Looks like Scienceblogs is imploding...

[Alferd_Packer]

I like reading Ed brayton's Dispaches from the culture wars, although it isn't really about science.

Bora is one that i also have reat at times. he is leaving as well

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2010/07/scienceblogs_and_me_and_the_ch.php

 

[Region Rat]

I wish I wrote this.

You will, Cain, you will.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't follow science blogs but I'll wait to see if actual bias results before I rev up my outrage-atron.

This message brought to you by Outrage-atron Inc., fully owned subsidiary of Internet Toughguy Industries.

 

[technoextreme]

rofl

Basically there was an announcement of a new blog which would be sponsored and written by Pepsi and covering "food and diet" issues. Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you're a large multi-national beverage producer who sells sugar filled drinks to the masses, you're unlikely to critically analyse the effects of said sugar filled drinks on the masses. The announcement was quickly followed up with an uproar from many of the bloggers on the site, who had otherwise been happy with the editorial policy of the site owners not interfering with copy or pushing any particular commericial interest line. The complaints and many comments made on the site resulted in the pepsi blog being dropped. There has been little to no communication between bloggers and site management since however, and many of the bloggers have since decided that this would be the opportune time to jump ship and find greener (less sugary?) pastures.

Check out the posts on pharyngula regarding the initial announcement here...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/say_hello_topepsico_wtf.php

The irony of the situation is that most people don't tell you that there were corporate blogs actually giving out stuff long before the Pepsico debacle. And given some of the bloggers reactions to that corporate blog I don't even think they were aware of its exisitence with the irony of people like Orac actually claiming that GE isn't a medical company. Orac being a person who blgos for Science Based Medicine.

The most famous of course being http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

Which of course reading some of the people's reactions is partially the problem given PZ propensity to get into arguments with everyone. And to quote Brian Thompson that his blog tends to be at times nothing more than calling religious people morons. I like the man's writings but the reality is that it very rarely is about science

 

[bokonon]

I think it's incredibly childish to sulk because someone might say something with which you disagree.

I'm sure ScienceBlogs will have no difficulty whatsoever finding replacements, for both writers and readers.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I think it's incredibly childish to sulk because someone might say something with which you disagree.

From what I understand, that was not the isue. The issue was SEED magazine's failure to consult with it's existing blog staf before they compromised the integrity of the blog network.


There are some other issues as well

http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2010/07/growing-pains.html

 

[bokonon]

From what I understand, that was not the isue. The issue was SEED magazine's failure to consult with it's existing blog staf before they compromised the integrity of the blog network.


There are some other issues as well

http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2010/07/growing-pains.html

I read the article at your link, and the "this, this, and this" which SHE linked to, saying they represented her viewpoint.

I still think it's anti-corporate childishness. They claim that their credibility would take a hit, when as far as I can see, their credibility depends on what they write. Unless Pepsico was given editorial control of non-Pepsico blogs at SB, their individual credibility should not be affected one whit.

Frankly, though, it won't bother me if PZ and his brat pack do decide to take their business elsewhere. Even if the overall traffic goes down, I can't help but think that the quantity and quality of actual science on the site will rise.

 

[technoextreme]

Frankly, though, it won't bother me if PZ and his brat pack do decide to take their business elsewhere. Even if the overall traffic goes down, I can't help but think that the quantity and quality of actual science on the site will rise.

Have you actually read any of the blogs that left?

I still think it's anti-corporate childishness. They claim that their credibility would take a hit, when as far as I can see, their credibility depends on what they write. Unless Pepsico was given editorial control of non-Pepsico blogs at SB, their individual credibility should not be affected one whit.

Dude you have no idea how reality works now does it.... One of the bloggers that is contemplating leaving had an attempt on his job because of a conflict of interest that didn't exisist. People are that dam paranoid and any sense of impropriety will be latched onto and used to descredit someone.

 

[bokonon]

Have you actually read any of the blogs that left?

Yes, I have. If you're aware of one which isn't a variation on "blogging alongside these corporate cola shills will tarnish my reputation," I'll be happy to read a couple more.

Dude you have no idea how reality works now does it.... One of the bloggers that is contemplating leaving had an attempt on his job because of a conflict of interest that didn't exisist. People are that dam paranoid and any sense of impropriety will be latched onto and used to descredit someone.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what point you're trying to make here, but I'll tell you how I think the reality of this situation works:

The exodus of people who object to having paid corporate advertorials share their space will make the environment at the site more accepting of having paid corporate advertorials share the space. After all, the people who object will be gone.

Science bloggers will still be elbowing each other aside for a chance to write on Scienceblogs. If their writing is high-caliber (and why shouldn't it be?), the reputation of those who remain will not suffer, any more than the reputation of NPR suffers for being sponsored by AG Edwards or similar.

If PZ One-note leaves, his band of angry atheists may have to find someplace else to vent spleen, and traffic at Scienceblogs may initially drop by half. Its reputation going forward will be determined not by those who left, but by those who remain and those who come onboard subsequently.

If the editorial content is high, and the barriers to advertising are low, the site has the potential to become not only educationally but financially successful.

 

[SezMe]

The exodus of people who object to having paid corporate advertorials share their space will make the environment at the site more accepting of having paid corporate advertorials share the space..

Aha, you did miss the point. The objection was NOT as you stated. The blog was set up with advertising and other site materials in columns 1 and 3. Full stop. The middle column was blogger content. Full stop. Science blog did not tell their stable what to write (including critique of stuff in columns 1 and 3) and the bloggers left site management, advertising, etc. to SEED.

The objection came when SEED put paid material in column 2 in the guise of more science writing when it was just corporate shills pushing Pepsi.

So your take on reality is, indeed, not reality. It was not "sharing" space that was the problem, it was co-mingling blogging and corporate-speak.

 

[Complexity]

I think it's incredibly childish to sulk because someone might say something with which you disagree.

I'm sure ScienceBlogs will have no difficulty whatsoever finding replacements, for both writers and readers.

Perhaps you should read up on what actually happened before expressing unfounded opinions.

I suspect that ScienceBlogs and Seed will not be in business within half a year. They apparently have did not pay bloggers for the past quarter, did not fulfill magazine subscriptions, and alienated a great number of the remaining bloggers before their Pepsico screw-up.

ScienceBlogs and Seed appear to be very badly run and don't deserve to stay in business.

 

[bokonon]

As I say, it's just knee-jerk anti-corporate posturing.

They objected to sharing their space in column 2, where PZ can post his photos of punctured crackers "in the guise of science writing," but Pepsi is pre-emptively presumed guilty of plotting to foist unacceptable content. Soapboxes in column 2 are reserved for the worthy, and those who might represent a corporate-speak viewpoint do not, by definition, make the grade. Never forget your place, Pepsi. You can advertise here, but blog on your own website.

I am sad to learn that SEED magazine is no more in print. I had noticed its disappearance from the local Borders, but assumed that was the bookseller's decision. When I saw the magazine on the shelves, I bought it more often than not. My "chimp" avatar was the cover of their first issue. If they just get the old SEED writers to contribute content to SB, any vacuum that's developing now will be more than adequately filled.

 

[Complexity]

As I say, it's just knee-jerk anti-corporate posturing.

No, it is not.

 

[bokonon]

They apparently have did not pay bloggers for the past quarter, did not fulfill magazine subscriptions, and alienated a great number of the remaining bloggers before their Pepsico screw-up.

ScienceBlogs and Seed appear to be very badly run and don't deserve to stay in business.

This is a separate issue, and may actually have merit. It may be that the decision to court Pepsi (or, perhaps, merely entertain them) was an attempt to generate the revenue they needed to bring their payroll up to date.

I can't really comment on what may have happened on the business side, but I do know that SEED magazine (the print version; I haven't seen their online magazine) was one of the better publications, and filled a niche I have not seen any other publisher attempting to fill. Smithsonian magazine and National Geographic were the nearest things to it, but neither was really comparable. Just as good, but different emphasis.

 

[technoextreme]

I can't really comment on what may have happened on the business side, but I do know that SEED magazine (the print version; I haven't seen their online magazine) was one of the better publications, and filled a niche I have not seen any other publisher attempting to fill.

Which willfully censored a science story and apparently wrote puff pieces to satisfy advertisers.
Reading=Good.
Complaining about anticorpratism without reading=Bad.

 

[bokonon]

Well I don't. As I said before you might want to actually read some of the blogs about why people left because its more than just Pepsi. But go ahead defend a corporate entity which willfully censors its content to satisfy its advertisers.

Which willfully censored science stories to satisfy its advertisers.

I have read what people said about why they left. Here's one example:

It is completely irrelevant if their content was going to be good or bad.

What is relevant is that a corporation paid to have a seat at the table with us. And that Seed made that happen.

What is relevant is that this event severely undermined the reputation of all of us. Who can trust anything we say in the future?

Even if you already know me and trust me, can people arriving here by random searches trust me? Once they look around the site and see that Pepsi has a blog here, why would they believe I am not exactly the same, some kind of shill for some kind of industry?

Coturnix doesn't want them to sit next to him, like they're some kind of equal, because he feels that will tarnish his reputation.

Like I say, if you have links to people who aren't offering variations on this theme, I'm willing to read those too, but asserting they exist without linking to them doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

 

[autumn1971]

The impression I got from reading a bunch of the SB bloggers' stuff is that this is primarily a lack of communication issue. The Pepsi stuff merely highlighted the issue, as well as frustrating a lot of bloggers who had not, to that point, been annoyed by the communication failures.
Most bloggers said that is wasn't simply the act of adding a corporate blog, but doing so in secret, without consulting the "team," so to speak.

 

[bokonon]

Which willfully censored a science story and apparently wrote puff pieces to satisfy advertisers.
Reading=Good.
Complaining about anticorpratism without reading=Bad.

Yes, I saw someone complaining that SEED magazine chose not to run an article on Bhopal because they were trying to sell advertising to Dow Chemical.

And yes, I do think that's sleazy on the part of the company, but as far as I know the bloggers have complete autonomy, so how is an objection to what the print magazine does (did) a justification to leave the blog site?

 

[technoextreme]

Like I say, if you have links to people who aren't offering variations on this theme, I'm willing to read those too, but asserting they exist without linking to them doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

Never in my long existence on this forum have I seen anyone lazy enough to actually link to the exact piece of evidence I was about ready to cite. And by lazy I mean you just linked to an article that actually cites the information about Seed censoring itself.

And yes, I do think that's sleazy on the part of the company, but as far as I know the bloggers have complete autonomy, so how is an objection to what the print magazine does (did) a justification to leave the blog site?

Ooo you know most people have these things called ethics and morals which you know stops people from supporting companies which do this types of evil things. I'm sure you know nothing about them though.
EDIT:
Also, my original post was referencing Dr. Goski who as a doctor really doesn't have as much leeway in terms of being associated with corporate blogs that you seem to be defending.

 

[bokonon]

Never in my long existence on this forum have I seen anyone lazy enough to actually link to the exact piece of evidence I was about ready to cite. And by lazy I mean you just linked to an article that actually cites the information about Seed censoring itself.

Ooo you know most people have these things called ethics and morals which you know stops people from supporting companies which do this types of evil things. I'm sure you know nothing about them though.
EDIT:
Also, my original post was referencing Dr. Goski who as a doctor really doesn't have as much leeway in terms of being associated with corporate blogs that you seem to be defending.

I see, you call me "lazy" because I linked to the evidence I cited, and actually included a quote supporting what I was arguing, while you are presumably not lazy for neither linking nor quoting, but merely ranting.

I suppose that's because you didn't want to leave it at "dumb", which is what the original version of this rant said. You've edited it twice more since then, and I have no idea what it will say by the time I've finished composing my reply. Maybe you should just slow down, think about what you want to say, and then try to say it.

The print magazine made an editorial decision, which neither you nor I support. What does that have to do with the bloggers? Can you offer an instance in which one of them was censored, where content was pulled from ScienceBlogs?