-----Original Message-----
arguing Francis's point. I just offered a link and pointed out that it's
always wise to seek information from a range of sources and consider
possible influences on messages. This would be an entirely uncontroversial
---End Quoted (and cut) Message---
Yes, you did, amplify, and thank you for that. But the explanation came
later.
That was my point. I know how people can misinterpret something lobbed in
like that. I have been known to use that cowardly tactic myself, usually
when I want to wind someone up.
Apologies if it upset your lunch. Those of us who have had to spend frenzied
minutes filling a hole on an editorial comment page perhaps try too hard to
write in a way that will provoke people to sit up and take notice.
The page at the end of your link actually said nothing about the SMC to
support the assertions made here by others.
As to their status as a lobbying group, what do they lobby for? Better
informed media?
An understanding of how they pick the subjects that they put under the noses
of journalists might help. As I understand it, this happens in several ways.
I have "used" the SMC to act as an honest broker that can bring in science
writers who are hard to reach by other routes. (When I was "writer in
residence on Foresight projects.) The science hacks have come to respect the
SMC's judgment. If the SMC rings and offers a place at a briefing, the hacks
know that there's been some filtering out of duds and the blatantly
promotional.
The other way in which the SMC acts is to spot science subjects that are
"bubbling under" and to set up briefings so that the scientists can be
prepared for when the faecal matter hits the rotating air moving mechanism.
A guess that I shouldn't miss out a third role for SMC, fire fighting. As in
responding when something unexpected comes along, like a train crash.
I think we can safely leave it to the advisory panel, already listed by Bob,
to ensure that the SMC doesn't wander too far off the straight and narrow.
Following the trail of links you provided - for which thanks - although I
was already familiar with the Center for Media and Democracy, you will end
up with one that actually comes back to the subject of this "thread" climate
change. One crime that the SMC, or rather Fiona Fox, is said to have
committed is that of ignoring climate change. Of being, indeed, a denier.
Funny, one of their most recent briefings was with James Lovelock. That was
one of several "climate related" events last year. One by the Tyndall
Centre, probably the flag bearer for climate change research in the UK.
One reason to worry about the Center for Media and Democracy, by the way, is
that it uses the Wikipedia model, allowing anyone to go in and write
whatever they want about people and organisations.
Disclaimer, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the SMC beyond dropping un
from time to time. I don't get invited to their briefings. (I am not a
"working hack" these days.) not even an invite to their booze and schmooze
sessions, more's the pity.
MK
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
**********************************************************************
|