Yes, journalism, especially print media, has been in trouble.  With the evolution of journalism from print to web, things can get confusing, and many media organizations are still adapting.  These organizations are still learning how to profit on the web, such as charging for content versus giving it away for free.  In print media, most of the funds come from advertising, and not from the fee you pay for your morning paper.  In print, it is usually easier to tell an ad from an editorial piece, but with web layouts and dynamic pages, sometimes things can get a bit murky.  Responsible media organizations need to make sure the reader knows when editorial content ends and advertising content begins.

In a leaked letter from Adam Bly to the Sciblings, he explains the importance of advertising to Seed Media, and the industry at large:

SB, like nearly all free content sites, is sustainable because of advertising. But advertising is itself highly unpredictable, as the last year has shown the industry. And securing advertising around topics like physics and evolution is even more challenging as the dearth of ad pages in science magazines indicates. We started experimenting with sponsored blogs a couple of years ago and decided to market long-term sponsorship contracts instead of sporadic advertising contracts. This is not a new idea: respected magazines have been doing the same thing for years (think Atlantic Ideas Festival going on now or The New Yorker Festival, where representatives of sponsoring companies sit on stage alongside writers and thinkers, or advertorials where companies pay to create content — clearly marked as such — instead of just running an ad).

At the end of this excerpt though is the key point- when sponsored blogs are present, they must CLEARLY MARKED AS SUCH.  In a blog post about the scandal, Superbug shared specific guidelines from  American Society of Magazine Editors that state:

We recommend the following standards (subject to change as the medium evolves):
The home page and all subsequent pages of a publication’s Web site should display the publication’s name and logo prominently, in order to clarify who controls the content of the site.
All online pages should clearly distinguish between editorial and advertising or sponsored content. If any content comes from a source other than the editors, it should be clearly labeled. A magazine’s name or logo should not be used in a way that suggests editorial endorsement of an advertiser. The site’s sponsorship policies should be clearly noted, either in text accompanying the article or on a disclosure page (see item 8), to clarify that the sponsor had no input regarding the content.
Hypertext links that appear within the editorial content of a site, including those within graphics, should be at the discretion of the editors. If links are paid for by advertisers, that should be disclosed to users.
Special advertising or “advertorial” features should be labelled as such.

In the case of the Pepsi blog, Food Frontiers, it was not clearly marked as advertising.  There was no transparency.  Instead, the blog sat alongside those of pre-established, respected scientists and writers who earned their invitation to be a part of ScienceBlogs through respect.  David Dobbs wrote a great post on the matter.  Dobbs was just one of many Sciblings who took part in a mass exodus from ScienceBlogs and have been establishing new homes elsewhere on the web…and so now I remind you all to update your RSS feeds and blogrolls, as I have just done, to make sure you support all these wonderful science bloggers on their journeys to new homes on the web.

It is with great sadness that I watch all these bloggers leave ScienceBlogs and find new homes, and marks a changing landscape in the blogosphere.  I urge you all to read Bora’s post on the changing science blogging ecosystem- I cried while reading it.  PZ Myers may have the top-ranked science blog out there, but to me, Bora is the center of the science blogging universe.  To see him leave ScienceBlogs really means the end of an era.

This new era is a strange one.  For nearly two years, I have held ScienceBlogs in high regard.  I’d dreamt of one day being invited to be a Scibling, something I viewed as an honor.  But the recent actions of Seed have tainted that respect, and left a funny taste in my mouth….sort of like when you burp hot-dog flavor while eating an ice-cream cone hours later.  The bad taste may subside, but it all depends on how Seed handles itself in the near future.  I know there are still concerns and issues with those who have chosen to remain at ScienceBlogs, but that several of those individuals are seeking big changes from Seed in order to stay put.  Hopefully their needs are met.  The way Seed chooses to handle itself from here on out will dictate whether or not it will be able to regain the respect it once had.

The headlines, from outlets of varying reputability: “Great white sharks hunt just like Hannibal Lecter”, “Great white serial killers: Terror of the seas target victims in the same way as psychopaths”, “Just Give Up: Sharks Are Serial Killers”, and so on and so forth.  Good job media.  Let’s reinforce the whole “Jaws” image and convince people that sharks have humans on their menu, and that they are tracking us down like Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and BTK.  Good job.

As if that didn’t already get my knickers in a twist, I then stumbled upon this article from The Guardian.  The article says, ”Great white sharks could be regular visitors to the coast by the 2080s, where they could find more bathers enjoying the Mediterranean climate.”  Yes, because that is exactly the case.  Great white sharks are THAT good at detecting humans, or are THAT clairvoyant, that they will be migrating to the Mediterranean to hunt down humans as tasty little snacks.  WE ARE NOT ON THE MENU!

….and then there was the icing on the cake.

Now, my opinion of Bill Hemmer and Fox News was not too great after this post from Southern Fried Science, which featured a video of Bill Hemmer interviewing author Steve Alten on his new novel, “Meg: Hell’s Aquarium”.  Things like the photo caption saying megalodons reach up to 50 feet while Bill Hemmer says they reach up to 70 feet in length just show a lack of attention to detail, and concern for accuracy.  And don’t even get me started on Bill Hemmer’s supremely stupid facial expressions.

Thanks, Fox News.  You’ve really outdone yourself this time.  With an opener like, “Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water” we are right back to the scare tactics.  And I love your use of footage of a sand tiger shark while you are talking about great white sharks.  Your accuracy is astounding.  What the hell happened to responsible journalism?

Apparently it was also necessary to bring up shark attacks on humans instead by saying, “seals are the favorite meal, but our brain-room found 116 great white shark attacks on humans in the last 18 years, of those, 25 were fatal and 91 people survived.”  The numbers check out with the International Shark Attack File, but of course it was said in such a way as to make it seem like that was a lot.

A little perspective?  Between 1876 and 2008, there were only 244 attacks by great white sharks WORLDWIDE.  Out of thoe 244, only 65 were fatal.  That averages out to around 2 attacks per year, and only one fatal attack every two years.  Even if the numbers are a little off due to lack of reporting from third world countries, think about how many people go to the beach…thousands upon thousands.  Think about how many days of the year people go to the beach, or go surfing, or diving.  Then realize how many attacks there are.  You are more likely to get struck by lightning, or killed by a falling coconut.

]]> http://ohfortheloveofscience.com/2009/06/27/holy-haberdashery-batman-sensationalism-strikes-again/feed/ 2 http://ohfortheloveofscience.com/2009/06/18/has-sensationalistic-programming-demonized-sharks/ http://ohfortheloveofscience.com/2009/06/18/has-sensationalistic-programming-demonized-sharks/#comments Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:03:53 +0000 Allie http://ohfortheloveofscience.com/?p=1019 Ever since Jaws first cast sharks as villains, the sharks of the world have been having been having a hard time getting out of that role.  In later years, Jaws author Peter Benchley realized the long-lasting impacts of his first novel and became a devoted advocate for shark conservation.

In Ocean Planet: Writings and Images of the Sea, Benchley writes:

“No, the shark in an updated Jaws could not be the villain; it would have to be written as the victim, for, worldwide, sharks are much more the oppressed than the oppressors. Every year, more than a hundred million sharks are slaughtered by man. It has been estimated that for every human life taken by a shark, 4.5 million sharks are killed by humans. And rarely for a useful purpose.”

For many people, their only exposure to sharks is from TV and newspapers.  When the media sensationalized shark attacks and dubbed 2001 “Summer of the Shark”, they increased public fear of sharks and made it seem like there were MORE shark attacks that year; when in fact, there were 15% fewer shark attacks than the previous year.  Actions such as these are harmful to the reputation of sharks.  There are HUNDREDS of species of shark, and only a small handful of species are ever involved in attacks.

And yet, sharks still remain cast as villains.  Sensationalistic programming takes advantage of people’s fear of sharks and uses that fear to draw people in.  Discovery Channel’s annual “Shark Week” has been “pandering to the fear factor”, to borrow a phrase from my friend Dr. David E. Guggenheim.  Last year’s titles include “Ocean of Fear”, “Top Five: Eaten Alive”, “Surviving Sharks” and “How Not to Become Shark Bait”.  This year you can expect to see shows such as “Great White Appetite”, “Sharkbite Summer”, “Deadly Waters” and “Blood in the Water”.  Because of this sensationalistic portrayal of sharks, the Discovery Channel is reinforcing the public’s fear of sharks and undermining conservation efforts.

There is a whole blog devoted to the controversy surrounding Shark Week, called Discovery’s Shame.  Discovery Channel Senior Science Editor Paul Gasek has agreed to be interviewed about the controversy over at Southern Fried Science.  In preparation, David (aka WhySharksMatter) has put out a call for questions for his upcoming interview.  You can submit your questions in the comments section of his blog post until 5pm on Tuesday, June 23.  And while you’re over at Southern Fried Science, go read David’s post on four things EVERYONE needs to know about sharks.