Bishop Hill A baseless attack on Leake
Jul 2, 2010 Media By strange coincidence, the story of an another attack on the Sunday Times' Jonathan Leake. An organisation called the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) has emailed a number of journliasts claiming that Leake breached an embargo.
Science journalist Natasha Loder points out a small glitch with ESHRE's case.
ESHRE’s email sounds damning. But the problem is that Mr Leake did not actually break the embargo because, as the same email explained, he is “already barred” from ESHRE’s media database so didn’t receive a press release in the first place.
Get that? He hadn't actually agreed to the embargo anyway. He was able to get the story because ESHRE had accidentally published it on their website.
At this point, the story is taken up by a familiar face in the shape of Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre fame. Fox wrote an email to a group of journalists arguing that Leake was guilty anyway and wrote a blog post to the same effect. Fox rather hilariously seems to believe that journalists should respect embargos on information that is already in the public domain and that the journalists in question haven't even signed up for.
What is still more intriguing is that Leake had already written a story based on the same website without a squeak. So why is it a problem now? And why the fuss on such a flimsy pretext?
I find the involvement of Fiona Fox fascinating. The Science Media Centre has, of course, been closely involved in matters climatological in recent weeks, providing PR support to the Oxburgh and Russell panels. The involvement of our old friend Bob Ward in the centre's work is also well documented.
Leake of course has been rather off-message since the start of the year, writing several pieces on the IPCC that have drawn the ire of greens everywhere, and prompting a campaign of vilification and the famous Amazongate PCC complaint of Dr Lewis. Is this just another shot across Leake's bows to encourage him to toe the line more closely in future?
Or perhaps it's just a coincidence.
Reader Comments (13)
This is spectacularly inept public relations, it wouldn't cut the mustard in the private sector. But then Fiona Fox has no experience of the private sector, and wouldn't know.
Leake is outside the embargo system, so he has committed no crime. The reason PRs are paid so much, and that their dark arts are valued by clients, is that they should be able to 'neutralise' such wild cards. This is done building up a relationship - you may call it seduction if you like.
As Fox admits, the PR clique has given up on this, all it can do is whinge that Leake is not in the club. Which sucks for Fox, but then she's paid to deal with it.
I would have left a comment on the blog of Fiona Fox but you have to a login or somesuch.
Hey ho - if Fiona by some slim chance reads this, you are quite frankly a prat. I work a lot with contracts for clients that contain a confidentiality clause, and belive me the sanctions are much stiffer then being sent to Coventry by Fiona Fox. But the one thing about confidentiality agreements is they follow the law. They all say that you cannot reveal anything confidential gained during your work under the contract unless that information is already shown to be in the public domain, in which case you do or say what you like about the information already in the public domain.
You don't get much more public than posting it on your website and unless the information was only available via a confidential page where you had to agree to terms and conditions and leave your name and contact details then no contract of confidentiality has been entered.
I know this and I am not even a lawyer. However, for Fiona Fox to now publicly write that Jonathan Leake broke the embargo is, I suspect, libel and could be actionable.
I say it again: Fiona you are a pompous prat and should apologise to Jonathan Leake.
Ha, well said, ThinkingScientist.
In Mde. Fiona's case 0 = 1, a contradiction meaningless because it can "prove" anything: No embargo applies to Leake, but applying to Leake equals not applying to Leake, therefore an embargo applies to Leake.
If we were anti-feministically inclined --but what's the difference, by Fiona's standards feminism and anti-feminism are the same-- we'd wonder whether she is blinded by Green Gang hysteria or just a fool. But then again, where 0 = 1 the theses are identical.
There has obviously been a lot of back-room maneuvering to get Leake off the WWF and the IPCC's back from his Sunday Times perch.
ThinkingScientist,
I agree, it is quite possibly actionable by Jonathan Leake, professional reputation etc etc. I don't know why, but if I were he, I'd be strangely inclined towards suchlike. Seems to be quite a bit of it about lately, seems a shame to miss out?
So this information was inadvertantly "Leaked".
What this Fiona Fox?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Fox_(UK_press_officer)
T&E
That's the one.
Today's guerrilla attack on her Wiki entry is amusing, given the whole Connolley/Winston Smith saga, but it is probably better to leave the entry standing, as long as it retains the reference to the Revolutionary Communist Party so we all know what sort of person Leake is dealing with. It certainly explains her tactics.
Lest we forget ;)
Fiona Fox: BBC Newswatch interview: ( 23/04/2010 )
"to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about 'climate science'" -
Fiona Fox:
"People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally (at the BBC) to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story."
Doesn't seem like Fiona Fox has ever done anything worthwhile for mankind. She's a typical burden on society.
lucky for her fox hunting is currently banned in the U.K.