Trying to mimic MSM – Rampant speculation with no facts

Mark Papermaster and Apple part ways, possibly due to iPhone
[Via Ars Technica]

Mark Papermaster, the former IBM exec who sparked a lawsuit when he tried to move to Apple in 2008, has now left Apple for greener pastures. The New York Times confirmed with Apple that Papermaster was no longer working there, though it was unclear whether he had quit or was let go. Papermaster was Senior VP of Devices Hardware Engineering, and in charge of the hardware for the iPhone 4.

IBM had offered Papermaster a year’s salary to stay away from Apple when he decided to leave Big Blue, and eventually filed a lawsuit over it. In early 2009, Apple announced that the litigation had “been resolved” and that Papermaster would report directly to Steve Jobs starting in April.

That makes his tenure at Apple a hair over a year and three months—not exactly a long time for someone Apple fought so hard to get (Apple’s senior VP of Macintosh hardware engineering, Bob Mansfield, will take his place). The Times postulates that Papermaster left as a result of the iPhone 4′s antenna issues, and it’s not a bad theory. Unfortunately, it’s a theory that will go unconfirmed—Papermaster would not comment on his departure.

[More]

SInce he really only started in April of last year, it is very he had much to to with the design of the iPhone 4, which was announced about 10 months later. The development cycle for those devices is much longer than that.

Ars is usually better than this but I guess they need eyeballs also in order to help pay for the really interesting articles. So, if they have to write up a short “MSM-like” article every so often, it may be owrth it.

Besides, there was this great comment that I believe probably comes closer to why someone Apple wanted to get so much that there were lawsuits involved:

I’d wager that he and Steve Jobs got into it about the antenna with the final word being “See, Steve? I told you so.” — to which, there could only be one reply: “Have a nice life, Mark.”

Medicare in better shape

Health Care Reform has extended life of Medicare
[Via AMERICAblog]

Froomkin:

The new health care law has significantly improved the prognosis for Medicare, extending the life of its trust fund by 12 years until 2029, and thereby delaying any need for dramatic changes in benefits or revenues, according to a new report. The annual check-up from government actuaries overseeing the nation’s two central safety-net programs also found that Social Security continues to be much less of a problem than Medicare, and will remain in strong financial shape at least through 2037.’The financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the far-reaching changes in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ concludes the Medicare report — although the trustees warned that the improvements depend on the successful implementation of the law.

[More]

Looks like we have already done something to help Medicare last, increasing the life of the fund 12 years. Sounds like a nice beginning.

Fascinating look at the confluence of science, media campaigns and fact-checking

by ellenm1

Darwinius versus blog power: A look back
[Via The Loom]

Brian Switek, one of the junior members of the science-blogging-whippersnapper brigade, has written a detailed look back at the saga of Darwinius, the primate fossil that held Mayor Bloomberg captive at a press conference. It was just published in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach and is free for the taking. Switek has kind things to say about the impact of the Loom’s coverage of the subject, although I’m pretty sure this blog–and the many others that hopped on this crazy story–won’t stop this sort of fiasco from happening again. All we can do is help set the record straight.

[More]

The article is quite interesting and provides some insight into the self-correcting nature of science, even if those corrections come from unusual channels. Some media purposefully hyped this before the paper was even published. There was announcements of TV programs etc. It was a missing link and was given a pet name, Ida.

Lots of media types lauded the marketing strategy as necessary to get noticed in today;s media world. This was all before the paper had even been printed and subjected to the sort of scrutiny really necessary to actually be claimed such a find by researchers not directly involved.

In addition, journalists were not even allowed to see the paper pre-publication, even under an embargo. Usually, reporters can get access to the papers and just not write about the until the embargo is lifted. This was like a movie not allowing reviewers to see it before it opens. With movies, this is usually an indication that the movie is a dud and the producers want to get it out without bad word-of-mouth causing it to tank. It appears something similar may have happened here.

The published paper failed to live up to the hype. As the Switek states:

In public Darwinius was being presented as one of our ancestors—particularly by Hurum— while the scientific study offered a different hypothesis which its authors did not feel fully comfortable advocating. The fossil primate seemed to have two distinct identities: Darwinius, the object of scientific scrutiny; and “Ida,” the media darling.

The authors of the paper claimed they had no competing interests in this fossil. But it was well apparent that they had been involved in the media campaign drawn up well before the paper. In fact, one of the authors stated that the pressure from a TV production pushed them to rush preparation of the paper. This association was not mentioned inn the publication of the paper.

It was also revealed that the original draft of the paper matched the hype of the media campaign and was only toned down at the request of reviewers. And after some initial controversy, a more complete statement of competing interests was appended to the paper.

Most of these revelations happened through the vigilance of some online journalists. While somewhat unseemly, the fact-checking afterwards helped establish the science behind the discovery and reduce the power of the media hype that had occurred.

But what happened next is purely science-driven. Another group described another fossil that seemed to indicate that not only was it related to Darwinius but that both were not really part of the human family tree. so it is very possible that the entire media hype, fostered by people with a financial interest in the hype and not the science, was totally wrong.

This is an interesting story, not only dealing with leading edge science but also how the science can be vetted after publication by a range of novel avenues for criticism. This included blogs written by scientists and those written by journalists.

Perhaps these new approaches will be able to help stem some of the misinformation spread by hyped media campaigns. Something to watch out for.

Media campaigns as shakedowns

by eMaringolo

WashPost: Institute for Energy Research’s dealings with BP “seemed an awful lot like a shakedown.”
[Via Climate Progress]

Until now, the Institute for Energy Research has best been known as an anti-science polluter front-group trying to kill the clean energy bill.

But in a devastating front-page story yesterday, “BP’s fight against energy nonprofit highlights murky world of advocacy-for-hire,” the Washington Post reveals that the IER won’t support just any polluter:

Days after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico, a conservative nonprofit group called the Institute for Energy Research asked BP to contribute $100,000 for a media campaign it was launching in defense of the oil industry.

Although BP took a pass, the group’s advocacy arm went ahead with a campaign — only instead of defending BP, it vilified the company as a “safety outlier” in an otherwise safe industry. The campaign’s Web site features dozens of images of the burning rig, oil-smeared birds and other environmental devastation from the spill.

“BP is a victim of its own carelessness,” the group’s president, Thomas Pyle, wrote as part of the campaign’s kickoff in early July. “The rest of us should not be.”

To backers of BP who were familiar with the discussions and spoke on the condition of anonymity, it seemed an awful lot like a shakedown.

Ouch.

[More]

One of the reasons that everyone involved in paying for a media campaign should be identified. I may not like BP at all but it is really not a good idea to allow a front group funded by its competitors to go after it because it refused to pay a lot of money for the campaign not to happen.

At least that is what this seems like. BP is approached by an advocacy group whose message seems to be “NIce little company you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Perhaps if you bought a $100,000 insurance policy.” BP says not so the advocacy group proceeds to add as much gasoline to the fire as possible.

While Schadenfreude is fun, this appears to be something that could be really abused. A group’s business model would be to smear anyone who did not pay up. I bet this is something that has gone on a lot before and we should figure out ways to prevent it.