Chronicle of Higher Ed to Its Bloggers: Feel Free to Disparage Climate Science but not Black Studies
by Scott Mandia, "Global Warming: Man or Myth?" blog, July 24, 2012
Yesterday, I wrote about the inappropriate blog post by Peter Wood appearing under the banner of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Woods’ post equated the Jerry Sandusky child sex scandal to the email investigation of noted climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann conducted by Penn State. I asked my readers to send letters to CHE requesting a retraction and public apology. Here is the message sent by Chronicle President and Editor-in-Chief Philip Semas to some who sent letters:
Thank you for your message. As we clearly state on every blog post, posting on a blog does imply any endorsement of these views by The Chronicle. We publish a wide range of views in a wide range of formats, from opinion articles in print to blog posts to comments from readers. We couldn’t possible agree with or endorse all of them.We also offer ample opportunity for readers to respond to and criticize opinion articles and blog posts (and indeed almost anything we publish). Indeed, Peter Wood’s post has, at last count, drawn 71 comments, many of which are critical of what he said about Michael Mann. Some make many of the same points you make in your message.In other words, I think your quarrel is with Mr. Wood, not The Chronicle.
Well, there are some problems with his claims.
- Nowhere on Wood’s blog post does it “clearly state on every blog post, posting on a blog does imply any endorsement of these views by The Chronicle”
- The CHE banner waves proudly above his post and on the bottom of page of Wood’s post we see the CHE copyright both of which certainly give the appearance that CHE owns and endorses this piece.
- In May 2012, The Chronicle fired Naomi Riley for writing The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations so apparently CHE does not tolerate attacks on some disciplines but does with others. Why the double standard?
With regard to point #3, The Chronicle posted A Note to Readers to apologize stating:
When we published Naomi Schaefer Riley’s blog posting on Brainstorm last week (“The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations”), several thousand of you spoke out in outrage and disappointment that The Chronicle had published an article that did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.We’ve heard you, and we have taken to heart what you said.We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog. Since Brainstorm was created five years ago, we have sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views, and we have allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach. As part of that freedom, Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley’s post was not reviewed until after it was posted.
Scientists, health officials, military and intelligence experts, and the insurance industry keep warning us about the coming crisis that is climate change. Increased droughts, heat waves, fires, floods, famine, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification, all of which have been predicted for many years are now happening and many are suffering – particularly those in poorer nations who did little to create the crisis.
One must feel sad that The Chronicle of Higher Education has handed a megaphone to a factually challenged ideologue who, like many others, is obstructing scientific progress by attacking our experts. I again encourage you to send a letter to Philip Semas (contact page) asking him to uphold the mission of The Chronicle as a source of informed information.
No comments:
Post a Comment