Meltdown at Scienceblogs.com – bloggers jumping ship

UPDATE: Luboš Motl finds some interesting tidbits about the state of science at Sb, see below the “Continue reading” line.

UPDATE2: PZ Myers ends his “strike” and flames me, see response in Update2 below.

Many WUWT readers are familiar with some blogs that reside at Sb. For example there’s Wikipedia edit master, William Connolley’s “Stoat-taking Science by the throat“, Tim Lambert’s “Deltoid“,  and some others like the well known Pharyngula by the ever grouchy PZ. Myers. It’s all good fun to read.

But, now there’s quite an exodus occurring at the scienceblogs.com conglomerate. Just look at the front page for today and the list of bloggers leaving or expressing concerns:

What’s happened? Well it all started with the parent company, SEED, allowing the Pepsi Company to start a blog on nutrition. Some bloggers went ballistic, perceiving that SEED caved to the almighty dollar and let some evil corporation into the sacred science temple.

Newsflash: SEED is a business.  The Guardian did a story on the Sb blogger anger, and Sb was faced with a mass revolt. The SEED management didn’t handle it well enough or fast enough for some bloggers tastes, even though they removed the Pepsi Food Frontiers blog. The result: 15 Sb bloggers upped and quit in protest. Here’s the content they are protesting.

As PZ Myers writes at Pharyngula, it is getting worse, more bloggers are leaving, and he’s on strike with a list of demands for the Sb management.

The Sb Blogging Union, local #42

Meyers writes:

It’s come to this. We’ve been facing a steady erosion of talent here at Scienceblogs, with the loss of good people like Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong a while back, and with the very abrupt departure of 15 bloggers after the recent PepsiCo debacle — an event that damaged the reputation of this place. And now just yesterday we lost PalMD and Bora. Something is going rotten here. What could it be?

Just in the time it took me to write this up this morning, Superbug, Zuska, and Speakeasy Science have all announced their departures, and Casaubon’s Book is considering it. We really are having a serious crisis of confidence, and Seed has to wake up and take action.

Add Mike Dunford to the list of departures.

Sb is crumbling fast. It seems to be the season for things crumbling. I wonder though, how many of those indignant bloggers that couldn’t handle a PepsiCo sponsored nutrition blog actually consume many of PepsiCo’s brands and don’t know it? There’s a lot of brands, Doritos and Mountain Dew for example. What blogger can do without those?

And PepsiCo has a lot of green brands, like Ethos Water that helps children get clean water worldwide.

And who could argue with the greenness and innovation of PepsiCo stuff like this?

sunchips ad

Point is that the bloggers who resigned in protest over a nutrition blog probably consume some of these things and don’t even know who makes it.

But what is really funny is how the new Food Frontiers blog was presented by SEED management in the first place:

As part of this partnership, we’ll hear from a wide range of experts on how the company is developing products rooted in rigorous, science-based nutrition standards to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages. The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy. In addition to learning more about the transformation of PepsiCo’s product portfolio, we’ll be seeing some of the innovative ways it is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging.

Oh the humanity! Lots of tolerance over there at Sb.

I’ll give this piece of advice we always used to give in the TV Newsroom to people calling in that demanded we remove/edit/censure certain news stories, TV shows, or advertisements:

I understand your concerns, thank you, there’s no need to yell. Respectfully, if you don’t like the content, change the channel, we don’t force you to watch.

I find the whole Sb revolt thing hilarious. It’s a tempest in a pop can. Of course, PepsiCo could have defused this whole thing simply by making an announcement to stop putting deadly earth killing CO2 in their sodas, and instead sequestering it out back, underground. Then they’d be heroes, right?

========================================

UPDATE: Luboš Motl finds some interesting tidbits about the state of science at Sb:

To demonstrate that scienceblogs.com has almost nothing to do with science these days, let us look at the five most active articles on their server, according to the main page of scienceblogs.com:

1. Episode LXXXII: Is this the thread for the tea party?… P.Z. Myers just included a would-be funny video that attacks the tea party movement

2. Monckton vs The House of Lords… Tim Lambert wrote a short text discussing purely the form, not the content, of some exchanges of Lord Monckton with the deputies

3. What fresh torment can we perpetrate on young girls?… P.Z. Myers discusses breast ironing in Cameroon and argues it occurs because the inhabitants are Catholics

4. Boyd Haley finally does the right thing, but is it for the wrong reasons?… Orac celebrates that the ScienceBlogs surrendered to the commies like him in PepsiGate; it’s discussed that evil companies are adding drugs to food

5. GOP Talking Points Even GOP Doesn’t Believe… Ed Brayton about Bush tax cuts. Doesn’t even pretend to be science

As you can see, science is virtually non-existent over there and everything is biased left-wing politics. But they still have the breathtaking arrogance to attack PepsiCo’s scientific blog on nutrition as insufficiently scientific for them.

Compare the above postings to the Food Frontiers blog now at PepsiCo’s website.

=============================================

UPDATE2: Predictably, the always angry PZ Myers goes zerkers over this post. He thinks I don’t understand the issue of “ethics of keeping advertising separate from content”. Um Newsflash there PZ. I spent 25 years in a TV and radio newsrooms, don’t lecture me about keeping infomercials off the news.  I’ve fought that battle. But as I pointed out and PZ missed, if people don’t like infomericals, they can turn off the TV or switch the channel. The organized rant that forced SEED to remove the PepsiCo Food Frontiers blog denies readers their right to choose. That’s so uncool but typical for people like PZ that think people shouldn’t be allowed to choose for themselves. Just look at his religious hatreds he posts regularly. No science there, just hate.

Also, without citing a single sentence he claims I have particular take, that the reason for the exodus is that people don’t like PepsiCo products. Well noooooo, if you’d read it rather than engage your typical hateful knee jerk keyboard pounding reaction, you see it was a question.

I wonder though, how many of those indignant bloggers that couldn’t handle a PepsiCo sponsored nutrition blog actually consume many of PepsiCo’s brands and don’t know it?

It seems he’s ended his “strike” (he’s been posting the last couple of days), now he’s busy spiting me for noticing him at all. Next time I’ll just ignore him.

Some class act that PZ. He is the face of Sb today, so sad that science is co-marketed with anger and hate there.

================

UPDATE3: see my detailed comment below

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

146 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pete Hayes
July 23, 2010 6:59 am

Oh heck! (trying hard to not get snipped!). A major company involved in the expansion of bellies and a narrowing of arteries….Good grief! Lets get back on topic, ignore the semantics and the hippies jumping ship!

Henry chance
July 23, 2010 6:59 am

This is so funny. They rant aggainst corporations. When Corporations jump on the marketing bandwagon, the people that rant luve the money.
Exxon did 100 million dollar donation to Stanford where Schneider worked. Now they find themselves chasing the dollar. They are exposed.
Pepsi is the suggar daddy.
Money and High fructose carbon.

Atomic Hairdryer
July 23, 2010 7:08 am

But Pepsi helped bring down the Berlin wall by swapping cola for Stolichnaya, so they can’t be all bad.

JimBrock
July 23, 2010 7:09 am

Wotinell? Who is SEED, and what is Sb besides…what, tin? Antimony? I never heard of this bunch, so what difference does it make?

Tim
July 23, 2010 7:31 am

More evidence that it isn’t just the masses that can’t separate funding from science. As long as they follow the scientific method rigorously I really don’t care who the funding comes from. Now if the funding starts to interfere with that or the fund provider wants certain results from the research and won’t allow full disclosure of unpleasant results then I have a problem.

tallbloke
July 23, 2010 7:37 am

Maybe we should be archiving the more ridiculous pro AGW statements made in the old blog posts. You can be sure they won’t reappear wherever these bloggers turn up next.

PCMigers
July 23, 2010 7:41 am

A quick reading will show that Science Blogs have always been an oxymoron. Perhaps one or two bloggers there possessed an IQ bigger than their waist size, and those few have jumped ship long ago.
The readers of SB? Don’t get me started!

JimB
July 23, 2010 8:13 am

“Patagon says:
July 23, 2010 at 2:04 am
Oh my God!
I’ve been eating Doritos, will I go to hell for that?”
No…but you WILL have to pay a tax.
JimB

July 23, 2010 8:43 am

Daniel H: July 23, 2010 at 5:37 am
…and at this point I’d kill for a (formerly PepsiCo owned) Taco Bell Bacon Club Chalupa thing. You don’t normally realize how much you miss Taco Bell food until it’s no longer an option for you. It’s strange because there are KFC’s everywhere here but not a single Taco Bell in sight.
KFC translates well into most cultures — Taco Bell, not so much.
Most folks who don’t grow up eating dairy products (about 90% of the world) lose their tolerance for lactose — too much queso makes them queasy…

Gareth Evans
July 23, 2010 8:47 am

Pepsi gets oil off your driveway. Seriously. If you have a leak just pore on some Pepsi and leave it for thirty minutes, then wash it all away. I’m sure there’s a green joke or something to do with BP in there…

John Whitman
July 23, 2010 9:00 am

RockyRoad says:
July 23, 2010 at 5:10 am
Where would science be without the capitalistic system? Where would engineering be without the capitalistic system? And where would our standard of living be without the capitalistic system? All three would have a much lower level of development without it.
It sounds like many people at Scienceblogs don’t consider this, which isn’t too surprising. Their education at our higher institutions of liberalism has brainwashed them into believing capitalism is evil, that anything touched by that system should be rejected, and that self-flagelating behavior is the answer. They’ve constructed their own self-righteous demise.

——————
RockyRoad,
Well said.
I would suggest the words “. . . . education at our higher institutions of collectivism . . .” instead of your words ” . . . education at our higher institutions of liberalism . . .”. In 18th & 19th centuries the words liberal/liberalism were about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then the 20th century came along (with its Marxism/Facism/Communism/Socialism/etc) and the meaning was intentionally switched to the opposite by those who wished to mislead.
The terms liberal/liberalism are now just too confounding for my taste. I avoid them.
John

Mike Davis
July 23, 2010 9:10 am

And here I quit buying Pepsi products when they started promoting green. BUMMER!!!!
If I knew they would produce a rebellion at SB I would have continued supporting Pepsi and now I will have to return to buying their products because it seems the Greens do not like Pepsi and an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine.

Austin
July 23, 2010 9:12 am

Maybe they would prefer that Kool-Aid sponsor them?

Jack Simmons
July 23, 2010 9:33 am

Gareth Evans says:
July 23, 2010 at 8:47 am

Pepsi gets oil off your driveway. Seriously. If you have a leak just pore on some Pepsi and leave it for thirty minutes, then wash it all away. I’m sure there’s a green joke or something to do with BP in there…

Maybe Pepsi is a good oil dispersant.
Anyone try it?

Pascvaks
July 23, 2010 10:14 am

Stupid! Stupid! STUPID!
All Pepsico had to do was call their blog “Naked Juice” and address Clean Water Purification as their main subject. There was no need for this to happen. No need at all! Now all these bozo’s get a bunch of free publicity on WUWT’s world-wide front page and bloggers everywhere are spattered with mud and look like a bunch of English Punks and American Rappers. Terrible! Terrible!!
I blame Pepsico!
Pass the Tropicana and Fritos please…

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
July 23, 2010 10:25 am

Excerpt from: Mike Davis on July 23, 2010 at 9:10 am

…an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine.

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.
Rule #29, source
🙂

July 23, 2010 10:47 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel): July 23, 2010 at 10:25 am
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.
– Rule #29

Personally, I’ve always been partial to Rule #12: “A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.”

July 23, 2010 10:48 am

PepsiCo is a really interesting Corporation … There are all kinds of financial MODELS … yanno for “Modeling” to find out where Corporations are heading so that incredibly smart financial “scientists” can predict where those Corporations are going to wind up financially … Heating up or cooling down or tipping-point bound?
Anyway … PepsiCo is the one Corporation that is SO diverse and intricate that the models cannot predict at all when in the hell it’s going to go. Thus … PepsiCo is kinda like Mother Earth or Mother Nature or Weather/Climate … I think I like that!!

maxwell
July 23, 2010 10:50 am

RT,
what am I speculating on? The point of Anthony’s post is that what SEED and Pepsi were doing was absolutely acceptable in the spirit of raising revenue for the site. In light of the fact that the Pepsi blog was being presented as any other of the ScienceBlogs having paid for that space, it’s a conflict of interests. That’s not a matter of speculation and is the meat on my argument.
I was speculating on why others left based on what I had read on ‘Good Math, Bad Math’ and ‘PalMD’. I’m willing to admit that. This point, however, isn’t as significant as the factual point that what Pepsi and SEED were attempting to do represented a conflict of interests.
It’s ok to be wrong sometimes, you know. It’s even acceptable to admit one’s mistakes. You should try it some time.
Oh, and thanks for snipping the end.

July 23, 2010 11:12 am

maxwell: July 23, 2010 at 10:50 am
In light of the fact that the Pepsi blog was being presented as any other of the ScienceBlogs having paid for that space, it’s a conflict of interests.
No, it’s “sailing under a false flag” — peddling products while purporting to be science.
Which meant that PepsiCo(®/™/©) fit right in with the rest of the crew…

Nano Pope
July 23, 2010 11:12 am

Billions of dollars on advertising and marketing and they want to divert some of that complete waste into science? Fine by me. I’m pretty sure the science would be shit, but they deserve a chance to prove that.

D. King
July 23, 2010 11:14 am

Austin says:
July 23, 2010 at 9:12 am
Maybe they would prefer that Kool-Aid sponsor them?
LOL!
Come on back, we’re SORRY. Hey look! I have non-genetically modified grapes for youuuu!

John Whitman
July 23, 2010 11:16 am

Sponsoring research?
Government Sponsoring:
Events of past ~2 years (or longer) show evidence that gov’t sponsors of climate science research are influencing the research they are sponsoring via biased funding mechanisms in favor of CAGW. Government benefits, directly and indirectly, from this bias toward CAGW in the areas of finance and political power over business/citizens.
Private Enterprise Sponsoring:
On the other hand, during the same period, we have the CAGWer’s (supported in funding predominately by gov’t) claims that some private enterprise (oil in particular) sponsors of climate research are influencing the results of the research they are sponsoring in favor of anti-CAGW. The private enterprise sponsors are accused by CAGWers of being biased in favor of their company’s financial gain.
The above perspective becomes more interesting when you consider that in climate research the level of private enterprise funding is insignificant compared to gov’t funding.
GAGWers are winning the sponsorship game big time. Game, set, match . . . . . yet are not winning the science argument and have lost credibility with the public.
John

Tim Clark
July 23, 2010 11:49 am

maxwell says: July 23, 2010 at 10:50 am
what am I speculating on? The point of Anthony’s post is that what SEED and Pepsi were doing was absolutely acceptable in the spirit of raising revenue for the site. In light of the fact that the Pepsi blog was being presented as any other of the ScienceBlogs having paid for that space, it’s a conflict of interests. That’s not a matter of speculation and is the meat on my argument.
This point, however, isn’t as significant as the factual point that what Pepsi and SEED were attempting to do represented a conflict of interests.

I’m not sure who wrote this, but it’s pure bunkum. You do realize that you’re promoting censorship. Do you decide what science is or isn’t. If yes, then I suggest you click on the Al Gore website advert above or another pro AGW web-ad that occasionally pop up and learn to appreciate absurdities, if that isn’t a conflict of your interest.

Bravozulu
July 23, 2010 12:06 pm

It seems that there is a great deal of religion in the guise of anti-religion on many of the science blogs. It is more about who is talking than the message. That is just intolerance. You certainly see it more often in climate science than other sciences where it has become totally politicized. It attracts the most extreme political types from the left that couldn’t care less what someone says about climate unless they are on the approved list and only talk about doom and gloom. They can’t even admit that CO2 helps plants grow unless the plant is poison ivy.
How people with that attitude can call themselves scientists is beyond me. They only adopt science as weapon to ridicule people with. They forget how science is first about objectivity. They have totally lost objectivity and have adopted science as the basis of an intolerant form of religion. It seems to be a large part of the far left political movement now. That isn’t good for science.

Verified by MonsterInsights