New strategy: if we sow enough confusion about what knowledge is, we can win!

I’ve never heard of Alex Beam before, which is a good thing — he seems to be some kind of journalist at the Boston Globe, and that’s about all I know about him, other than that he seems to be an oblivious idiot. He has a column up in which he rages about the phrase “knowledge-based”, apparently because he doesn’t understand it. His first target is to fulminate against that expression, “reality based”, which many on the left adopted after the lunacy of the Bush presidency, a phrase invented by the Bushies to describe us:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality–judiciously, as you will–we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Beam doesn’t understand this. His rebuttal registers complete incomprehension.

The Bush presidency always seemed quite fact-freighted to me. The 9/11 attacks were plenty factual, as were the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tens of thousands of deaths that ensued.

Yes. People died on 9/11; that’s real. Even more people died in Afghanistan and Iraq; that’s also real. What Beam glosses over is that there was no credible connection between those two countries and the deaths in New York, and that the Right failed to “create” their own personal, private reality.

A reality-based community would suggest that when you’re attacked, you should respond by evaluating the causes and retaliate appropriately, rather than deciding that here’s a fine time to build an empire. I don’t think that’s so hard to understand.

Then he throws another random example at us.

What in heaven’s name, for instance, is “evidence-based medicine”? Here is a quote from the august British Medical Journal that should set us straight: “Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” And the opposite of this would be … divination? Are men and women trooping out of the nation’s medical schools trained to flip coins or toss the I Ching on the floor of the intensive care unit if a diagnosis isn’t quickly forthcoming?

Deepak Chopra. Oprah Winfrey. The Center for Spirituality and Healing. Homeopathy. Acupuncture. Reflexology. Iridology. Dr Oz. Anti-vaccination movements. Therapeutic Touch.

Yes, some of them are coming out of our med schools, most are pouring out over the television and radio — we have swarms of men and women peddling non-evidence-based medicine, utter, non-functional, untested, useless garbage at sick people. There clearly are a great many quacks pushing fake remedies that ignore and even contradict the evidence.

Alex Beam must live inside a windowless Faraday cage to be unaware of the realities that are being flouted every day. And he really calls himself a journalist? He does conclude with an ironic comment.

Knowledge-based journalism? Good grief. If that catches on, people like me will be out of a job.

We can always hope.

In case you’ve been trying to sort out what’s going on in UK media this week…

Here’s an extraordinarily clear short summary of Rupert Murdoch’s misery, the commendable efforts of the Guardian to report on the sleaze, and the likely fate of the principals — written with oblivious Americans in mind. By the way, one of Murdoch’s cheese factories, News of the World, has gone down in flames, like a great bloated dirigible strafed by Twitter. I am amused.

If only the US could do something similar to Fox News…

Stop Rupert Murdoch now

We already know how unethical and sleazy Murdoch-owned media are — and now, if you’re in the UK, you should be aware that he’s making a grab to take control of an even larger slice of the media pie.

Murdoch already controls more of our media than is legal in many countries – and is notorious for using his power to skew our politics. The official consultation ends this Friday — let’s tell the government we don’t want his media empire to control our largest commercial broadcaster. Send a message now — using your own words to make it stand out — calling on Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron to refuse Murdoch’s BSkyB deal until there’s a full Competition Commission review and a full public inquiry into phone hacking.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation already owns 40% of British newspapers and 40% of BSkyB, the UK’s largest commercial broadcaster. In the US, Australia and elsewhere this degree of media dominance would not be allowed. News Corporation has admitted responsibility for hacking the phones of politicians and celebrities, and now stands accused of listening to messages of a murdered 13 year old girl. But our government wants to give Murdoch power over half of our media, allowing him to then squeeze out his rivals one by one.

There’s much more information here, and also something you can do: a letter-writing campaign has begun to request the British government to block the monopolistic acquisition of the network BSkyB. Contribute!

Some science journalists need to hang their heads in shame

Ben Goldacre and others carried out a very interesting study: they analyzed the top 10 UK newspapers for a week for their health reporting, and categorized the quality of the support for health claims. It’s not encouraging.

Here’s what we found: 111 health claims were made in UK newspapers over one week. The vast majority of these claims were only supported by evidence categorised as “insufficient” (62% under the WCRF system). After that, 10% were “possible”, 12% were “probable”, and in only 15% was the evidence “convincing”. Fewer low quality claims (“insufficient” or “possible”) were made in broadsheet newspapers, but there wasn’t much in it.

I do have one criticism, though. The paper is in a journal called Public Understanding of Science. It isn’t open access, though, so apparently the Public is not allowed to read about the Public Understanding of Science unless they cough up $25 per article. They can read about “science” for cheap in their local tabloid, though. Isn’t this part of the problem, too? Let’s also put part of the blame on a science publishing industry that puts up barriers to reading the real stuff.

What’s wrong with the media, in one paragraph

The Atlantic runs this regular column where they ask people about their reading habits — this time, they asked Aaron Sorkin, who sneers at the web and announces that he reads a couple of newspapers…or at least, he reads the front page and the op-eds in a couple of newspapers.

When I read the Times or The Wall Street Journal, I know those reporters had to have cleared a very high bar to get the jobs they have. When I read a blog piece from “BobsThoughts.com,” Bob could be the most qualified guy in the world but I have no way of knowing that because all he had to do to get his job was set up a website–something my 10-year-old daughter has been doing for 3 years. When The Times or The Journal get it wrong they have a lot of people to answer to. When Bob gets it wrong there are no immediate consequences for Bob except his wrong information is in the water supply now so there are consequences for us.

“A very high bar”…who? David Brooks, Tom Friedman, or perhaps he is referring to Ross Douthat? With the exception of Paul Krugman, the only bar you have to clear is to be smug, rich, and obscenely privileged. And don’t get me started on the WSJ opinion pages — there, you have clear the hurdle of being so far to the right you risk being a Nazi.

This is the problem, that people blithely assume that because it is in the NY Times or the WSJ that it must be right — I’d rather read BobsThoughts.com because there, at least, poor lonely Bob must rely on the quality of his arguments rather than the prestige of his name and affiliation to persuade.

I’ll also add that when Bob throws the wrong information into the “water supply”, he’s only contaminating his own well; when Brooks or Friedman do it, they’re soaking the whole nation. And if Sorkin thinks that having a position on a big name newspaper means you’re exempt from the problem of bad information, then he’s dumber than his writing makes him sound. It was the Times and the Journal that pounded the drums of war, and fed conspiracy theories about the Clintons, to name just a few examples.

At least Bob’s opinions didn’t result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Sweet Jebus, but I hate the HuffPo

It’s a woo-infested sewer, a cesspit of inanity and exploitation, and they cheat their writers. There is a strike/boycott in operation. This is what you get when an unprincipled, opportunistic hack like Arianna Huffington runs the show.

Guild tells HuffPost writers: ‘Don’t work for free’

The Newspaper Guild is calling on unpaid writers of the Huffington Post to withhold their work in support of a strike launched by Visual Art Source in response to the company’s practice of using unpaid labor. In addition, we are asking that our members and all supporters of fair and equitable compensation for journalists join us in shining a light on the unprofessional and unethical practices of this company.

Just as we would ask writers to stand fast and not cross a physical picket line, we ask that they honor this electronic picket line.

The Newspaper Guild, a 26,000-member-strong national union of media workers, is committed to fair compensation for all workers, whether they are freelance bloggers or traditional employees. We are further committed to promoting quality journalism. Working for free does not benefit workers and undermines quality journalism.

In response to the Huffington Post’s refusal to compensate its thousands of writers in the wake of its $315 million merger with AOL, the Newspaper Guild has requested a meeting with company officials to discuss ways the Huffington Post might demonstrate its commitment to quality journalism. Thus far, the request has been ignored.

Visual Art Source, http://visualartsource.com, an art publication, represents more than 50 writers who have said they will no longer write for the Huffington Post for free and who object to a company that depends on unpaid labor for its success.

As Cherie Turner, one of the former writers, explained, “Certainly, we all have written for free for the great exposure the Huffington Post can give us, but what’s the cost? Those of us on strike feel it undermines the value of our profession and is unethical, especially in light of great profits by those at the top. We are only asking for a fair share of what we are helping to create. We are also speaking out against real journalism being run side-by-side with advertorial.”

We feel it is unethical to expect trained and qualified professionals to contribute quality content for nothing. It is unethical to cannibalize the investment of other organizations that bear the cost of compensation and other overhead without payment for the usage of their content. It is extremely unethical to not merely blur but eradicate the distinction between the independent and informed voice of news and opinion and the voice of a shill.

The Newspaper Guild and Visual Art Source urge others to join forces and no longer contribute their labor until the following demands are met:

• A pay schedule must be proposed and steps initiated to implement it for all contributing writers and bloggers; and,

• Paid promotional material must no longer be posted alongside editorial content; a press release or exhibition catalogue essay is fundamentally different from editorial content and must be either segregated and indicated as such, or not published at all.

Four things you can do NOW, if you choose to join this effort:

• Stop providing free content to Huffington Post and let your editor know you are choosing to take this action and what your demands are if he/she would like to keep you writing for HP (see above);

• Please respond and let us know you’re on board and that we are allowed to use your name in any press materials we send out regarding this strike;

• Please pass along the names and e-mail addresses of your colleagues who contribute to the Huffington Post so that we may ask for their support;

• Send a letter to your local media op-ed section letting them know how you feel about this situation.

Thank you for your consideration in joining in these efforts. Our intent is to encourage the Huffington Post to do the right thing. We would all love to continue contributing, but only if the terms are fair and promote good, healthy journalism. This is about supporting the quality and integrity of a vehicle for progressive expression, to actually help Huffington Post succeed, but on the right terms. We call on Arianna Huffington to demonstrate her commitment to the working class she so ardently champions in her writing.

For more information see:

Facebook: “Hey Arianna, Can You Spare a Dime?”

TNG-CWA Freelance Project

TNG-CWA Freelance Project Coordinators:
East Coast: Lauri Lebo, laurilebo@gmail.com

Those are reasonable demands, but realize, O Writers, you are in an abusive relationship, and you are trying to bargain with someone who doesn’t give a damn about the quality of your work. It’s never going to improve with Arianna at the helm. Let all the talent leave, and starve the monstrosity until it dies.

Well, it won’t die. It’ll still feature Andrew Breitbart on the front page, which is another reason to let it wither away.

21st century science publishing will be multilevel and multimedia

I have to call your attention to this article, Stalking the Fourth Domain in Metagenomic Data: Searching for, Discovering, and Interpreting Novel, Deep Branches in Marker Gene Phylogenetic Trees, just published in PLoS One. It’s cool in itself; it’s about the analysis of metagenomic data, which may have exposed a fourth major branch in the tree of life, beyond the bacteria, eukaryotes, and archaea…or it may have just exposed some very weird, highly derived viruses. This is work spawned from Craig Venter’s wonderfully fascinating work of just doing shotgun sequencing of sea water, processing all of the DNA from the crazy assortment of organisms present there, and sorting them out afterwards.

But something else that’s special about it is that the author, Jonathan Eisen, has bypassed his university’s press office and not written a formal press release at all. Instead, he has provided informal commentary on the paper on his own blog, which isn’t novel, except in its conscious effort to change the game (Eisen has also been important in open publishing, as in PLoS). This is awesome, and scientists ought to get a little nervous. It maintains the formality and structured writing of a standard peer-reviewed paper, which is good — we don’t want new media to violate the discipline of well-tested, successful formats. But it also adds another layer of effort to the work, in which the author breaks out from the conventional structure and talks about the work as he or she would in a seminar or in meeting with other scientists. A paper provides the data and major interpretations, but it’s this kind of conversational interaction that can let you see the bigger picture.

I say scientists might want to be a little bit nervous about this, because I can imagine a day when this kind of presentation becomes de rigueur for everything you publish, just as it’s now understood that you could give a talk on a paper. It’s a different skill set, too, and it’s going to require a different kind of talent to be able to address fellow scientists, the lay public, and science journalists. Those are important skills to have, and this kind of thing could end up making them better appreciated in the science community.

Are any of your grad students and post-docs blogging? You might want to think about getting them trained in this brave new world now, before it’s too late. And you might want to consider getting started yourself, if you aren’t already.

What does it take to be a science journalist?

Science journalists, you really piss me off…at least some of you. Here are a couple of headlines about that recent paper I summarized that make me want to slap someone.

“Eye evolution questioned.” No, it’s not. That’s just trying to stir up a non-existent controversy. The eye evolved. This was a paper exploring the details of how specific photoreceptor types with the eye evolved. (I should mention that the summary is OK, but the headline was stupid. Maybe I ought to slap the editor.)

“Ancient Origins of the Human Eye Discovered.” Aaargh, it’s a paper about brachiopods, not humans, and it’s about the evolution of protostomes as well as deuterostomes…it’s about the whole frackin’ animal kingdom, not just our self-exalted little twig.

Both of those headlines are about the very same paper, and I get the impression the reporters hadn’t even read it, but instead relied on teasing out comprehensible angles from interviews. We ought to have a rule: if you can’t read the research and comprehend it, you shouldn’t be writing about it. I know, suddenly 9/10ths of the science journalists in the world are abruptly unemployed.

Ben Goldacre offers some excellent commentary on this problem. Read it if you’re hoping to be a professional science communicator. I agree with him: you don’t need a Ph.D., but you do have to have some knowledge of the field you are reporting on, and most importantly, a passion to learn more about it.

Old fool gets attention for being ignorant

Before you say it, I know I’m giving him attention, too. Cardinal George Pell, the old fool, got lots of press for being a climate denialist, again. After a talk, he denounced the climate scientists for not being scientific, while he, the guy who believes angels and saints and great magic boojums in the sky, knew better because “‘I spend a lot of time studying this stuff.”

I suspect he’s another graduate of Google University.

But Pell is irrelevant. The real question is, why do the newspapers cover his pronouncements in any serious way? The man is comic relief, nothing more.

NPR can go die in a fire

This is unbelievable. James O’Keefe, he of the Acorn fraud, of the aborted seduction, the unimaginative weasel whose sole game is staging bogus scenarios with his ideological opponents and trying to catch them saying embarrassing things, has done it again, teasing an NPR executive into saying disparaging things about the Tea Party lunatics. I saw the recording; it was tame, I’d say stuff a thousand times more disparaging about those racist morons while knowingly on the air.

But it worked. NPR caved in, suspended the administrator, and now another one has resigned. Why? I don’t know. Because the cowards at NPR are afraid that the Republicans are going to kill all their funding, so they are running away from any confrontation with the political party that wants to destroy them, as if that will help.

Don’t think for a minute that this craven behavior will stay the budget axe, though. All it has really accomplished is to destroy any interest I have in supporting the organization. Why should I? They’ve already surrendered to the deranged right wing. Their usefulness as a non-propaganda news source is dead.

Worse, they’re giving the Breitbartian vermin a little thrill of power. This isn’t the end. How many more news organizations are going to fold in fear before these stupid bully-boys?