Bishop Hill Fiona Fox responds to Research Fortnight
Sep 7, 2011 BBC Climate: CRU When the BBC published its review of science, Research Fortnight published a leader criticising Steve Jones' report, saying it was "a victory for the forces of public relations". Now Fiona Fox, of Science Media Centre fame, has responded.
The leader also assumes that research press officers do little but promote beautifully crafted, peer-reviewed studies on new breakthroughs. But what about the press officers at the University of Oxford who spent years persuading reluctant university authorities to open up their animal research facilities to the media, despite a history of violent attacks from animal rights extremists? What about the Imperial College London press officer who spent her weekends and evenings supporting David Nutt after he was sacked as drugs adviser by the Home Secretary? What about the University of East Anglia press officers who managed the fallout from ‘climate-gate’ for over a year while the world sat in judgment on their media-relations strategy?
Can she really not know that the PR campaign at UEA was run by the Outside Organisation?
Reader Comments (25)
Science is a debate about the evidence. I praise Research Fortnight for running both these articles - but I cannot support those who enjoy the benefit of being able to argue their views who then argue to repress the views of others.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the BBC have been wholly biased in their coverage of global warming. They have used the excuse that the "scientist" (i.e. a small group of climate scientists) overwhelmingly say one thing therefore this is the science.
If you compare that with the same thing they said about WMD: "whilst there is an overwhelming consensus of the weapons scientists the BBC have a duty of impartiality and must carry the views of others even if they are not weapons scientists" (not a quote), then you find the BBC are been hypocritical in the extreme.
They cannot on the one hand say they have a duty of impartiality to carry opinion and evidence from those who are not experts when it suits them and then say they they have to only carry the views of the experts when it then suits them to be biased.
They either have to change their charter and become the government stooge they obviously are keen to do .... not only when they agree with the government, but also when they disagree, or they have to keep to the terms of the charter and be impartial and not use the excuse "we can only cover the 'official' position".
You mean Fiona Fox, someone who denied the Rwandan genocide, person who made a fake phone call for a Labour MP convicted of fraud, a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a former PR officer - that Fiona Fox.
Well it comes as no surprise she has created a version of events in her head that have no connection with the facts of the truth.
"Can she really not know that the PR campaign at UEA was run by the Open Organisation?"
Isn't it called the Outside Organisation? I don't think there's very much Open about it.
"Can she really not know that the PR campaign at UEA was run by the Open Organisation?"
Andrew Montford
a) Yes - it's quite possible for someone, even if it does intersect with their field to a fair degree, not to be aware of who was doing what with a university's PR management a few years back. Not everyone pores over all these things to the same (perhaps slightly obsessive) degree as you lot do.
b) One way of managing something, is to include others who may be better at some elements of it than you, and get them invovled in the decision-making. This is still managing, and often quite a sensible management decision.
c) It really, really, doesn't matter very much, in the greater scheme of things. Andrew, even if you do spot an opportunity to shine a negative light on someone, you really should getter better at applying quality control. This couldn't be a better example of a minor quibble, or an unnecessary nit-pick.
d) This is a bit 'tin foil hat'. In reality, very few things indeed are conspriracies.
I don't know that the Nutt example is a good one.
Didn't he throw a hissy fit because the government refused to take his advice? Something along the lines of "what's the point in having a scientific adviser if you don't take his advice?" Like certain others I could name, forgetting that science advice and practical politics (which is what governments are engaged in) do not always happen to coincide.
"I don't know that the Nutt example is a good one."
Sep 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM | Mike Jackson
The example was used to make the point that press officers do more than "promote beautifully crafted, peer-reviewed studies on new breakthroughs". If the press officer concerned used up their evenings and weekends supporting Nutt, then it makes this point well, and is a good example.
ZedsDeadBed: "very few things indeed are conspiracies."
"In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement." And unlike the FOI act, I don't see a limit on Statutory Conspiracy under the Criminal Law Act 1977
I wonder whether this would count:-
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I think this assumption is completely false.
A beautifully crafted peer-reviewed study on a new breakthrough will, to a large extent, promote itself and the press officer is superfluous. On the other hand, a poorly crafted, peer-reviewed study that is full of dubious assumptions and data needs all the help it can get from a press officer.
"getter better at applying quality control"
Quite.
Imperial College London press officer who spent her weekends and evenings supporting David Nutt ... sorry but that makes me wonder at what point the level of contact ceases to be purely professional?
Update ... they even get away with conspiracy!
In the Sunday Telegraph on January 30 2010, Christopher Booker suggested that a prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offence under s 77 of the FOI Act could be brought under the Criminal Law Act 1977, even if the 6 month period had expired.
However, it appears that any proceedings for conspiracy to commit an offence would be subject to the same time limits as those applying to the offence itself. Section 4(4) of the 1977 Act states:
"Where (a) an offence has been committed in pursuance of any agreement; and (b) proceedings may not be instituted for that offence because any time limit applicable to the institution of any such proceedings has expired, proceedings under section 1 above for conspiracy to commit that offence shall not be instituted against any person on the basis of that agreement."
So a media person convinces a laboratory to provide more work for media persons. How did it help the lab? Did it stop the animal rights extremists?
This is called counselling and many local councils offer counselling services for situations like this.
The UEA had so much confidence in their press officers that they hired an external organisation to run the PR campaign.
''In reality, very few things indeed are conspriracies.''
Sep 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed
Agreed Zed...including oil industry funded 'denier' activity...
Yes?
'Newspeak' and babbling nonsense from a shill.
Mac's observations provide an insight into the authoress's 'abilities'; delusional, purblind, biased and jaundiced in outlook would all suit and bespoken at that.
As an 18 year old Maths fresher, the pure Maths prof told me about the algebra behind Rubiks cube (the solution to) and the Applied Maths prof told me that an ice age was coming in the next few hundred years. I imagine these guys were in it for all the right reasons and I would like to hope I’m in the same camp.
Over subsequent years I’ve observed the over interpretation of many pieces of research that have led to public policy changes. The original article relating folic acid (or lack of) to NTD’s (spinabiffida etc) was seriously flawed and a few years after graduation I had the opportunity to discuss said paper with medical students, amazing how receptive they were to anything in print, so much so that they saw none of the limitations in the paper. I forgot this at the time when climategate came to be and fully expected this embarrassment to science to be over, but it seems stronger than ever. I can’t get any sense out of my MP, nor the DECC. No discussion just boilerplate responses, they sound like my group or unthinking medical students.
Not to say the inference from the original NTD paper was not right, just the method was not sound and too much was made of it. As most here clearly see, there is currently no link of the inexorable increase in CO2 to temperature trends, just excuses why there is this ‘travesty’. Surely everyone can see this, and surely they will eventually question, hopefully before the climate quite naturally moves into a phase where warming would be supported again, unless applied prof’s prediction is coming to fruition.
Mac:
Fiona Fox . . . a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party
I have no truck with Ms Fox, never once read Living Marxism and have no wish to get involved in the "genocide denial" debate.
But I'd note in passing that Spiked Online, known for regularly publishing good material on AGW (emphasising more the sociology of the bandwagon than the "science") was founded by and runs regular contributions from former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
These contributions include articles cited with approval both here and on other "climate sceptic" sites.
Reminds me of people in Italy that still say "But Mussolini did make the trains run on time!"
Slightly off topic, but is there really a 6 month sStatute of limitations in the FOI act or was that just a smokescreen to justify doing nothing?
Re: FarleyR
Both. As far as I am aware the 6 month limit starts when the crime is detected, not when it was committed.
In the case of the UEA they decided to apply the limit from when it was committed and not when it came to light in the emails.
Oh those lovely, helpful PR persons!!
One wonders why none of them could counsel or persuade Mr Phil Jones and the rest at UEA that actually providing all the data they said they couldn't/wouldn't/didn't have would be far less hassle in the short term and far better for them, long-term ...
One also surmises that the gender of the PR person and the person being PRed might have something to do with it. Else, why would Mr Wallis have been so 'successful'?
Fiona Fox has never given any proof that there is any reason to believe anything she writes. Enf of!
LOL, Fiona Fox has taken how long to respond? Now she trawls through the internet to come up with ancient history and stuff not remotely related to AGW!
I await the "Editor Ehsan Masood will reply in the next issue" with huge interest!
Editor Ehsan Masood:
"Born in London in 1967, his father Hassan Masood worked in actuarial science and his mother Shamsa Masood is a writer of short fiction in Urdu. He went to schools in York, Karachi and London; studied applied physics at Portsmouth Polytechnic and science communication at Birkbeck, University of London.
He worked for the journal Nature as a writer from 1995 to 1999 and again as acting chief commissioning editor in 2008/2009. He has also worked as Opinion Editor of New Scientist and communications director at LEAD International.
He has also written for Prospect magazine and Opendemocracy.net, as well as The Times, The Guardian and Le Monde. He is a trustee of Leadership for Environment and Development and also advises the British Council on science and on cultural relations.
Ehsan Masood is a regular contributor to Home Planet, an environmental affairs programme on BBC Radio 4 in the UK."
I do not hold out much hope, but there you go, that's the fight we have!
As a person qualified in (his father that is) Actuarial science (which, is the discipline that applies mathematical and statistical methods to assess risk in the insurance and finance industries...(who are up to there financial knees in carbon trading!) one wonders how this will turn out... He (Ehsan) appears to have done nothing other than work for magazines and the Guardian would seem to be his sort of paper!
It really is a week for moving the foot before pulling the trigger!
Farley
The six month limit is because FOI offences have to be prosecuted in the magistrates courts, where there is a 6mth limit.
What about them? Even with help from Luther Pendragon (see also SMC), Bob Ward (see also SMC), the SMC and Outside Organisation (see most newspapers) many people think their PR was rather shambolic. See also the UEA's complaint against Heather Brook. If the UEA's people had been more on the ball, they may have been announcing beautifully crafted data sharing agreements and a spirit of openness and transparency from CRU. A new model for climate research institutions to follow driven by public interest in climate science.
Instead they ended up flailing around like headless chickens after the fact and coming up with ideas like "It was the Russians", or Chinese, or anything but an internal leak. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Fiona is, of course, the supreme arbiter of scientific truth, according to her own admission
'For me the frustrating bit of this 'he said/she said' reporting is the implicit failure of journalists to guide their audiences closer to the truth. After 10 years in science I am better qualified now to judge between two experts making diametrically opposite scientific claims, but less qualified people are just left having to hazard a guess. '
http://fionafox.blogspot.com/2011/07/thoughts-on-bbc-trust-review-of-science.html