Chatter from the Blogshpere on NSTA/L aurie David case
(1) HYPERLINK
"http://www.wsst.org/labtable.asp?newsID=242" \o "Open URL:
http://www.wsst.org/labtable.asp?newsID=242" \t "linkWin" http://www.wsst.org/labtable.asp?newsID=242
50,000 Free DVDs: Gift Horse or Trojan Horse?
(2) HYPERLINK
"http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/11/laurie_david_just_looks_worse.php"
\o "Open URL:
http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/11/laurie_david_just_looks_worse.php"
\t "linkWin" http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/11/laurie_david_just_looks_worse.php
Laurie David just looks worse and worse by the minute
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYPERLINK
"http://www.wsst.org/labtable.asp?newsID=242" \o "Open URL:
http://www.wsst.org/labtable.asp?newsID=242" \t "linkWin" http://www.wsst.org/labtable.asp?newsID=242
50,000 Free DVDs: Gift Horse or Trojan Horse?
You may have heard that NSTA has turned down Laurie David’s offer of 50,000
free DVDs of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” What we didn’t hear is
what Laurie David left out of her editorial in the Washington Post. In a
recent press release Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the NSTA, explains
that NSTA did not outright reject the opportunity.
During conversations with Ms. David's representative we suggested making the
DVD available via alternative means of distribution (e.g. by providing a
mailing list of our members to producers, announcing its availability in our
publications, etc.). It appears that these alternative distribution mechanisms
were unsatisfactory.
The problem with David’s offer is that it was a donation with strings attached.
John Whitsett, WSST member and NSTA President elect, explained that NSTA didn’t
reject the donation but did reject doing the distribution. (John Whitsett will
be on WPR as Joy Cardin’s guest tomorrow at 6 a.m. to discuss NSTA’s decision
for the hour.) On yesterday’s Wisconsin Public Radio broadcast, Whitsett called
in and stated that distribution would be “approximately a quarter of a million
dollar expense for NSTA.” This kind of offer would provide “little, if any,
benefit to NSTA or its members” because of the extreme cost attached to the
‘donation.’
If Laurie David would have been up front with us in her editorial, NSTA would
not have received so much bad press. (Some of it was beyond bad; some people
were just cruel.) Perhaps demonizing NSTA was the intent of Ms. David’s
editorial? This would explain why she chose to omit NSTA’s support of the film
and instead quoted NSTA when they wrote “unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA]
capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters."
However, I have to admit that the above quote did cast a bad light upon NSTA.
In an email, John Whitsett explained that the quote came from “an internal
e-mail that was an opinion offered by one of the NSTA staff members” and it was
not the official response to Ms. David. NSTA has every right to kick around
ideas before making a decision. They made the mistake of letting their internal
discussion out in a forwarded email.
Nevertheless, Ms. David cherry-picked her correspondence with NSTA to craft a
message that would cast doubt on their integrity. I suspect that she takes
issue with NSTA receiving money from companies like Exxon-Mobil, but creating
distrust of NSTA’s ethics and motives is the wrong way to voice her concerns.
In “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore explains how some industries propagate doubt
to muddy the truth. He describes how the cigarette industry did this to weaken
the link between lung cancer and smoking. Is this why Ms. David chose to title
her editorial “Science a la Joe Camel?”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYPERLINK
"http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/11/laurie_david_just_looks_worse.php"
\o "Open URL:
http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/11/laurie_david_just_looks_worse.php"
\t "linkWin" http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/11/laurie_david_just_looks_worse.php
Laurie David just looks worse and worse by the minute
Category: Journalism • Science education
Posted on: November 30, 2006 5:15 PM, by Kevin Vranes
My original post on Laurie David's WaPo op-ed is here. A reader just added a
comment that links to the Wisconsin Society of Science Teachers' blog (not a
daily read for me, but hey, I have to pick the 2 blogs I can read everyday very
carefully....). A post up on the WSST blog is far nicer to David than she deserves,
considering what they uncovered.
One key point is distribution (the item I hit on in yesterday's post):
The problem with David's offer is that it was a donation with strings attached.
John Whitsett, WSST member and NSTA President elect, explained that NSTA didn't
reject the donation but did reject doing the distribution. (John Whitsett will
be on WPR as Joy Cardin's guest tomorrow at 6 a.m. to discuss NSTA's decision
for the hour.) On yesterday's Wisconsin Public Radio broadcast, Whitsett called
in and stated that distribution would be "approximately a quarter of a
million dollar expense for NSTA." This kind of offer would provide
"little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" because of the
extreme cost attached to the 'donation.'
Which, as I said in yesterday's post, is a fully reasonable position for NSTA
to take. The other key point is the nature of NSTA's "unnecessary
risk" lines that David highlighted in her op-ed. Turns out David didn't
get that line directly written to her by somebody at NSTA, she got it out of an
internal NSTA email thread that was accidentally forwarded to her. The line
came from a NSTA staffer advising NSTA higher-ups:
In an email, John Whitsett explained that the quote came from "an internal
e-mail that was an opinion offered by one of the NSTA staff members" and
it was not the official response to Ms. David. NSTA has every right to kick
around ideas before making a decision. They made the mistake of letting their
internal discussion out in a forwarded email.
Nice work, Laurie. But I guess you couldn't have made the WaPo op-ed page
without some salacious slander, right?