interesting blog history. Every blog here got here by merit, and although some have since made missteps that make their inclusion seem like a very bad move, for the most part I at least feel I can trust that if a new scienceblog goes up, it's worthy of a look. But PepsiCo just bought their way in. They weren't content to be a sponsor and have adspace, they want to be insinuated within the blog network to look just like any other blog. And ScienceBlogs let them. As Chris Clarke posted on GrrlScientist, even USA Today clearly marks paid advertising space. Blurring that line is a really dangerous precedent, no matter how it's handled.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 7, 2010 8:11 AM
I think you've missed the point here.
I don't visit SB to read paid content by companies, I'm here for a few independent bloggers, who can speak their mind and post what they post because of their independence.
It is my decision as a customer of SB, as it might be PZs, not to spend my time reading paid content from a food company.
Btw, at this point, it is not clearly labelled as such.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 7, 2010 8:12 AM
no Walton; EVERYthing on that blog will have to be taken as the "viral advertising" that it is, rendering the content worthless, even if it happens to be true (because you won't be able to know whether it is). As such, it's a worthless blog, and does damage to the trustworthiness of SB in general oh yeah, a fuckton i bet...Posted by: LuoAnLai
|
July 7, 2010 8:12 AM
Apologies...
thinking, not thinging.
Too angry to spell check.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 7, 2010 8:15 AM
I'll take overreaching shitty analogies for 1000 Alex.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 7, 2010 8:18 AM
I've checked several other scienceblogs and although many have the pepsico ads, not all do (every post I've checked on Pharyngula does, even after refreshing my browser). Could it be a perverse instance of writing the name of P****Co in the blog itself causes the ads to appear?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 7, 2010 8:19 AM
Not hatin' on him, just that he has the reputation and history of showing up on popular sitcoms right about the time they start the flush spiral.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 8:23 AM
Maybe ScienceBlogs* can have a baby?
*SciCoTM
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
July 7, 2010 8:24 AM
It's also a sign that somewhere in the hidden bowels of ScienceBlogs are some number of ignorant asses who think this doesn't matter, that any protests will be light and short-lived, and that people will get used to it. Plus, there's all that money.
The more I think about it, my true feelings are that the fucking corporations have won again, taking over something that has been of real benefit and turning it into another fucking McDonald's.
.....................
Here's Daniel Pellegrom, speaking in the comments:
Hi, Daniel! Does that mean I won't be able to say FUCK PEPSI? (Or how about F**K PEPSI?)
How about "I don't like Pepsi", or "I think giving kids sugary drinks like Pepsi is the same thing as poisoning them"? Is that defamatory?
And what does "profane" cover? Does that mean I won't be able to say anything about how much I think the Catholic Church is a bunch of child molesting bastards? That Jesus is a complete fiction? That I think Islam is the worst thing to happen to civilization since the Inquisition? During next year's Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, will I be able to post "Hey, everybody, here's a link to my picture of Mohammad on a pig's butt!"?
And how many times can I post what you consider to be defamatory or profane comments before you ban me forever?
And -- come to think of it -- how long will it be before getting permanently banned from your site becomes a treasured badge of glory for commenters who think you're a bunch of corporate creeps who have no place on ScienceBlogs?
(I hope some blogger will start a list, so we'll be able to keep up with who's gotten permanently banned. I plan to be one of them.)
Posted by: interliminal
|
July 7, 2010 8:28 AM
Lordy, lordy, is there some crazy coded business-buzzword-crap on that site already. Let me do some translation:
As part of this financial arrangement we'll hear from a wide range of company shills on how the company is using REAL SCIENCE! Guys? You nerds like science, right? Anyway, we're using it to do things like replace all the nutrients in your food with taste-a-likes, stuff that's cheaper for us to buy, and stuff that gives you cravings at 2AM. Also, did we mention we're offering it? We're so nice like that. Innovations! Like that iPhone! And flat-screen TVs! You nerds like innovations, right? Ignore that crap about our "portfolio", unless you buy stocks PEP 61.64. Anyway, ya'lls like the environment right? I heard you scientists were liberals. We'll throw some packaging designs at you with leaves and shit on them to make you feel good, then not implement any of it unless it saves us money. We're totally credible! REAL SCIENCE, GUYS! We have some exciting things planned for this project, including some videos that discuss health issues without somehow mentioning at all what advertising has to do with it, or anything else that would force us to admit our partial responsibility for nutritional and health issues across the world. Instead we'll have a lot of animations of chemicals and DNA and shit and tell you all about how our new low-calorie beverages will somehow solve everybody's problems. As we like to say, money is driving the conversation unlike ever before -- and ScienceBlogs is happy to be at the center of this massive pile of dough.Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 8:31 AM
As a corporate flunky responsible for documentation, I can assure you Dan Pellegrom actually means he'll throw out any comment that could cause legal issues, including "damaging the brand." He has absolutely no choice as a public face of his corporation. His job is not one I'd touch with a ten-foot pole. I'd rather be an honest whore who can at least criticize the pimp when he's not looking. Dan's pimp is always looking.
I actually wondered if it wasn't clever to make a corporation enter a tough theater like ScienceBlogs. No-nonsense, no-quarter commenters here could hold them accountable. But since they're not being held accountable, piss on them. Even better, pour Mountain Dew over them.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 7, 2010 8:33 AM
Is any of that likely to be relevant to a blog about food and nutrition? :-/
It looks to me like they've allowed a fair number of critical comments through already.
FWIW, "defamatory" is a legal term, referring to the torts of libel and slander. Saying "FUCK PEPSI" or "I don't like Pepsi" is not defamation, it's just an expression of opinion. What constitutes defamation varies between jurisdictions, but criticising Pepsi is not the same as defaming it.
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 8:34 AM
Interliminal, you won the Internet a long time ago. Now you're just showing off. :D
Posted by: interliminal
|
July 7, 2010 8:35 AM
Same thing.
Wait, was that too soon? Hello there, PepsiCo!
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 8:36 AM
Hank Fox@34-
This gets my dander up, worse than those damn kids on my lawn. If it comes to it, PZ has absolutely got to be SciCo's #1. I'd hate to do it, but his hits could go to near zero right quick. (Sorry PZ) I must put in nearly 40 a day, following multiple threads. Maybe it's time for a new home; a migration, so to speak. Think of the power we have. Are my radical roots showing?
Madame Defarge, perhaps?
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
July 7, 2010 8:40 AM
Here's what you get when you comment there:
(emphasis mine).......................
Walton #37: "Is any of that likely to be relevant to a blog about food and nutrition?"
Walton, the point is: If someone like you is in charge, now someone's sitting there at the gateway judging what THEY consider to be relevant.
That would be unlike here at PZ's site, where the conversation can wander freely and far afield from the original content of the post, and sometimes reach interesting and fruitful new ground.
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 8:45 AM
Would ScienceBlogs object to the presence of another SB blog specifically designed to counter PepsiCo's propaganda blog? Now THAT would be honest and scientific discussion.
Posted by: "GrrlScientist"
|
July 7, 2010 8:46 AM
well. you didn't know about this, either, PZ. i had hoped you were had gotten a heads up, but were staying silent for some reason (teaching classes or chasing creationists out of your front yard, for example). alas, i was wrong.
it appears that SB has truly gotten lost from its original mission statement -- the one they used to woo us into their group so very long ago. i remember being incredibly suspicious at the time, spending a few weeks talking with you and several others who also were recruited, calling the SB office and talking with mims (several times) and even consulting a lawyer to find out how i might be screwed over if i joined the collective. in short, i thought i'd done everything right. i thought i was being careful of my readers. i thought this was my chance to make some lemonade from the lemons of my life. but, as with all businesses, seed media group has betrayed us all.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 7, 2010 8:50 AM
PZ, this isn’t the time for threats about leaving. It is the time to leave, for all the reasons everybody has already outlined above.
Don’t worry, the Hordes will follow you (mercilessly).
As for where to go? That would be the same place any other 800-pound gorilla would go — anywhere you want to. Any other rationalist site would welcome you with open arms, I’m sure. There’re probably some actual magazine-type publications who would pay you to keep doing exactly what you do now, only do it on their Web site. And, of course, there’s the University, who might even be happy to welcome all the rest of the soon-to-be-refugees here.
And let’s not forget USENET! I know it’ll never happen…but I’d still love to see sci.bio.pharyngula….
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 8:54 AM
I'm with GrrlScientist. I have also been wondering how this is going to affect the outspoken, take-no-prisoners freethinking nature of Pharyngula's content and comment threads. Because SB can't, as it's been said, serve two masters, pure science and corporate censoring.
I'm a diabetic, incidentally, who knows enough about sweetener technology to call out frauds in the food industry. I've convinced major health food websites to stop carrying sweetener products by showing that they can't do what they claim. I'm debating whether I should sanction the PepsiCo blog by participating, even with the intent of criticizing them, but I really just can't bring myself to at the moment.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 7, 2010 8:56 AM
Yep. Been getting nothin' else, last little while.
And y'know, a bit prior to this, when I started getting incredibly cheesy 'design your ideal woman' banners (complete w/ nice arrows pointing to various 'lovely lady lumps'*, presumably helpfully to suggest which parameters might easily be adjusted) at SB, I naively assumed this was the bottom of the barrel, and no one would find a way to get beneath it.
Silly me.
(*/Credit the Black Eyed Peas. Yeah... credit...)
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 8:58 AM
Last comment, and then back to work...
Ben is correct, PZ. Seed Media has shown clearly that they choose to follow the lead of other sorts of media by getting paid off by a corporation to provide a space for advertising posing as public health debate. They have laid down with the dogs. Do you want their fleas?
Posted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies
|
July 7, 2010 9:03 AM
When the editor of the blog is described as a member of the sustainability communications team at PepsiCo I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Particularly after having a look at the posts they put up at the blog while it was still on their own site. Boring corporate pap abounded.
While it is possible that the SB version could take a whole new direction and not be a PR mouthpiece, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 7, 2010 9:04 AM
so not true. piss can, in proper dilution, be used as fertilizer, while I wouldn't suggest watering anything with mountain dew (unless we're talking the monsanto test plots around here, hehe)Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 7, 2010 9:06 AM
... aaand in a serendipitous development, Pepsico discovers they have a real competitor for Roundup...
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 9:08 AM
Plus, I've seen Bear Grylls drink his own piss. Never seen him drink Mountain Dew.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 7, 2010 9:09 AM
Waiting for the British Petroleum SB blog about how well the Gulf clean is going.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 7, 2010 9:12 AM
There should be an "up" between "clean" and "is".
CHIMPY!!!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 7, 2010 9:12 AM
Of course it can. The Borg doesn't give a shit. The Borg is not an altruistic Johnny ScienceSeed (Media Group LLC), sowing rosepetals of unvarnished Science among the tubes of the Internetz for the Publicke Goode; it exists to make money. I find it fascinating that people ever thought of the Borg as anything other than another corporate moneymine. So they hit a rich vein of HFCS$$, big deal.
The Borg has been completely hands-off about Pharyngula's content as far as we know. No sign that will change.
Adblocker nukes the banners, and then the other way to avoid korporate advertising, even that posing disingenuously as content, is to not. click. there. *shrug*
I sincerely doubt that PZ's going anywhere.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 9:16 AM
Need....edit....function.... /James T. Kirk
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 9:17 AM
Sven, honestly, thought experiment here.
Do you think Crackergate would have turned out the same, or differently, if PepsiCo's deal with SeedMedia had been in place at the time?
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
July 7, 2010 9:22 AM
So far my FUCK PEPSI comment has not appeared over there.
I guess that's profane or defamatory.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 9:27 AM
I tried "Intercourse Pepsi." They sure know their key words.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 7, 2010 9:30 AM
Sven,
The Borg might not give a shit, but I think PZ does, I know I do, and it seems pretty obvious that much of the Horde does.
I’m guessing PZ has been doing this for free, for the love of it. If he’s getting paid, I’m sure it’s not a significant fraction of his assuredly-modest UM salary. While that’s a noble thing to do in the cause of sowing rosepetals of unvarnished Science among the tubes of the Internetz for the Publicke Goode, it is not a noble thing to do in the cause of giving the appearance of legitimacy to unabashed corporate whoring.
If I were in PZ’s shoes, I would not want to give any aid and comfort to an organization such as Seed Media which has just demonstrated that it doesn’t give even a half a fuck about pretending to support the open scientific process. More, I would be offended at the notion that I had been unwittingly coopted in an effort to subvert science — which, as we all know, is exactly what Pepsi and Seed Media is actively engaged in here.
Sure, adblockers nuke the banners for you. But that doesn’t stop the fact that PZ has, himself, been turned into the most perverted possible kind of advertisement for Pepsi.
Make no mistrake, that’s exactly why Pepsi just bought a blog here.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 7, 2010 9:33 AM
I spoke too soon. The Pepsico stuff is gone, this reload, and the 'Build your ideal woman' thing is back...
So it's an improvement, I guess. Sorta like that Catholic priest just being an embezzler and patron of gay escort services thing...
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 7, 2010 9:38 AM
Except that it is fundementally dishonest to pretend that it really has anything to do with science blogging.
Given that Seed claim that:
As per what I said on ERV:
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 7, 2010 9:43 AM
No, I get paid -- on a fixed scale determined by number of page views. And I get paid reasonably well, not enough to convince me to quit my day job, but on a professor's salary, still a darned good bonus. But what makes it very difficult to pull up roots is 10,000+ posts and 1 million+ comments. That's a big investment in the scienceblogs.com/pharyngula brand.
Seed has also been very, very good about avoiding any kind of meddling with blog content. There is zero pressure to conform, and no incentive to promote advertisers. We can trash PepsiCo all we want.
It would be very hard to convince me to pull up stakes here. But one thing that could do it is if it turned into a corporate slum, where I'm walled in with fake blogs peddling high fructose corn syrup.
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
July 7, 2010 9:50 AM
#1 pepsico could care less about a tax on sugar, they use HFCS
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 7, 2010 9:51 AM
So here's my comment on the Pepsico blog, held for moderation, of course.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 7, 2010 9:58 AM
Well, in that case, PZ, now just might be the time to quietly do some shopping around. “there are ways” of exporting the posting history, even without Seed’s cooperation.
Think of where you’d most want to be — I’m thinking of somewhere like the JREF — and give them the opportunity to turn you down.
Don’t give any thought to the “brand.” You are the brand; the trimmings are irrelevant. And, done right, there’s always lots of room for “New and improved! Now with 50% more squid porn!” marketing.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Flex
|
July 7, 2010 9:58 AM
It's not too surprising.
There seems to be a tendency in media organizations to be destroyed by their own success.
CNN is the prime example. At one point CNN only provided breaking news. There was little in the way of analysis or talking heads. It became wildly popular because what the customer really wants is the news, not someone's opinion of it.
CNN became so popular that producers and news presenters who were popular in other media outlets wanted to move there. CNN thought it was a good idea to get these popular people on their channel, it would, they thought, boost ratings.
Of course the opposite happened. Once the talking heads and 'experienced' producers started to get on CNN, they also started to tell CNN what a news channel should be. CNN stopped just giving people the news, it started providing commentary, shows with talking heads analyzing what was going on, etc.
And I, along with many other people, stopped watching. CNN no longer brings me the
When something is successful, it attracts people and companies who desire to share that success. The longer a successful group resists changing their strategy, more successful they become. Which leads to more and more money being offered by groups who want to share their success. Eventually the successful group can no longer resist the amount of money offered, gives in and sells out. Which then dilutes the very factors which led to it's success.
Posted by: jrsutter
|
July 7, 2010 10:00 AM
Pepsi tastes good. I hope this blog is just as delicious!
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
July 7, 2010 10:05 AM
You do realize that fructose and glucose (the components of HFCS) are both sugars?
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 7, 2010 10:06 AM
I prefer Diet Pepsi. I've only rarely drunk the full-sugar kind, and didn't like it much.
I typically buy supermarket own-brand diet colas, though, since they're cheaper than Pepsi and don't taste very different.
Posted by: Jeeves
|
July 7, 2010 10:10 AM
To you.
I can tell the difference, even blinded (I've tried).
Posted by: CW
|
July 7, 2010 10:12 AM
Don't forget Casaubon's Book. I'm surprised a PepsiCorp blog and a Sharon Astyk blog can exist on the same host without mutually annihilating.Shame on Seed.
Posted by: LuoAnLai
|
July 7, 2010 10:13 AM
I commented in a reasonable, sensible and only slightly derogatory way 3 hours ago.
My comment is still being moderated.
A perfect example of the inability of a corporation to operate in the Scienceblogs world. They can't tolerate unrestricted commentary and bizarrely the corporate edifice that is Pepsico can't even seem to devote as much time to moderating their blog as PZ manages single-handedly.
Massive, corporate, brainless, irritating, stoopid failfest.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 7, 2010 10:32 AM
I wish there was some way to express our serious displeasure with the PepsiCo thing, without hurting PZ. My suggestion is to stop viewing anything on Science Blogs for 3 days*. My guess is, however, that PepsiCo has a contract the SciCo can't get out of, regardless of any demonstration of which side their bread is buttered on.
PZ does really hold a lot of power. Both he and any potential host must know that we would follow this blog wherever it goes. If he choses to stay here, I would at least give it a shot. But I'm more with GrrlScientist@43 on this.
*To be determined.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 7, 2010 10:39 AM
Bah. Storm in a teacup. Don't like it? Don't read it. I can't see that - as long as the "hands off" policy PZ refers to is maintained -- this makes any difference at all.
It is not a serial stream like CNN. It's random access. There are so many blogs here that I don't even know exist. PepsiCo will be another one.
... but, I kind of like PepSciBlogs.... is has a certain ring... like I hear in my ears 24/7
JC
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 7, 2010 10:39 AM
This is actually somewhat amusing, if one finds amusement in watching idiots dance atop hornet nests. Or does Pepsico have yet to discover that not all earned media is good media?
Mr. M (a lawyer) reminded me that Justice Cardozo wrote that one has a right to breach a contract and pay damages.
Posted by: Shala
|
July 7, 2010 10:41 AM
I prefer Diet Pepsi.
You have just passed the Moral Event Horizon.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 7, 2010 10:57 AM
Speaking of sleazy SciBlogs ad-whoring, what's with these
sidebar hustles?
I don't know what the game is with those, but I smell a gigantic rat, and it bothers me that their target
audienceprey is the most vulnerable segment of families in our society.Compared to these guys, the Russian web-order bride operation was a paragon of taste and enlightened values.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 7, 2010 11:00 AM
"Speaking of sleazy SciBlogs ad-whoring, what's with these
Are you a Mommy?
Get Your $10,000!"
Are they offering to buy children?
Posted by: MoonShark
|
July 7, 2010 11:03 AM
Sony got a lot of flak for making a "blog" and pretending it was done by actual consumers who wanted a PSP for Xmas.
I'd hate to see SB make the same sort mistake. For now they're up front about supporting corporate shills, but how long will that last?
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
July 7, 2010 11:07 AM
What's funny is that I've been more or less ok with seeing where the idea goes but:
a) my comment didn't get posted on their blog. Ouch, assholes!
b) I don't drink soda, very rarely drink a diet soda and usually prefer small root beer companies or extra sharp ginger ale. I also don't eat junk foods, never touch doritos or fritos, and am basically a huge food snob. LOL! Pepsico would lose a lot of money trying to make foods to seduce a consumer like me :P
If I did drink a pepsi product it would be one of their more adventurous mirinda flavors that they prettymuch don't sell in the US anyway.
But now I don't trust that they'll post my comment.
So Imma shun them.
Posted by: Flex
|
July 7, 2010 11:10 AM
JackC wrote,
That is a good point.
I'll simply wait and watch. If SciBlogs goes to crap, there are plenty of other places to waste time at.
Posted by: tonysidaway
|
July 7, 2010 11:17 AM
I value your blog greatly but this step by Scienceblogs makes me want to avoid having anything to do with their blogs. I encourage all concerned Scienceblogs content producers to take up with Seed the way in which they have devalued their content by introducing this organisation.
At the very least the scienceblogs.com URL can no longer command the respect it did until recently, and it would obviously be in the long term interests of all Scienceblogs content producers to consider finding a new, more trustworthy home on the internet.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 7, 2010 11:19 AM
OH NO!! PZ is shooting his cyberpistol at pepsico's blog!! Now he's a fundamentalist communist terrorist!
Posted by: lindsayturtle
|
July 7, 2010 11:36 AM
This upsets me almost as much as that banner ad on the right hand side telling you to "Click on body parts to build your ideal woman"
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 7, 2010 11:36 AM
While the potential for blurring of advertising and content is real, dangerous, and likely, as long as the welcome post is the only post, I don't claim to know yet that the blurring is taking place. I will see how the next few posts turn out. In another thread I made a cursory comment comparing this to the Shell blog (Next Generation Energy), and I suspect the pepsico blog will turn out similarly, but shorter lived. The Shell blog began with known bloggers, with some diversity of views, and a no editing by the company policy. The pepsico blog has writers unknown to most readers of scienceblogs (but not unknown to google scholar), and a company PR man as editors. It had mostly good content (with the exception of one its bloggers, who was pretty shallow), and no clear sign of company editing or stealth company advertising that got past my normal adblock filters, but it only lasted 3 months.
I don't plan to boycott the pepsico blog (yet) but I do think a modest amount of boycotting is necessary in order to raise awareness and sustain skepticism. I'm glad to see there's a mix of people willing to give it a chance, and people willing to start objecting early.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
July 7, 2010 11:39 AM
At the risk of everyone hating me, I'm taking a different view of this.
1) Lots of science is done in the research divisions of major corporations. Some of those research sciences even blog. Indeed, a lot of science is done by people in MRU's who are typically paid by a small set of major corporations (like, for instance, most bio-medical/pharm/etc. research). There is not that stark a distinction between the new blog and that blogging. Or at least, there need not be. I'd rather wait and see how the new blog goes rather than fall on my sword because they might be icky, as many of my Sblings seem to be doing.
2) Is it really a good outcome that a half dozen or more excellent and important bloggers leave a powerful important network like scienceblogs.com because a big corporation came by and said "boo"? Sure, maybe we should all get up and quit Sb because they've become evil and all, but is the ham-handed poorly done (IMHO, no offense intended) rolling out of a new blog the reason for everyone to throw their arms in the air, commence with the rending of cloth, and fall on their swords?
3) Why was there virtually no reaction to a similar blog run by Shell? Why was there virtually no reaction to a similar blog run by GE? Are there differences between Collective Imagination Blog and this new blog that are important? If so, let's discuss that and maybe lobby for those differences. Mass exodus is not really a valid option.
Real people will be writing the new Food Frontiers blog. Actual scientists with their names (real names, I might add) who happen to work for a major corporation. (The research wing of a major corporation). What better place for them to be blogging than here, where we can interact positively with them, and at the same time keep an eye on this whole corporation thing?
Here's my latest post on the topic: http://tinyurl.com/2uz279o
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 7, 2010 11:40 AM
lindsayturtle | July 7, 2010 11:36 AM:
I do not understand how people can cope with internet content without adblock.
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 11:45 AM
Anywhere. Anywhere that does not lend them the appearance of scientific objectivity, which is something they cannot legitimately claim as a corporation accountable only to their shareholders and regulatory agencies.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 7, 2010 11:57 AM
Greg Laden | July 7, 2010 11:39 AM:
Go read the comments at that blog. Quite a lot of objections. And there were plenty of objections on other blogs. But please note some essential differences: One the bloggers Shell sponsored there was Joe Romm, who had (and still has) a long and vigorous record of anti-fossil fuel company articles, and many important global warming science and policy articles, at climateprogress.org . Joe Romm is also the author of The Hype About Hydrogen, one of the best books about hydrogen energy issues, and Hell and High Water, which in my view contained the best policy-oriented writing of any global warming related book at the time it was written. Another writer at the Shell sponsored blog was William Connolley, one of the founders of RealClimate (but arguably the least important RC blogger). The other bloggers were not as well known, but they did have existing good reputations at that time. Sheril Kirshenbaum did not then have most of the very negative reputation she has now (and outside of the affirmative atheist community, she mostly does not have a negative reputation today).
Most importantly, there is a huge difference between having a reputable blogger like Joe Romm state "I agreed to this since there was no editorial oversight by Shell. Actually, Royal Dutch/Shell used to be a very progressive company -- for an oil company that is -- but they have certainly backtracked a great deal with high oil prices.", and having a company PR man say "Hi everyone. I’m Daniel Pellegrom from PepsiCo, and I’m the editor of this blog."
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 7, 2010 12:06 PM
Greg Laden wrote:
This is a true statement, but it first must be observed that the days of corporations sponsoring pure research (such as the deservedly-famous Bell Labs of yore) are long gone.
And it next must be observed that all corporate research is tainted, in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that medical research done by cigarette manufacturers is tainted.
Pepsi manufactures some of the deadliest products on the planet that are marketed as something people should eat. I guarantee you that their “research” affirms the nutritive benefits of their substances to the exact same degree and in the exact same manner as research sponsored by the National Center for Homeopathy affirms the healing properties of water.
Make no mistrake, this new Pepsi blog is a fraud, pure and simple, through and through. It’s just that this call girl charges a thousand dollars an hour, instead of the $10 / blow job the corner crack whore wants, and she’s dressed accordingly. She has her standards, you know.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: The Otter God
|
July 7, 2010 12:07 PM
I find it cute that Greg Laden thinks that his opinion on this is what will make people hate him.
Memory fail.
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 12:17 PM
Sb administration response: http://scienceblogs.com/seed/2010/07/transparency_regarding_food_fr.php
Posted by: CW
|
July 7, 2010 12:20 PM
Great, more coffee spray stains on the monitor, just what I needed.Posted by: ronsullivan
|
July 7, 2010 12:22 PM
Ol' Greg, Walton, it isn't just soda pop. Check out their other corporate holdings if you want a good scare.
Am I alone in finding the corpspeak prose in that intro the least appetizing thing since cat vomit? Did I really see "food frontiers" up there somewhere? Come on, that's about stuff like Klingon Gaccch (sp?) and Surströmming and that crazy guy at the bar who eats martini glasses.
You don't put food in a portfolio!
"Food products" are human (animal) body bits and shit! Unless you want to count that little puddle of off-color strangely translucent fluid at the bottom of the gloriously fuzzy leftover what Whatwasthatanyway? that's been hiding behind the half-full prune-juice bottle in the back of the fridge for, hmm, must've been six months since we last saw that Tupperware.
Ugh, ugh ugh. Corporate evil aside, waste of perfectly good food and land and water aside, these spokespuppets should be beaten with sticks for what they do to the English language.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
July 7, 2010 12:25 PM
Llewelly 89: Good point, I had not seen those objections. Most of what I remember about the Shell blog was all the shit going on in the energy blogosphere spilling over onto it. There was no such reaction to the GE blog.
Posted by: Lotharloo
|
July 7, 2010 12:28 PM
@Stephen, Lord of the flies
Thanks for the link to PepsiCo's previous blog. It's fucking infuriating. Goddamn it. Seriously, fuck scienceblogs.
This is an example of their "science blogging":
PepsiCo is continuing to make healthier choices that taste great. Our research efforts are aimed at making consumers’ favorite products with healthier oils and lower salt, both key steps for reducing heart disease and keeping blood pressure in a healthy range.
Fuck scienceblogs ten milion times over and over.
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
July 7, 2010 12:32 PM
My comment on Greg Laden's blog:
"In the mean time, let's keep an eye on it and see what interesting things develop."
Yeah, and especially notice the crappy -- and inevitable -- side effects.
The sweet guy handling the blog is already censoring comments deemed, in his loving corporate opinion, to be "profane" or "defamatory."
I can say FUCK here. PZ can create Crackergate on Pharyngula.
By contrast, I'll bet you PepsiCo already has a policy in place for censoring comments, deleting comments, and permanently banning people who say things they don't want said there. It’s a no-brainer to say there will be no controversial content.
It won't end there. The financial pressure and corporate control will leak out from Food Frontiers and taint the rest of ScienceBlogs.
It will also drive a wedge between the commenting public. I'm already seeing comments -- yours among them -- asking the equivalent of "let's all keep an open mind and welcome this poor, downtrodden multi-billion dollar corporations into our midst."
They’ve found a way to use open-mindedness as a corporate weapon. And don’t think some bright young Karl Rove hasn’t brought up the point in exactly those terms.
I come here for the science, and the pro-science, pro-reason opinion, not the soda.
As to your comments about other bloggers, this is not some blogger partially funded by PepsiCo. THIS IS PepsiCo. This is PepsiCo advertising.
Jeezus, sometimes it seems that every frickin' flat surface in the world is covered with advertising from some goddam corporation. Certainly I long ago recognized that TV is really about advertising, and EVERYTHING else on there is the sweet bait to draw in the viewers.
This is not some accident. It's ... hell, it would be moronic to assume that it was anything BUT the end result of decades of deliberate effort by corporate advertisers.
I think you're wrong, Greg. You're not thinking this through.
What we’re witnessing is not some fluffy good-willed experiment, it's a shameless, cynical, heavily-bankrolled effort to take control of whatever piece of ScienceBlogs they can get, up to and including the entire damned thing, to deliver those readers into the hands of PepsiCo.
If enough people like you roll over to have their tummies rubbed, THEY'LL GET IT.
I comment on the ABC News site fairly often. About half the time, my comments get deleted, and I have never yet figured out just why. You can post a strong on-topic, profanity-free opinion about George Bush and have it vanish the same day, or never get posted. I’m assuming some reader flags it as “inappropriate” and ABC, just to be on the safe side, deletes it.
Ten years from now, ScienceBlogs will be a very different place from what it is now, a place exactly like ABC News. Critics will say it has “matured” – all the loud, random, argumentative content will be controlled by editors hired to shepherd the formerly-troublesome bloggers into safe corporate channels, and all the annoying commenters will be required to follow strict rules of staying on topic and using “polite” language.
The camel's nose is in the tent.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 7, 2010 12:49 PM
Yes, but is it a metric or Imperial fuckton?
Posted by: F
|
July 7, 2010 12:59 PM
Oh, how nice. Comments on the blog are held for moderation. of course.
Three words: Soccer Infiltration Program. All their marketing sounds sinister if you actually see the non-public marketing materials.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 7, 2010 1:05 PM
As far as I can see, in addition to their core soft drinks business, they own Frito-Lay (which makes Doritos, Walkers crisps and other snack foods), Quaker Oats, Tropicana fruit juice, and some other food and beverage brands. What's scary about that? :-/
Posted by: rident
|
July 7, 2010 1:19 PM
They would have been better off getting one of their chemists to come looking for a place to host his/her blog. Or even a couple of them. That would be something I'd probably read. Some posts about how they go about developing flavors, carbonation, preservation, experiences as a scientist for a large corporation; sounds like very interesting content indeed.
Instead we get the bull by the bell. Jangling around, making noise, but not really having much of interest for the populous.
Posted by: blf
|
July 7, 2010 1:34 PM
What sort of research (pure or applied) do the people at SugaredDHMOco do? And related, but not the same, what sort of patents do they own that resulted from their own R&D?
I have no idea what the answer to either question is.
Taking the two other examples of GE and Shell, I also have no idea about Shell, but I would be surprised if they didn't have a serious and genuine R&D effort. GE certainly does (whilst I admit to not knowing the specifics), and is, unless I'm getting my companies confused, well-known for insisting on a continuing program of innovations. I'm reasonably confident you can find papers by GE and Shell researchers in various journals.
But SugaredDHMOco?
They are known for a huge PR/advertising spend. I concur with others which think this SciBorg stunt absolutely reeks of not only of
marketingpropaganda, but only of that.And the SugaredDHMOco products I know of (none of which I use or like or even approve of) are neither necessary, food, or healthy. I seriously doubt I'm interested in the R&D behind un-necessary unhealthy junkfoods.
Suppose SugaredDHMOco makes something which is at least one of those (necessary, food, or healthy): Did it originate as a result of their R&D? In what journals has this research been published?
Posted by: tutone21
|
July 7, 2010 1:36 PM
I wonder if their blog will also be a major contributor to the rise in diabetes and obesity like their other products.
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
July 7, 2010 1:58 PM
Well, now. Think for yourself? Trying to eat healthier? Don't buy the latest trends? Pay attention to what crap food does to your health? Skeptical about the motivation and ability of large corporations to protect their end users? That makes you a very poor consumer of PepsiCo's major product lines. It occurs to me that ScienceBlogs has been (up till recently) one of the best go-to places to learn about critical thinking, science, medicine, and research ethics. These are all major threats to a corporation like PepsiCo.
If their propaganda blog stays, or if ScienceBlogs breaks up and fails to reform elsewhere, either way it plays right into PepsiCo's hands. Why bother to sue people for telling unwelcome truths about you when you can just become the sheriff and run them out of town?
Posted by: alistair.coleman
|
July 7, 2010 2:00 PM
#98
Just so you know:
1 Imperial Shedload = 0.03 Fucktonnes
Posted by: Escherichia coli
|
July 7, 2010 2:05 PM
Not likely to happen, but it would be really interesting if a major company like PepsiCo takes advice from a community of science-minded consumers. Sort of like open-source manufacturing.
Okay, I should stop dreaming now.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 7, 2010 2:07 PM
Greg Laden | July 7, 2010 12:25 PM:
I had completely forgotten such a blog existed, and Looking through the first two months of that blog's archives, I find approximately 29 out of 60 posts received 0 comments, so I don't think I'm alone in finding that blog unmemorable. And it's unmemorable despite having a cadre of bloggers with extant reputations (something Food Frontiers does not have).
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 7, 2010 2:13 PM
blf | July 7, 2010 1:34 PM:
Good question. I didn't check closely, but all 3 of the names of the writers (but not the editor's name) turn up hits on google scholar. Hopefully someone with more motivation than me will follow up.
Posted by: Hodor
|
July 7, 2010 2:15 PM
"PepsiCo was one of companies resisting hte introduction of "traffic light" labelling of foods, instead pushing the complex and bewildering "%GDA" system."
To be fair, the "traffic light" system is somewhat flawed, and would actually work in PepsiCo's favor at times.
At 40-50 calories, fresh fruit juices would receive the same red light as a sugary softdrink, while Pepsi Light (at close to zero calories) would get the coveted green light.
Posted by: Craig
|
July 7, 2010 2:35 PM
One wonders how much the ScienceBlogs admins are getting paid to let Pepsi advertise here write a totally impartial and scientifically accurate, substantive and censorship free blog.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 7, 2010 3:22 PM
AJ Milne, OM
You don't get to hate that song until you've heard the Alanis Morisette version. Seriously.Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 7, 2010 3:24 PM
Damn! Broken link!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRmYfVCH2UA
Posted by: landanimal
|
July 7, 2010 3:52 PM
That blog is going to be nothing more than a study in how science and data can be skewed. It won't be a science blog, it will be a science fiction one.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 7, 2010 4:42 PM
@Alstaircoleman: Whoops, forgot that. My bad; brain like a sieve.
Posted by: sendittodevnull
|
July 7, 2010 5:21 PM
WTF? Did anyone else just think of Wayne's World and Noah Vanderhoff? This can't end well. Here's hoping scienceblogs can get a whole bunch of money out of these douches then kick them off ... or that everyone else jumps ship en masse and leaves scienceblogs as nothing more than a forgotten withered arm of the pepsi cola marketing strategy. This is worse than pathetic.
Posted by: lynxreign
|
July 7, 2010 6:19 PM
Did anyone else get asked to take a Science Blogs survey not too long ago about "If Science Blogs was to go to a tiered system, what would you pay for"? Is this the result of not enough people saying they'd pay for premium content?
Also, are they paying Laden extra? Or is this his only source of income? He's been running around all day on every blog that's discussing this saying that he for one welcomes out new
ant overlordscorporatemasterssponsored blog and that everyone else is overreacting.Posted by: Tmax01
|
July 7, 2010 6:52 PM
No Free Speech For Corporations! They're sociopathic liars BY DESIGN. The humans doing the writing/blogging/shilling for them, they're just whores making an honest dollar. Their employer, the corporation, PepsiCo, cannot be "happy to be here", or sad, or angry, or anything else, ever. It is a (legal) figment, not a person, it has no morals, it can feel no shame, it cannot be fair or compassionate. If Seed Media Group cannot recognize why a corporate shill blog doesn't belong on this site, then Seed Media Group hasn't long to exist, I suspect.
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 7, 2010 7:20 PM
Getting closer...
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2010/07/integrity.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 7, 2010 7:22 PM
About the only PepsiCo product I use on a regular basis is a water bottle (Aquafina™). Which I get from the soda machine at work, then refill using the cheap bottled water the from the Place That Employs me gets. Until a long weekend, like at the moment, where an empty bottle might have stuff growing in it that I don't need...
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 7, 2010 7:25 PM
SC's done a great roundup of the bloggers commenting on it. John does one as well, and also mentions a bit that hasn't been brought up before, that a lot of people use ScienceBlogs when teaching students how to evaluate web sources for bias. This provides a huge example, but probably not in the way ScienceBlogs was hoping.
Posted by: Kapitano
|
July 7, 2010 7:33 PM
It's just barely possible the Pepsico blog will contain some actual science.
Not likely, but it's conceivable they're not as stupid as they'd always appeared, and realise we want to read good, hard-nosed, well-researched and well-written science...and the only way we'll read their marketing exercise, er, blog, is if they give it to us.
Pepsico must have some good scientists working for them. So perhaps they'll be the ones to write, and we'll get some decent food science.
Not impossible. Just very unlikely.
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 7, 2010 7:36 PM
Thanks, Carlie, but mine's a list of people who've taken the appropriate action(s). (I could potentially include Mike the Mad Biologist and Orac.) It's different from Dupuis' general list of those commenting on it, and unlike him I don't respect everyone's individual choices. I think some people's choices are ridiculous and shameful.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 7, 2010 8:20 PM
I'm really hating what I'm seeing on scienceblogs in general today - most of the bloggers I like quitting or going on hiatus, and generally bitching like hell. I read Pharyngula most regularly, but I read a bunch of other blogs as well, and it's really pissing me off to see people jumping ship. Thanks a lot, Pepsico. For the childhood spent eating your crap because no one really cared much about me, for the prediabetes now, and for the stupid destruction of a bright spot on the internet. Guess it was worth it to get rid of a place where one could escape your corporate message, the incessant drone of mass media youth culture. As if I didn't have enough reasons to hate and distrust your brands. Fuck you.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkt6Nfb5ZW2CGtg6XZkjdIvayuJiC-CFIE
|
July 7, 2010 8:44 PM
I can certainly understand why PZ would be highly reluctant to leave, but Pepsi coming to scienceblogs ultimately must have a lot to do with the fact that the site hosts one of the most (the most?) popular science blogs...
- DaveH.
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 7, 2010 8:50 PM
I think some people's choices are ridiculous and shameful.
I was in no way referring to PZ here, by the way. I understand his dilemma and liked his post.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 7, 2010 8:54 PM
I can certainly understand why PZ would be highly reluctant to leave, but Pepsi coming to scienceblogs ultimately must have a lot to do with the fact that the site hosts one of the most (the most?) popular science blogs...
yup.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 7, 2010 8:54 PM
How strange - the skeezeball "Are You a Mommy? Get Your $10,000" ads seem to have vanished, shortly after my puny calling-out of same in # 77.
Have any of you other non-AdBlock-users spotted them lately?
Does this mean that SeedCo does monitor feedback about its regrettable advertising practices?
Posted by: Bob
|
July 7, 2010 9:05 PM
I guess selling out to Pepsi is better than selling out to the Creation Museum or the Discovery Institute but in any case it proves there is no INTEGRITY here anymore - perhaps there never was.
I am very sorry that Seed Media and its bloggers are now in the same toilet as HuffPo. It was fun while it lasted.
Goodbye
Bob
Posted by: Marella
|
July 7, 2010 9:36 PM
@2 Marella is a nym from Marella splendens, my favourite fossil in the Burgess Shale fauna, sorry. I'd love to be Spanish but I'm Australian.
Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized
|
July 7, 2010 9:46 PM
just checked back at Food Frontiers. It now has "this blog brought to you by PepsiCo" all over it, and they promise that conflicts of interest will be called out in blogger descriptions.
I feel much better (well, not that much) for all this, and I'll be interested to see how it all plays out.
besides, I'm too addicted to Pharyngula to want to leave SB.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 7, 2010 10:25 PM
Scienceblogs are closing up shop right and left - Carl Zimmer is keeping a running tally through Twitter and Facebook (and his Loom blog over at Discover)
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
|
July 7, 2010 10:27 PM
Apparently they are now an "advertorial". Ugh. Just call it an adverstisement and be done with it: at least that is honest.
This is ScienceBlogs. More RuBisCO, less Pepsico.
Posted by: cyan
|
July 7, 2010 10:30 PM
With all the excellent bloggers who have already left in the past day, and those who are leaning that way but who are waiting to see if Seed will ameliorate the situation: this is a golden opportunity for someone or some group who could offer them a different tent, with the same freedom as Sb does now, but also the cared-for infrastructure that Sb initially had but has neglected.
If Discover or some other site could just see this great opportunity and quickly expand & act, they'd benefit from all the traffic of the readers of these blogs, and readers would benefit by now not having to go here & there around the tubes chasing down their favorite blogs.
If someone quickly made or expanded their site to fulfill this need, there would probably be more Sciencebloggers who would switch to that site, because this pepsigate is only one more piece of straw in what Sb has been doing and not doing for its established bloggers and therefore for their readers.
Posted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies
|
July 7, 2010 10:34 PM
@ Lotharloo #96:
That's why I don't get the idea that we need to wait until they post stuff here at SB to criticise them. The blog here is being edited by the same PR guy and the authors they promote in the intro post are the same authors responsible for these posts, which are pure advertising copy containing nothing in the way of food science.
To expect anything to be different here is wishful thinking in the extreme.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 7, 2010 10:37 PM
Meh.
I care about Pharyngula, not about ScienceBlogs.
Their reputation or otherwise is irrelevant to me, if I read any given blog or entry I try to evaluate it on its merits, not on rep.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 7, 2010 10:41 PM
wait... someone DID link to the Seed editor defending their inclusion of PepsiCo, yes?
if not,
here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/07/scienceblogs-blogging-pepsi-bly-letter
translation:
"our investors say we need the extra revenues, so suck it up, nerds."
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 7, 2010 10:53 PM
Mark C. Chu-Carroll is out.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 7, 2010 11:01 PM
the Loom is keep track of the people starting to make the inevitable decision that Seed has failed them:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/
frankly, I would NOT be sorry to see Pharyngula appear somewhere outside of the extremely crappy programming and decisionmaking that has characterized Seed media for the last couple of years.
why the hell can't science bloggers approach a non-profit foundation to fund a hub?
I bet there are dozens who would consider it a wonderful thing.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 7, 2010 11:10 PM
Ichthyic:
It wouldn't bother me, either, however, I would seriously feel for PZ in such a situation. Not only because of his connections here, but I would not envy trying to move the massive amount of content that is Pharyngula.
As upset as I am about Seed media and their recent decisions, I won't jump ship on Pharyngula, which does mean I'll still be a SciBorg drone to an extent.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 7, 2010 11:12 PM
"To sum up, we believe that a meaningful discussion about science and society in the 21st century requires that all players be at the table (with affiliations made clear), from all parts of the world, from every sector of society. And ScienceBlogs is where this is starting to happen."
That is one seriously sickening quote. Every sector of society includes the Catholic Church. Does the Pope get a fucking scienceblog next?
That is NOT the language of an editor or a journalist - that is PR marketing bullshit from a dishonest PR flack who is LYING about being an editor.
As I said elsewhere, Pepsi is not going ANYWHERE unless PEPSI decides to.
Scienceblogs WANTS to be a PR rag. I also joked about there being Monsanto or ADM blogs - the last sentence of the quote shows that this may very well happen, might even be the plan.
The ethics-challenged fuckwads have decided that marketing pays better than journalism.
I'm not saying I'll stop checking in. I will, with adblock on to make sure this scumbag doesn't make a cent off me, in order to watch the drama, see where people go when they (hopefully) do, and to also hopefully watch this amoral prick's job fade away as the site dies.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 7, 2010 11:15 PM
I would not envy trying to move the massive amount of content that is Pharyngula.
says PZ here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/07/07/oh-pepsi-what-hath-thou-wrought/#comment-34172
Mark Chu-Carol has a huge blog too. didn't even slow him down.
I can't vouch for Sciblogs, but other blogs aren't all that hard to move content around with.
hell, PZ moved it here to begin with.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 7, 2010 11:24 PM
Two things... with the traffic PZ gets, he makes money here. On his own site, he'd have to PAY for it.
Also, he's got that book deal... is the book deal contingent on him being a "high profile" blogger according to some standard defined by the publisher?
Even if not, it's hard to flog a book on blogger.com or some shit.
Would Discover offer PZ a job? A gig where he could write what he wanted? I doubt it. They'd find themselves under a number of PR slams and boycotts and Fox News attack pieces.
So it's a toughie for this particular blog. For others, painful - but maybe not quite so many variables to be considering.
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 7, 2010 11:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVo4tAgMpvM
There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part...
:)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 7, 2010 11:29 PM
Ichthyic:
True, although it wasn't nearly as big at that time. Still, it's PZ's decision; I'm just saying that I won't jump ship on Pharyngula. If people want to think that means I have no integrity, fine. (I'm not trying to imply you said or think that, btw.)
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 7, 2010 11:50 PM
"Saying "FUCK PEPSI" or "I don't like Pepsi" is not defamation, it's just an expression of opinion. "
Since Pepsi is determining what defamation means, your definition is irrelevent.
Also, haven't you heard about these insane "product disparagement laws" that corporations like Pepsi and others bought from Congress?
Saying that a food product is unhealthy or that you personally would NEVER eat that crap, even when it's TRUE, will get your ass sued (if you're important enough for them to care). And you will lose.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 7, 2010 11:57 PM
"It now has "this blog brought to you by PepsiCo" all over it"
And that is essentially dishonest. People understand "brought to you buy" to mean sponsored.
It's not SPONSORED by PepsiCo. It's written by PepsiCo. Controlled by PepsiCo. Scripted by PepsiCo. It is a PepsiCo PRODUCT.
It IS PepsiCo. It's a branch of the PepsiCo corporate website.
THOSE would be accurate. "Brought to you by" is deliberately vague, deliberately MISLEADING.
Which is of course the whole fucking point.
Posted by: mrhoward190
|
July 8, 2010 12:29 AM
Might want to put a rel=nofollow on that there "corporate drones" link…
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 8, 2010 1:27 AM
Actually, as PZ pointed out in a tweet, they have essentially lifted the blog right off their corporate website and paid to have it hosted and intermingled here.
Same blog. Same name. Merely relocated to here.
Try to fucking defend THAT.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 8, 2010 1:34 AM
Here's the Food Frontiers Blog as hosted on PepsiCo servers since 2009:
http://foodfrontiers.pepsicoblogs.com/
A section of their corporate website has merely been relocated to scienceblogs and labeled science journalism.
Here's Monsanto's corporate blog.
http://www.monsantoblog.com/2009/02/10/monsanto-according-to-monsanto/
How much would Sb charge them to host it and call it an official "scienceblog?"
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 8, 2010 1:41 AM
Whoops, one error, it wasn't PZ pointing it out in the tweet, it was someone else. Same result.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 8, 2010 1:53 AM
Incidentally, I posted the above (#149) on their "scienceblog" and so far it hasn't made it past moderation.
We'll see if they're "transparent" about the simple, non-derogatory fact contained in it.
Posted by: elzoog
|
July 8, 2010 2:07 AM
My question would be, is the "obesity epidemic" a long term ongoing thing, or a recent phenomena?
If it's a recent phenomena, then it can't be the "American diet" that is causing the problem unless the "American diet" is also recent. I don't imagine Abraham Lincoln for example, eating Chinese food thinking "Why haven't we invented a distinctly American food yet?" For example, sugar sweatened drinks? I can think of ads for koolaid from way back in the 1950s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKY2O4KFmMU
Was there an obesity epidemic caused by drinking lots of koolaid, coca cola, pepsi, etc. back in the 1950s? And junk food? McDonalds existed in the 1950s too. People ate beef and other fatty meats back in the 1950s too.
So, unless there really was an obesity epidemic in the 1950s, what is different now as compared to then?
Posted by: DLC
|
July 8, 2010 3:40 AM
Re: "Obesity Epidemic":
to simplify (perhaps a bit too much): Americans are eating the same 3000+ calories they ate in 1950, but more and more American jobs have transitioned to sedentary occupations. Let's face it, an autoworker in 1950 burned a lot more calories than an office worker in the same time period. The solution isn't banning sugary drinks but educating people to drink less of them, and to eat less in general.
Don't order the super giant burger with triple cheese,bacon and bleu cheese sauce, order the regular burger with onions and mustard. ... or skip the onions and mustard if you're hoping on getting laid. Oh, and get a bit more exercise too. do active things for fun, like -- getting laid!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 8, 2010 3:43 AM
elzog - lots of things.
1. Prevalence of fast food. In the 1950s there was only McDonald's.
2. Portion size. That 1950s McDonald's served you a meal that was the size of what is now a Happy Meal.
3. Farm subsidies. Corn became government subsidized in the 1970s in a way that was radically different than before, causing a glut of corn that lead to HFCS being added to almost every processed food on the market because it was so cheap to do so. This led to an artificial price decline for sweetened foods compared to unsweetened.
4. The state of the economy itself. Low-wage jobs became relatively lower and lower wage, as skilled blue-collar jobs disappeared, causing more people to have to choose the cheapest food option, which goes back to 3.
5. Constant advertising of fast food does have an effect.
6. The rise of the dual income family, without the addition of multigenerational living (as was common in the years before WWII when both parents also often worked) meant that there was less time to prepare meals from scratch, leaning towards a dependence on prepared processed foods.
7. Rise of suburban culture meant that it became literally impossible to walk to places for errands, and people became more sedentary.
Those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Posted by: mick.long
|
July 8, 2010 6:59 AM
Just posted this on their Food Frontiers blog, wonder if it'll get past the censors.
@ Corpspeak PR Flack Robot.
"Hi everyone. I’m Daniel Pellegrom from PepsiCo, and I’m the editor of this blog. I’ll be moderating the comments that come through here on a daily basis and wanted to let everyone know that PepsiCo is happy to be joining the conversation about the food industry’s role in addressing global health changes."
Translation into English: We will be using this platform to make our advertising look like science. You can thank the staff at Science Blogs who traded their principles and professional integrity for cold hard cash so that we could be here.
"We want to hear from you, even those of you who might disagree with our positions. The only comments I’ll reject are ones that are defamatory or profane."
Translation into English: Do not defame the Pepsi Cola, do not profane the Pepsi Cola. Bow your heads before the Pepsi Cola you miserable worms.
"Everything else will be fair game, so keep it clean and I look forward to spirited discussions here on this site."
Translation into English: When we say "anything else will be fair game" we mean, "anything that annoys the Mandarins at Pepsi Co. is unspeak and will be liquidated". Remember that guy who tried to print "Sweatshop" on his Nikes? That's how far you can push the goddamn envelope when a major corporation says you can "express yourself" on anything carrying their brand, like a running shoe, or a blog!
Posted by: silencethepianos
|
July 8, 2010 8:24 AM
"Hey there, fellas!
Employed the government to support a military coup in a Latin American country with a democratically elected leader at the expense of thousands of lives for the sake of your profits lately?
Stay classy!"
Is what I posted, but it hasn't been approved by the moderator for some reason. Sad face.
Posted by: realityhack
|
July 8, 2010 9:10 AM
PZ,
Please please let science blogs know you will leave if this is allowed. Your traffic is likely a significant percentage of their overall traffic. Such an announcement might force their hand. And if they do allow Pepsi to run a 'health' blog, why would you stay? All science blogs credibility would be lost.
Posted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies
|
July 8, 2010 9:26 AM
Now I'm pissed. They've just put through another batch of comments (yours gets an airing mick @155) and yet one I posted 6 hours ago is still in moderation hell. All I tried to do was point out that waiting for some evidence before passing judgement is ignoring the evidence that we do have at the blog on the pepsi website. I was all civil and everything. I guess there's more than profanity and defamation that will get you on the shit list.
Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized
|
July 8, 2010 10:48 AM
per PZ's latest post, SB has canceled the PepsiCo site.
Posted by: Che
|
July 8, 2010 5:43 PM
My question is why? Why would Pepsi feel the need to be part of SB? What is up with the corporate mind set? Corporations already control the economy, they control our political system, they manipulate our educational system, they dictate the standards we live our lives with, dictate our diet, influence our life expectancy, etc. What else do they want? Is there no respite from them? Do the really need to put their noses into everything? If invading people’s dreams were possible would I have to put up with corporate dreamscapes?
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 8, 2010 6:55 PM
Indeed. And everyone casually asks for sucrose at the supermarket when they wanna bake a cake or make preserves.
Git.