"PepsiCo and the Shame of the Bloggerati," Guardian, July 20, 2010.
(As usual, the editor and not the writer picks the title, but I'm OK with it.)
It did not go over particularly well and has been heavily criticized. Today David Dobbs had a piece in rebuttal in the same venue.
I think in large part Dobbs reply just proves my point: the PepsiCo blog was hounded out before it even published one word, not because of anything PepsiCo scientists had written, but because of assumptions about what they would write.
That's censorship, pure and simple. Prior suppression of speech. It should not be tolerated.
Dobbs wrote:
Again and again, people have asked, as Appell does, why Pepsi wasn't allowed to pop its can open, for we could have learned and accomplished something flinging the fizz around. They wish, as one person put it, that we had the Pepsi blog stand or fall on its own merits.
Yet how can a blog stand on its merits if it's propped into a standing position to start with with a stack of money? Merit, of course, is how you're supposed to earn a voice at a place like ScienceBlogs, or the Guardian, or the New York Times, or the local paper.
But Dobbs, or Seed, never gave PepsiCo a chance to even try and earn such merit!
It was simply assumed from the beginning that they could not possibly have any. That's (part of) my point.
Perhaps PepsiCo blog authors would have tried to hawk their corporate line. Perhaps they might be at least partly influenced by their salaries.... Is David Dobbs or Rebecca Skloot any different? Does Dobbs post thoughts he knows Seed and ScienceBlogs (and its readers) wouldn't accept?
Of course not. He knows he has to maintain a certain party line in his writings to that Seed/Scienceblogs continues to pay him. He can't post every thought that comes into his head -- only the "acceptable" ones.
What about authors hawking their books and movie deals, and their travel schedules? There's a pecuniary interest there.
And, of course, magazines and newspapers have long offered advertisers room for their views. Scientific American has often run multi-page advertisements highlighting the development of, and opportunities in certain countries (such as Singapore), and for a long time the New York Times sold space on their editorial page to Mobil, with a scarce showing that it was a corporate writing and not their usual op-ed offerings.
But in the same way, PepsiCo's blog on Scienceblogs was clearly labeled by Seed as purchased property. What's the difference?
Finally, let's note that at least Seed Scienceblogger (Greg Laden) was open-minded enough to let PepsiCo speak:
Perhaps PepsiCo blog authors would have tried to hawk their corporate line. Perhaps they might be at least partly influenced by their salaries.... Is David Dobbs or Rebecca Skloot any different? Does Dobbs post thoughts he knows Seed and ScienceBlogs (and its readers) wouldn't accept?
Of course not. He knows he has to maintain a certain party line in his writings to that Seed/Scienceblogs continues to pay him. He can't post every thought that comes into his head -- only the "acceptable" ones.
What about authors hawking their books and movie deals, and their travel schedules? There's a pecuniary interest there.
And, of course, magazines and newspapers have long offered advertisers room for their views. Scientific American has often run multi-page advertisements highlighting the development of, and opportunities in certain countries (such as Singapore), and for a long time the New York Times sold space on their editorial page to Mobil, with a scarce showing that it was a corporate writing and not their usual op-ed offerings.
But in the same way, PepsiCo's blog on Scienceblogs was clearly labeled by Seed as purchased property. What's the difference?
Finally, let's note that at least Seed Scienceblogger (Greg Laden) was open-minded enough to let PepsiCo speak:
I think PepsiCo's research scientists have something to say that I want to listen to. So do the scientists at Coke. And Cargill. The reason I think this is that some of my own research involves diet and nutrition, and I assume that the bench scientists working in the food industry are busy figuring stuff out at the molecular and biochemical level that I would not mind knowing.
Strike that: I know they are figuring stuff out.
As Laden writes, to deny "corporate science" is to deny that which came from AT&T Bell Labs -- which won 7 Nobel Prizes.
Top that, David Dobbs.
6 comments:
If I understand the situation, here's where your NYT op-ed page/Mobil ad comparison falls down: A fair comparison would be to a situation where Mobil's ads were published in the same design as Tom Friedman's and Paul Krugman's columns, just with a different byline. In other words, the beef is not with the idea of Pepsi, or anyone else, advertising, or using advertising space to promote ideas (or publish the words of scientists on its payroll); the beef is with creating an ad that walks and talks like a non-advertising-content blog.
Does Dobbs post thoughts he knows Seed and ScienceBlogs (and its readers) wouldn't accept?
Of course not. He knows he has to maintain a certain party line in his writings to that Seed/Scienceblogs continues to pay him. He can't post every thought that comes into his head -- only the "acceptable" ones.
Sorry, you're flat out wrong here. Sb has bee consistently good about letting people post what they want, without editorial interference (I know this because my wife used to blog there: she's teh one who got 'ScienceBlogs = Zombieblogs' onto the top of the pages for several hours earlier this week). I think this is one of the reasons Sb worked so well: there wasn't a party line, so some very spirited discussions could ensue. I would have been a millionaire if I had worked out a way to sell virtual popcorn.
"PepsiCo blog was hounded out before it even published one word, not because of anything PepsiCo scientists had written, but because of assumptions about what they would write"
The PepsiCo blog still exists and existed before moving to ScienceBlogs. You can read the blog, as many sciencebloggers did, here: http://foodfrontiers.pepsicoblogs.com/
They were not protesting about as yet unwritten content, they were protesting that the content that they could see and that CAN STILL BE SEEN (it has not been "silenced") did not deserve the scientific merit that comes with scienceblogs.
No free speech has been censored. PepsiCo can post what it wants, and still posts what it wants. It just does not come with the Sb seal of scientific approval which would lend science weight to what is essentially an advertising campaign.
If anyone at all read Evan Lerner's opening post, you'll see the part where he writes that the blog would be written by scientists at Pepsi, including the head of R&D, formerly from the CDC in Atlanta.
No one (except Isis and Greg) would give them the benefit of the doubt that they were going to provide a real science blog with cool content.
I'll bet they had some excellent ideas for science articles planned. But, because of a bunch of over-priviliged egotistical brats, the rest of us don't get to hear their stories or learn about research in a mega-corporation or the fundamentals of flavor science.
This is a huge loss for the readers of SB. A bunch of SB writers made the decision for the rest of us that Pepsi science writing was going to be poor and that they didn't belong in their club. Somewhere along the line, they started to believe they were "special" and "better" than everyone else and now it's out of control.
The SB writers have lost sight of the fact that SB is a profit driven site to begin with and needs to make money to exist. You didn't have a problem with that when you accepted their "invitation" to join?
And, they took away the chance for all of us to meet and network with a new group of people.
Their pity party for each other has reached epic proportions. Move on already. You don't have cancer. You aren't homeless. You just have to move your blog to a new site.
So move it. Move it and move on emotionally. You got your way. SB stupidly caved to your demands, like parents allowing children to make their decisions. And what do you get? More temper tantrums.
Anonymous - you can read PepsiCo's stories at the link LabRat provided.
You might also want to read what the bloggers were writing - you're simply mis-representing their views.
Bob, I read it.
I am not trying to represent their views at all.
I am representing the unheard majority following this that is sick of the self-righteousness and egomania. The SB writers behavior borders on unprofessional. And it doesn't matter if they think Seed was unprofessional. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Only two SB writers kept a level head about the whole thing and were open minded enough to give it a chance.
I have huge respect for them.
The rest of them? They can go ruin another person's blog collective next.
I can't imagine any blog sites seeing this wanting to bring on such big egos into their group.
As for David? Well, he took a lot of shrapnel for what he wrote and he handled it like the consummate professional. He has not lashed out, not replied to the comments, and not getting emotional. He simply wrote his opinion.
It is all of the SB writers and their bandwagon friends that went on the attack.
If you've done nothing wrong, you don't need to defend yourself. But if you feel guilty about something, then, you're going to defend your position to the nth degree.
Post a Comment