 |
 |
1) Excuse me, but isn't describing me as cowardly an ad hominem (or ad feminem) attack? I have (I thought quite calmly and reasonably) explained why I offered this link. "...then they should not leave it to the reader to interpret..." Perhaps I believe people on here don't need to be told what to think. Or shouted at. 2) "Is it political to try to improve the way in which the media cover science?" Yes, this is a political aim, which derives from taking a particular view of the way the world is and how it should be. That's not to say this is necessarily wrong. "Political" isn't a dirty word. 3) It seems to me that most of the "spittle flecked invective" has been coming from Bob, and now from you, Mr Kenward. Frankly I'm stunned at the over-wrought language that's been used. I'm half expecting one of you to challenge Francis to a duel. When I came back from lunch and saw this message I felt attacked and I really don't think I've done anything so heinous to warrant it. I'm not even 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 opinion in a GCSE media studies class, it really shouldn't be so shocking in this (one assumes) more media-sophisticated environment. Even if I had espoused the views and made the accusations you and Bob are (falsely) ascribing to me I don't think this tone is reasonable. What effect do you think it has on people who may not agree with you and their willingness to enter a discussion? I'm certainly wishing I'd never commented on this, and I'm not someone who's afraid to stand up for what I think (as people on here who know me can attest, feel free to jump in anytime guys!). This is supposed to be a discussion list. It's not the boys club polemic championship. >From: Michael Kenward <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: "psci-com: on public engagement with science" ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The Great Global Warming Swindle >Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:41:04 +0100 > >It is hard to remain calm and cool in the presence of such objectionable, >ill-informed and possibly libellous comments as "Fox has used [SMC] to >launch some pretty nasty attacks on her political opponents". > >That sort of thing needs challenging, and robustly. I applaud Bob's >response. Where is the evidence that the SMC is a political lobby? Is it >political to try to improve the way in which the media cover science? > >The cowardly interjection of a URL link with no context merely compounds >the >issue. > >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_Media_Centre > >We all know what people can mean by throwing such material into the fray. >If >the person who threw this in didn't want to be misinterpreted, then they >should not leave it to the reader to interpret why this was lobbed over the >wall. > >The self-appointed conspiracy theorists at "Source Watch" shelter in the >USA, where the rabid right feels free to throw around unsubstantiated >accusations. To suggest, as Source Watch does, that the Science Media >Centre >is something to do with "Living Marxism," is not just ludicrous, it is >deranged. Is that what the poster of the link wanted us to take from this? >Who knows? > >If anyone really wants to get an idea of what Fiona Fox has to say on >issues >that really are relevant to the denizens of PSCI, I suggest that they visit >her blog. > >http://fionafox.blogspot.com/ > >Her latest entry is far more thoughtful and reasoned than you would think >possible from the spittle flecked invective that we have seen here. At >least >she checks her facts. She also avoids cowardly innuendo and guilt by >association. > >Is that pompous enough for you Bill? Like you, I have my doubts about the >SMC, but I blame a supine and lazy media. If the hacks were any good we >would not need an SMC. > > >_______________________________________________________________________ >Michael Kenward OBE / Phone: +44 (0)1444 401064 > / >Science Writer & Stuff / My other computer is a slide rule > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: psci-com: on public engagement with science >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon ,Louise >Sent: 26 April 2007 09:45 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The Great Global Warming Swindle > >As Psci-com list manager, can we make the exchanges less heated please. > >Thanks! > >Louise > >-----Original Message----- >From: psci-com: on public engagement with science >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Ward >Sent: 26 April 2007 08:40 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The Great Global Warming Swindle > >It is apparent that you do not have the decency to withdraw your nasty >little smear and that the lack of evidence to substantiate your claims >makes no difference to your views. Lest anybody on this list believes >your falsehoods about the Science Media Centre, I am bound to point out >that the following people are members of its board: > >Kenny Campbell >Editor, Metro > >Dr Philip Campbell >Editor-in-Chief, Nature > >Clive Cookson >Science Editor, Financial Times > >Dr Peter Cotgreave >Director, Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK > >Carolan Davidge >Director of Press & PR, Cancer Research UK > >Mike Granatt CB FIPR >Partner, Luther Pendragon and former Director General of Goverment >Information and Communication Service > >Professor Robin Lovell-Badge FRS >Head of Developmental Genetics, MRC National Institute for Medical >Research > >Tom Miller >Director of Communications, Imperial College London and STEMPRA >committee member > >Rebecca Morelle >Science and Nature reporter, BBC News Online > >Vivienne Parry >Writer, broadcaster and journalist > >Simon Pearson >Night Editor, The Times > >Dr Simon Singh >Science writer and broadcaster > >Adrian Van Klaveren >Deputy Director, BBC News > >Bob Ward >Director of Global Science Networks, Risk Management Solutions Ltd > >Alan Winter >Head of Operations, Royal Institution of Great Britain > > >It is just not credible to claim that we are all part of a "political >lobby organisation". And I suspect that the many journalists who seek >help from the SMC everyday might have found out if it was up to anything >other than providing a first-class service to both the science community >and the media. > >As for your criticism of the joint letter about 'The Great Global >Warming Swindle', I really wish you would not misrepresent it as an >attempt at censorship. It seeks the correction of misrepresentations of >the science, which, as the following news story indicates, even Martin >Durkin has started to accept: >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/313162_global26.html > > >Bob Ward >Director, Global Science Networks > >Risk Management Solutions Ltd >Peninsular House >30 Monument Street >London >EC3R 8NB > >Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 >Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 > >www.rms.com > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: psci-com: on public engagement with science >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis Sedgemore >Sent: 25 April 2007 22:23 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The Great Global Warming Swindle > >Apart from answering an off-list email response to my earlier >contribution, I've been out of action for most of the day owing to a >copy deadline. However, this evening I've put together 1700 words on the >subject, and posted them here: > >http://skysong.eu/2007/04/science-advocacy-and-political-lobbying/ > >Michael Kenward - yes, you're right about the corporate nature of C4. >Silly me. You're also right about sensationalist headlines dreamt up by >subeditors - a most peculiar sub-species. On a few occasions I've had >cause to curse Guardian Unlimited subs. On the other hand, they >occasionally come up with some absolute gems (although the creator of >the recent "CAMERON FINGERED OVER DYKE" should hang his head in shame!). > >The SMC describes itself as an independent media agency working to >promote the voices, stories and views of the scientific community. >That may be part of it, but the SMC is also a political lobby >organisation, and Fox has used it to launch some pretty nasty attacks on >her political opponents. > >My mistake today was to not focus exclusively on criticising the open >letter to Durkin, and its calls for what can only be described as >censorship. For that I accept Michael K's admonition. But to be honest I >just couldn't help it. I was so struck by the irony of those who claim >that climate-change is due to human influence failing to see that the >object of their opprobrium and some of their science media allies are >political bedfellows. And the politics in question are truly bizarre. > >There may have been, and still be, some respectable human beings >involved with the SMC, but the evidence is overwhelming regarding the >true agenda of those pulling the strings. That evidence is, as has been >pointed out here, in the public domain. > >The SMC is, through some of its personnel, directly connected with the >other organisations on the list questioned by Michael K. > >Francis > > >On 25 Apr 07, at 18:35, Michael Kenward wrote: > > > Never judge a story by its headline. > > > > Even the author of the story gets pissed off by that sort of thing. > > And they > > will not see it before they get their own copy of the paper. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > _ > > Michael Kenward OBE / Phone: +44 (0)1444 > > 401064 > > / > > Science Writer & Stuff / My other computer is a slide > > rule > > >-- >Dr Francis Sedgemore >Freelance journalist and science writer >tlf: +44.7840191336; web: http://skysong.eu > >********************************************************************** >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 >********************************************************************** > >********************************************************************** >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 >********************************************************************** _________________________________________________________________ Solve the Conspiracy and win fantastic prizes. http://www.theconspiracygame.co.uk/ ********************************************************************** 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 **********************************************************************