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?

I have a new hero

It’s Tracey Spicer, a commentator on an Australian radio show. If you do radio or TV, you must listen to her interview with Meryl Dorey, the wicked anti-vaxxer crank. There are no mealy mouthed pleasantries, there is no downplaying of the evil Dorey has promoted, Spicer simply rips into her and points out all the legal and scientific facts against her. Then, at the end, Dorey is asked about the fact that a legal judgment has been made against her requiring that she post a disclaimer on her website, which she has not done, and Dorey begins to give the address of her website instead of explaining why she’s flouting the law, Spicer cuts her off cold and kicks her off the air.

It’s beautiful.

I never listen to AM radio, and I rarely tune into television news. If we had a few announcers like Tracey Spicer over here, though, I’d actually use my radio.

How to cover doomsayers

If you’re disappointed in CNN, you can always turn to MSNBC…ooops, never mind, they’re solemnly reporting on the end-of-the-world nonsense from the Harold Camping Cult. They’re predicting the Rapture will come on 21 May.

I would like to propose a novel version of Pascal’s Wager for the news media. When apocalyptic cults come along and announce disaster and doom, ridicule them. Just rip into them, send your most sarcastic, cynical reporters to cover the story, and just shred all the followers as loons and gullible freaks. There will be two possible outcomes.

One, they’re right, and the world ends. Your business has nothing to gain or lose by taking them seriously before the big event — it’s going kaput no matter what. So have a grand time before the catastrophe and make money with laughter. It’s not as if listening to crazy ol’ Harold Camping will make a bit of difference in your fate.

Two, they’re wrong, and the world keeps rolling on beyond 21 May. We all win! It means your coverage was spot on perfect, and got all the right answers, while the cultists are going to have to go glumly back to living their miserable little failed lives. Follow up with a feature on all the broken-hearted crazies. Start looking for the next mob of nuts to mock.

See? That’s how to handle it. All this sober pandering to derangement gains you nothing.

Pallacken Abdul Wahid is back!

You just can’t shut this crank up. You may recall that he earlier published a paper in an Elsevier journal claiming that all of genetics is wrong, oh, and by the way, the Quran and Bible are right because chromosomes look like ribs. He has a new paper out (only it’s actually the same old word salad, freshly tossed), Molecular genetic program (genome) contrasted against non-molecular invisible biosoftware in the light of the Quran and the Bible.

The current perception of biological information as encoded by a chemical structure (genome) is critically examined. Many features assigned to the genome are violations of chemical fundamentals. Perhaps the most striking one is that a living cell and its dead counterpart are materially identical, i.e., in both of them all the structures including genome are intact. But yet the dead cell does not show any sign of bioactivity. This clearly shows that the genome does not constitute the biological program of an organism (a biocomputer or a biorobot) and is hence not the cause of “life”. The molecular gene and genome concepts are therefore wrong and scientifically untenable. On the other hand, the Scriptural revelation of the non-molecular biosoftware (the soul) explains the phenomenon of life in its entirety. The computer model of organism also helps understand the Biblical metaphor “Adam’s rib” as chromosome, the biomemory of the cell. The Quran provides ample insight into the phenomenon of human biodiversification. It also reveals the source of biological information required for creating biodiversity in human population. The Scriptural revelation of the invisible non-molecular nature of biosoftware rules out the possibility of creating life from chemical molecules without involving a living cell (or organism) in the process. Claims of creation of “synthetic life” or “synthetic forms of life” employing living cell in the process cannot be accepted as creation of life from non-life as non-molecular biosoftware can be copied from the living cell to the prosthetic cell. Instead of chemically synthesizing a cell from scratch to prove life is a material phenomenon, biologists can as well resort to a more practical and convincing method by restoring life to a dead cell (which carries all the hardware structures including the genome but lacks the biosoftware) by chemical means. The failure of experiments to produce life through purely chemical means or to restore life to a dead cell would in fact invalidate the molecular biological program (genome) concept. More importantly, the failure would confirm the Scriptural revelation of non-particulate nature of the divine biosoftware and the existence of God.

It’s nonsense through and through, and it’s even recycled nonsense — there’s nothing new in here that you can’t find in his previous paper from Bizarro land, except this one seems to emphasize his claim that the impossibility of restarting a dead cell proves the existence of a creator.

The man is a flaming crackpot, but the real shame here is that he is regularly getting published, even if it is in bottom-tier journals. This one was in “Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology“, which bills itself as an international journal of bioscience, very broadly defined. I suspect it’s a money-making racket. It says “A fee will be charged to cover the publication cost” (which is not at all unusual in science, and many of the very best journals charge a page fee to authors), but it also says the papers “are subject to a rigorous and fair peer-review process”, a claim clearly given the lie by Mr Wahid. This is a paper that could not have survived a cursory glance, let alone a rigorous review.

I’m sure Ken Ham is grateful

Ken Ham is humbly appreciative of the coverage his Giant Wooden Box project is getting.

We were notified late this morning that AiG’s latest project, the Ark Encounter, will be featured tonight (Monday) on ABC-TV’s evening newscast, World News with Diane Sawyer. Check your local listings for the ABC affiliate station in your area and the time of broadcast. (See the ABC-TV news site.) Also, here is a link to the article about the Ark project that appears in the New York Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html.

The website for the Ark Encounter is ArkEncounter.com.

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And well he should be. I looked at the NY Times coverage, and was appalled.

I have to explain something to the Times. Some guy building a little theme park in Kentucky is not news. It’s something for the state and local news, sure, but not something that warrants a good-sized spread and a big image of the proposed park in the N freaking Y frackin’ Times.

So why is it given that much space and a purely vanilla description of the events and people involved, as if it is simultaneously a big deal deserving national attention and a weirdly blasé occurrence that requires no investigation — how can it be both controversial enough to warrant attention and so uncontroversial that the reporter can’t even be bothered to mention how ridiculous and anti-scientific this endeavor is?

It is an astonishingly insipid article. The only good (?) thing about it is that finally the NY Times breaks its bad habit of “he said, she said” journalism and didn’t even bother to contact a scientist to get the “other” side. You know, the rational, accurate, honest, scientific side.

I don’t have much hope for the Diane Sawyer story going on the air tonight, either. Anyone want to bet on whether Ham gets pitched some softballs and the park that encourages children to be stupid is treated as purely an economic development issue?