No doubt you have heard the news by now. ScienceBlogs is teaming up with National Geographic "for a big, sciencey love-in." We ScienceBloggers will get access to some NG photos and video while NG will get some cross-promotion here, though I am not sure when all of this will start to be put in effect.
I am of two minds about the partnership. On the one hand I am looking forward to picking through the material NG makes accessible and the potential writing opportunities the partnership might provide. At the very least there will be more to blog about.
On the other hand, however, I am concerned that ScienceBlogs might be used as a platform to push sensationalist crap. Although National Geographic is arguably the most recognizable name in popular science, in recent years I have become frustrated by some of the sensationalist nonsense that the company has promoted. Among other things (such as the over-the-top ads for a recent show about headshrinking) I was aggravated by the fact that the media company hyped the discovery of a "mummy" dinosaur before any scientific study of the fossil was completed. The same was done with a baby mammoth named "Lyuba." The merits of such media techniques are debatable, but I am still a little worried that NG might use ScienceBlogs to sell sensationalist stories to the public. (And we've had enough of that for other companies already.)
But do not worry about my individual contribution to ScienceBlogs. National Geographic will not be exerting editorial control over what I write so I will be free to criticize them. If that changes at any point I will leave ScienceBlogs rather than just "play nice." I do not say this as a threat, but only as an assurance that my freedom to write is more important to me than where I write. Such concerns aside, I hope the partnership will be beneficial for both Sb and NG.
- Log in to post comments
I share your concern about NG sensationalism. I remember the hype about Archaeoraptor that turned out to be a composite of two fossils (both of which were important finds in their own right as was later discovered). But NG, Dr. Phil Curry, along with some others jumped all over it claiming it was the definitive proof for their version of bird evolution. Great big colourful write-up in NG, lots of pictures.
Others were more cautious though and suggested this could be a composite of two different fossils (as outlined in two public letters written, one by one of the curators from the Smithsonian). Six months later, it was shown the fossil was 'faked' in that it was a composite, and NG apologized.
oops, hit the post button too soon. Having said the above, I do think this will be a good collaboration, and if NG does jump on something too prematurely knowledgeable science-bloggers can let them know. Perhaps they'll be a steadying influence?
Thank you Daniel. I hope the relationship will be beneficial. The thing that makes me most uncomfortable about National Geographic, though, is the way they "own" certain discoveries by funding scientists. It seems that, in some cases at least ("Dakota") the funding provided by NG allows them to leverage a certain amount of control over the way scientific work is presented and popularized. Given that they are a media company and not a scientific institution I find this a little unsettling, and this model has been more recently been put into effect by Ida's promoters (i.e. Atlantic Productions). As you say, though, hopefully science bloggers will be able to keep things in perspective, and you can certainly expect me to call out NG if I see them promoting BS as sound science.
I hope your project with NG goes well, and you're pleased with the final result. BTW, if you think NG's getting bad, you should check out The History Channel, it had something on tonight about the prophecies of Nostradamus! (Maybe the name should be changed to "The Mythology Channel"?)
Yeah, the perfect History Channel show would involve a Nostradamus prophecy about a secret Nikola Tesla invention which unbeknownst to the rest of us actually killed Hitler.
Sadly, I don't think there's a major media organization out there which ScienceBlogs could partner with which hasn't gone sensationalist over something important. It's. . . dismaying.