The Clever Badger I'm not dead yet!

ScienceBlogs and Corporate Content (UPDATED)

(UPDATE: The more I look at this situation, the less I like it.  My original post here was a quick knee-jerk reaction to SEED's decision to add Food Frontiers to their blog stable.  I believe that my original comments are still valid, but I'm afraid I may have understated their significance - in particular vis-a-vis conflicts of interest.  It's not just that PepsiCo now has a big honking ad-page on ScienceBlogs.  It's that PepsiCo now has a lever that can be employed to influence broader editorial decisions.  That's bad.  Very bad.  I'd encourage interested folks to head over to ScienceBlogs and check the situation out for themselves.  Start here.)

ScienceBlogs (owned by SEED Media) has done a strange thing indeed. 

They have launched a new blog called Food Frontiers.   New blogs in and of themselves are not particularly unusual, but this one is. 

It's produced by PepsiCo.  Content is provided by PepsiCo.  Comments are moderated by a PepsiCo PR rep. 

This move has, predictably, resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of long-time SB writers and commenters, and with good reason.

SB is a collection of independent writers who exercise editorial control over their articles.  SEED owns (and can advertise on) the top of the page and the right side, but the authors control everything else.  The writers also benefit (or suffer, as the case may be) from the association with the other writers under the SB umbrella. 

Food Frontiers causes problems with both of those.

First, PepsiCo now has what is effectively running ad-space on a site that is not only indexed by Google as news, but is a destination site for people looking for information on a variety of current science-related topics.  Including nutrition.  PepsiCo is not an impartial player in the arena of nutrition.  Even if they take great pains to present balanced and relevant information, there will always be a nigh-unavoidable veneer of a conflict of interest covering everything they post. 

Second, the above veneer bleeds over onto other writers.  A heavily commented post at Food Frontiers will turn up in SEEDs popular/current post feeds, which show up on every blog.  I can understand why a number of the SB writers are very concerned about guilt-by-association issues.

PepsiCo and SEED could take some steps to address concerns - Food Frontiers could embed additional disclaimers within articles and on their page, much like MSNBC does when it presents articles dealing with Microsoft or NBC. 

They also need to be very clear on their comment policy.  The policy stated by the PepsiCo editor is:

I’ll be moderating the comments that come through here on a daily basis and wanted to let everyone know that PepsiCo is happy to be joining the conversation about the food industry’s role in addressing global health changes. We want to hear from you, even those of you who might disagree with our positions. The only comments I’ll reject are ones that are defamatory or profane. Everything else will be fair game, so keep it clean and I look forward to spirited discussions here on this site.

Not bad, although I'm a little concerned about the word defamatory.  That seems a little too broad at first blush, and there are plenty of examples in the blogosphere where authors routinely quash comments that disagree with their positions.  If PepsiCo does that, they'll find any credibility or good will they cultivate at SB in the dumpster faster than yesterday's leftover sushi.

I'm not going to abandon the ScienceBlogs that I read (and I'll follow those that jump ship to where ever they happen to land).  I'll occasionally read Food Frontier to see how PepsiCo managing the place.  I'll also be watching for increased corporate influence there. 

We'll see what happens.

-Jay