UK’s Science Media Centre lambasted for pushing corporate science

[TiredSam]

Exposing the SMC could be a good train to jump on, with some possible allies identified from other areas who are being screwed over by the SMC just like we are. The author is taking a bit of a bashing in the comments section, so perhaps some of our vexatious militant posters (by which I mean articulate, civilised, and well-informed advocates) would like to consider lending a hand? I'd do it myself but I'm prone to polemical ranting once I get going so I'd rather leave it to the experts who know how to do it and are an example to us all.

 

[Chrisb]

@TiredSam

I may be being even more incompetent than usual, but as you mention "the author" I think you must have meant to include a link and I can't see one.

 

[TiredSam]

Sorry, just realised that the article is from May 2014, I thought it was new. From before my time on PR, maybe it was discussed here. There's a long bickering session between 2-3 people, and Tom K made a couple of comments.

 

[TiredSam]

@TiredSam

I may be being even more incompetent than usual, but as you mention "the author" I think you must have meant to include a link and I can't see one.

I don't think you want to get into an "incompetent" contest with me this morning, and I can't even blame brain fog. Here's the link:

http://www.scidev.net/global/journa...-lambasted-for-pushing-corporate-science.html

 

[sarah darwins]

I don't think you want to get into an "incompetent" contest with me this morning, and I can't even blame brain fog.

We've all been there, Sam. I have a lot of days when it's not so much brain fog as a lot of "why the **** did I do that?" moments.

The SMC is one of those organisations with no good reason to exist. It's founding mission was to bring better, more accurate reporting of science to the public and wider public understanding of key issues. As Dr.Phil would say, "How's that working for ya?"

Science reporting has gone from bad to far worse — just look at the 'Science' section of any news site or paper and look at the junk that's there.

Quite apart from its highly questionable selection of 'experts' and it's clear biases in some contentious areas, the SMC has almost certainly helped to lower standards of science reporting in the British media. We see more 'science correspondents' than ever who have no scientific qualifications or background. Why should papers and broadcasters bother with specialists when the SMC is there to spoon-feed them material? Any half-competent hack can do the job (they just won't have a clue how to appraise or question what they're being told).

The SMC is the kind of thing which can easily be made to sound like a good idea to someone who hasn't really thought it through. The realities of how such a body, with quasi-official status, functions are almost entirely pernicious.

 

[A.B.]

Science reporting needs to be decentralized. A central organization is vulnerable to takeovers from special interest groups.

PS: special, not specialist

 

[sarah darwins]

Science reporting needs to be decentralized. A central organization is vulnerable to takeovers from specialist interest groups.

Exactly. And centralised dissemination of information is a recipe for homogenised, unquestioning orthodoxy. That's why the Soviets created TASS. Maybe SMC-TASS would be a better name.

 

[TiredSam]

Exactly. And centralised dissemination of information is a recipe for homogenised, unquestioning orthodoxy. That's why the Soviets created TASS. Maybe SMC-TASS would be a better name.

If they changed their name to Science Media Approved Reporting we could have SMAR-TASS.

Well if my brain isn't working today anyway I might as well be silly.

 

[jimells]

[Science writer Connie] St Louis estimated that at least half a million pounds (more than US$840,000) of government money had been spent on the centre since its creation in 2002.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

it's a criminal organization far as I'm concerned

Corporations and "Capitalism" (in certain sense since it gets warped into Fascism) are worst menace Human Race have ever created, religion, "Communism", Nazis etc are so obvious In their thuggish arrogance and inhumanity, they are obvious and easy to rally against
But Corporate Fascism is more like a poisonous addiction, secret society of perverts and criminals etc, a sort of "Cult of Thuggee" if you will. They may not heap the corpses up in windrows like war and obvious genocides do, but over time, they kill a hell of a lot more.
SMC is just one of it's tools, and the scum who eagerly will serve and lie for ego and cash.

SMC and other such propaganda tools, spew what the "Bosses" want to hear and the Public to be blinded by
But doing it in an oily, sly way.
The Soviets suffered dreadfully thanks to their centralized system that had no give and let people like Trofim Lysenko literally ruled "Science" in the USSR, anyone who disagreed with his bullshit was liable to lose their position, if not their freedom or very life.

If you don't follow the Corporate line, you lose your job, mortgage and livelihood and as it progresses, eventually folk will lose their lives if they don't follow the corporate line, dying int he gutter or if societal degeneration and use as a tool, a tyrant take power.
Once you take the brakes off the law and societal acceptable limits, it always degenerates down to hell, just takes longer because the UK had long history of moral concern and Human Rights....but vermin like Ian Duncan Smith have risen like gassy turds to the top of the toilet bowl....and deaths are occurring

I have zero sympathy with anyone in the SMC, they know what they are doing, to hell with them.


A.B.
Science itself needs massively decentralized
alas, for many good reasons it coalesced around Universities and the like in the later 1800s
but that itself led to terrible warping of Science
Tenure, publication kudos and later, patent and commercial interests have grossly perverted it :/

Science is NOT about a PhD and "white coat", it's something ANYONE can take part in, provided they are methodical and ethical and in greater scheme of things, moral, which is very necessary as well.
There really does need to be a "Hippocratic Oath" for Science, it's too damn vital to let ego, greed etc warp and poison its fruits :/

 

[*GG*]

UK’s Science Media Centre is a private or gov't or mixture kind of entity?

GG

 

[Valentijn]

UK’s Science Media Centre is a private or gov't or mixture kind of entity?

It receives funding from both the UK government and private corporations. A pretty obscene mix, in my opinion.

 

[Luther Blissett]

UK’s Science Media Centre is a private or gov't or mixture kind of entity?

GG

The best way to understand them in my view - is to view them as Corporatist Courtiers. Or more snappily, The Poisons (literal and metaphorical) Marketing Board.

 

[jimells]

It receives funding from both the UK government and private corporations. A pretty obscene mix, in my opinion.

That's the very definition of fascism, according to Bernito Mussolini, who is alleged to have known something about the topic.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power

 

[sarah darwins]

Does it get direct government funding? Anyone got a link for that?