Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What's the Difference Between Fox News and Oxford University Press?
Eighteen months ago I read a book that changed my life. Yeah, yeah, I know... sounds corny. But it's not what you think. This book changed my life not because of what it said but because of what it didn't say.
On a nothing-special summer afternoon in 2010, I sat in the Cambridge Public Library preparing a speech on something I'd been studying for decades. I plugged "world hunger" into the library's computer. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know popped up.
Perfect, I thought. I knew I would have differences with the book because I'd just read a critique of the views of its author, Robert Paarlberg, by my daughter Anna Lappé on the Foreign Policy website. But I'm always eager to know how those with whom I disagree make their case. Noticing that Food Politics was published by Oxford University Press, I felt confident I could count on it being a credibly argued and sourced counterpoint.
So I began reading.
"I couldn't believe my eyes" doesn't do justice to the shock I experienced.
The book's subtitle suggests coverage of essential food issues and its back cover indicates Food Politics is not just another example of "conflicting claims and accusations from advocates," but rather "maps this contested terrain." Yet, I was finding only one piece of the "map" with key issues at the center of the global food debate omitted altogether. But what was jaw-dropping for me was that Food Politics lacked any citations for the book's many startling claims.
What? Why would the gold standard of academic presses, Oxford University Press, release such a work and misleadingly promote it, to boot? The UK Oxford University Press website says that "all books are referred to them [the Delegates, i.e., selected faculty of the university] for approval." The Press' USA website stresses its peer review process.
But how, I wondered, could a book on any serious topic be evaluated in the absence of citations?
I soon learned that Oxford University Press had published other books on vital public concerns, including nuclear power, with no citations. Hmm, I thought, even high school students are required to provide sources.
Then I got to the author's defense of Monsanto. He cites the "political stigma" that has been attached to GMOs, which "dried up investment" in GMOs in Europe, as a reason that the company now dominates the industry.
The claim seemed so wild that my suspicion was piqued. From there, a quick search on Monsanto's website showed that the author had been an advisor to the company's CEO. In the book's opening, moreover, Dr. Paarlberg thanks the Gates Foundation, among others, for supporting his independent work, without noting that the foundation is itself an investor in Monsanto.
My journalist son Anthony Lappé has always stressed to me the absolute rule of "full disclosure" of ties that could influence, or appear to influence, one's reporting. Surely, Oxford University Press grasps that such transparency is a foundation of democratic discourse; and how especially critical it is to uphold in a work on the life-and-death matter of hunger.
I had to act. After all, almost every speech I give ends with a call for greater boldness. I argue that humans are "good enough." It's our courage we need to stoke. So what could I do?
I began reaching out to scholars, and others whom I trust, to present a constructive challenge to Oxford University Press, asking it to hold the line on academic standards. Some weren't moved, saying, "Oh, Frankie, why don't you just publish a critical review yourself somewhere?" Or, "You'll never get anywhere going to the Press."
Their reactions spurred me on. My alarm was not about Dr. Paarlberg's views, for they can be addressed in fair debate. My distress was about the threat to democracy itself in Oxford University Press's choice to lower its standards.
OK, that might sound overblown. But not to me. Democracy depends on honest, fair, accurate debate. Without it, we can't possibly meet today's challenges. And if academic presses don't hold the line -- when fair discourse in the wider culture is in collapse -- who will?
In time, six distinguished, courageous scholars and leaders in the field of food, hunger and ecological farming, who share my alarm, joined me. First we sent our critique to the leader of Oxford University Press in New York City, Mr. Niko Pfund. We asked to meet to discuss straightforward remedies. At first, I truly believed top leadership at the Press would be distressed that this book had slipped through and would recommit to uphold basic standards.
Instead, after several weeks, we received a letter saying that Food Politics met its standards and no one would meet with us. (On the particular point of lack of disclosure, the Press told us that Dr. Paarlberg did not accept payment from Monsanto and therefore disclosing his advisory role was not required. However, we'd never said that he was paid by Monsanto. Our position is the widely accepted standard that any association, which could appear to influence a writer's coverage of his or her subject, must be disclosed.)
OK, we thought, what about the home base of Oxford University Press in Oxford, England? Surely, there, where two dozen faculty of the university, known as the Delegates, have final authority, we'll find leadership who shares our dismay. Calls and offers to travel to Oxford for discussions got nowhere. Finally, the office of Oxford University Vice Chancellor Andrew D. Hamilton, speaking for the Press, wrote to affirm the position of his New York office: The book met Oxford University Press standards; and no one would discuss the matter with us.
With those channels closed, we launched a petition campaign. And here's where we need your help!
On April 25th, I'll arrive on the steps of Oxford University Press in Oxford, England. And we would love to have your signature on the petition I'll deliver. The petition asks for just three basic standards to be upheld by Oxford University Press: citations for evidence-based claims, full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (whether financial or other associations), and accurate promotion of publications.
Is not each of these three -- transparency about sources, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and accurate promotion -- precisely the type of standard that distinguishes an academic press from, say, a Fox News?
We believe our appeal goes to the very heart of democracy itself; for, absent transparency and commitment to evidence-based argument (impossible if authors provide no sources for claims!) democracy's lifeblood -- open, fair dialogue -- drains away.
You can follow our exchange and sign the petition here. If you want to know what happens next, please send us an email: info@smallplanet.org and put "standards at risk" in the subject line.
Thank you. It really matters.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
34 Comments so far
Show AllThat is a well-thought-through idea, and points to a most crucial problem that needs fixing. But appealing to the godzilla monster to be a kinder, more benevolent monster, doesn't work for me, and I don't think for the people, in general. Appealing to the people themselves as the real authority and steward of democracy is the only way, I see. Let Oxford kontinue its fall into the oblivion/obscurity of elite ego hubris. We the people have our own complete and truthful philosophy, doctrine and agenda. We're investing our energy wholeheartedly into our own enterprise, and we plan to leave the elites far behind.
With all due respect for "the people", I think that the "enterprise" of "the people" is going to have to invest more than "energy", and a great deal of "energy" to boot, to match in the future the contribution that Oxford University Press has made over the centuries and is in a, if not unique, then certainly extraordinarily enviable, position to continue making. One should not look to the Press's "fall into . . . oblivion/obscurity" of any kind, including that of "elite ego hubris" with equanimity – or indeed with any great expectation of seeing that fall occur.
My own view of Ms. Lappé’s fine article is that she is, on the one hand, profoundly correct to lament and to call for a correction of the Press’s misstep – and that on the other hand, in the context of the Press’s current publication volume of over 6,000 titles per year, more than one misstep could occur at the Press without any real diminution of the Press’s contribution in “further[ing] the University's objectives of excellence in scholarship, research, and education.”
Nonetheless, to Ms. Lappé, her values, and her effort – Brava! and Many thanks!
Good article, gal! Oxford University Press shouldn't allow such silliness to damage it's solid credibility. The apparent conflict of interests is blatent. That should say to the fine people at Oxford University Press that disclosure and better monitoring of any books published is in order.
"My own view of Ms. Lappé’s fine article is that she is, on the one hand, profoundly correct to lament and to call for a correction of the Press’s misstep – and that on the other hand, in the context of the Press’s current publication volume of over 6,000 titles per year, more than one misstep could occur at the Press without any real diminution of the Press’s contribution in “further[ing] the University's objectives of excellence in scholarship, research, and education.”"
I think this is an invalid and completely *unacceptable* argument in this case. This is not a "mishap" or a mistake. This is simply ignoring the basic tenets of scientific publishing. It is completely, 100% unaccaptable. It's like saying when someone wants to sell you a car without wheels that "in the context of General Motors' current production volume of millions of cars per year, more than one misstep can occur at GM without any real diminution of GM's contribution to"....whatever it contributes to. This is easily on the order of selling a car without wheels, but worse, because it's about science.
Never, ever make this argument in the context of science. These "mistakes" are absolutely and consciously not allowed there - as they are *absolutely antithetical* to the scientific method. Science wants to make sure that what it says is as close to true as possible - while this allows the door for manipulation, the absolute antithesis of science and intellectual integrity.
It would appear as if the Koch brothers tactic of funding university research and publications has migrated across the Atlantic.
The fix is in. Oxford press has sold out.
"And if academic presses don't hold the line -- when fair discourse in the wider culture is in collapse -- who will?"
Some of us out here in the world will, the Joads, Ralphs, Piggies, Caseys, Lennys, and Georges of the world will. For some reason the rich people haven't found our price yet. We still value integrity, compassion and honesty more than we do money.
We may grovel for crumbs, scrounge through the trash and accept work others won't, but we haven't yet turned on each other just to better our own situations. Funny thing is for some of us if we can't take those that can't fend for themselves with us. we don't want to go.
I'd personally rather stay off the ladder than leave behind those that loved me and made me what I am to climb to the top rung. It's been my experience that those on the top are more likely to throw others off than they are to pull anyone else up to join them.
The fact that Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar should have indicated the erosion of Oxford as a University of standing.
Uh, Mr. Gardener, unless Oxford in the sixties had a means of predicting the future, I don't think it's fair to say that accepting Bill Clinton as a Rhodes Scholar indicated any "erosion" of their standing. Whatever you might think of ole Bill, he's a very, very smart guy, which you have to be to get a Rhodes Scholarship. A friend of mine who was at Oxford with Bill (he was also on a Rhodes) knew him and thought he was pretty cool-and very ambitious. My friend dropped out of Oxford, and was one of the first people to burn his draft card in London-on the steps of the American embassy. He did not go on to become president: he hung himself several years later-when a general amnesty was granted to men who fled to Britain and other places to avoid the draft. Stick to gardening, mate.
Did your friend's lack of ambition make you like him less? Was his life of less value because he did not graduate Oxford, become president or submit to the draft? Did you trust your friend less because he was not successful? Are you saying your friend hung himself because of the amnesty? I am not sure what your depiction is supposed to illustrate. But it doesn't in anyway strengthen the case for Oxford. Perhaps you should plant a few seeds and nuture them to harvest.
gardenernorcal
I absolutely agree. Ricardohead's assertion that Bill Clinton is a "very, very smart guy" because he attended Oxford University entirely overlooks the fact that, like Barack Obama, intelligence should not be the only criteria in judging a person since Clinton ended up bombing Serbia when he was president for 78 straight days. Intelligence does not mean a damned thing when judging either a civilian or a president if that person does not have compassion to go along with above average intelligence.
You are obviously not gifted at reading between the lines.My friend killed himself because he was mentally ill, but the amnesty was the triggering event. Suddenly, everything he'd done for the previous several years seemed pointless and irrelevant. Most of my real friends are "unsuccessful" in the eyes of the world, not in mine.Your observation about him is not only offensive, but stupid. Pardon me-maybe I should have said deeply unimaginative. You seem to be blaming Bill Clinton's presidency on Oxford. Now that IS stupid. Might as well blame the Dubya on Yale.
gardenernorcal wrote:
>The fix is in. Oxford press has sold out.<
French socialist Jacques Ellul once mentioned that propaganda is no propaganda unless it's total propaganda, and that means not only the insertion of lies in ALL forms of media, but also in ALL institutions. Oxford or the BBC were glorified precisely because they served as useful propaganda vehicles for Britain and the West as a whole. That's why few Britishers - and the world - know much about the genocides against Australian bushmen, the slaughters of the Maoris, or the hundreds of millions of Indians that died under British imperialism.
In a review of the Kenyan holocaust during the 1950s in which hundreds of thousands of Africans were tortured and murdered, John Dolan wrote that "one of the great mysteries of the 20th century was the way Britain got away with pillaging nearly every country on the planet without suffering any retribution .... Among the reasons ... are the reluctance of the raped to report their sufferings, the stupidity and credulity of American scholars vis-a-vis their Oxbridge colleagues, and the charmed life that seems to reward those individuals and nations lucky enough to lack any vestige of conscience....The difference between the British Empire and other fascist empires is not that these guys were nicer .... The difference is that the Brits were good at it, and had no conscience to trouble them. Thanks to that careful incineration of records and highly adaptive national sociopathic disorder ..."
Read rest of the article at http://www.alternet.org/story/42219/
Please, how many hundreds of millions of Indians did the Brits kill? Ever read what the Kikuyu Mau Mau thugs did to their fellow Africans in the Kenyan so-called holocaust? Ever considered that the Maori were as much into killing off each other, raping, murdering and pillaging, not to mention eating each other, as any other human being on the planet? Sort out your facts before mouthing off blindly. And the word fascist is inappropriate. Nor is it appropriate to use against those Indian Maharajahs of the Mogul Empire that preceded the Brits in India and ran a completely caste-raddled feudal society for their own benefit.
Just for the record and if by chance this ever gets read, during Queen Victoria's reign over India, from around 1837 to her Diamond Jubilee in 1897 the population of India increased from 96 million to 246 million. So we Brits could not have killed off "hundreds of millions" of Indians before Queen Victoria came to the throne and the same applies afterwards. In fact, the British built canals and irrigation systems to allow better cropping and to try to prevent recurrent famines.Modern medicine was brought to India by the British and major efforts were made to stem the recurrent cholera epidemics that killed far more Indians than did the British.The British also built India's present railways and in the end succeeded in uniting 14 different language groups into one nation, whether this was the intent or not, leaving India with a working Civil Service, a working democracy and a well-trained army. Certainly not the worst of occupying owers when compared with the Fench in Indochina, the Spanish in South America and the Japanese in their murderous Asian sphere of co-prosperity. Indeed, when looks at the total history of British imperialism, to misquote Robert Clive of India, I am surprised by our restraint.
Signed! Thanks for creating the petition! Even if Paarlberg wasn't/isn't getting paid by Monsanto for his consulting gig, he could still be reaping professional advantages from the relationship. Money isn't the only reward from such relationships.
This is further indication of the age we're living in wherein think tanks purchase TV time and put their experts in place to disseminate official narratives throughout the MSM. Most believe these omnipresent voices are experts, and therefore they are inclined to trust their judgment.
Hey, presidencies are bought and sold this way in Amerika today!
In the run up to war against Iraq, FAIR reported that about 90% of those interviewed on mainstream news programs favored war.
The same corporations that are busy poisoning us buy PR agencies and make sure that the public thinks they are committed to good works.
Seldom has a population's perceptions (and opinions) been more influenced by an atmosphere fraught with rancid deception.
When the most esteemed University presses publish material favorable to their highest paying donors, and the media just marches lockstep to the bidding of its corporate owners, why is it that some in this forum still blame "the citizens cum voters cum consumers" for the scenarios that ensue?
"Amerika" -- Siouxrose, you are better than this. Spelling America with a k rather than a c does not name the party you wish to indict (cf. "Suerows, you are better than this"); does not make a meaningful statement against America; and makes the profoundly false and inflammatorily provocative statement that things Germanic are the icon of things evil. There was perhaps a time, and may, I hope not, yet be a time again when your intended criticism would be expressed (by others than you) not with a k but with a kaf. It is America to whose actions you object.
As I said, you are better than this. Let those who lack your ability to comment with particularity and insight substitute misspellings for meaningful commentary.
Thanks for your remarks, Hector. There may have been a time when referring to this country as Amerika, Amurka,Amerikkka, and its inhabitants as 'murkins, usaans etc. was cutting edge, and even funny. I have to confess that I did enjoy the moniker Gringolandia-where did that go? But now this stuff just gets repeated over and over and has long since lost its edge, and is actually kind of boring. Besides, things Germanic don't look so bad any more, do they. Au contraire. Hope you signed the petition. I just did.
As there are several comments on the issue of spelling America with a 'K' I'd just like to say that my understanding of the use of "Amerika" is not to use a Germanic spelling to indicate some evilness by association with "bad" Germans but to reference the famous novel by Franz Kafka, "Amerika" which is well worth a read. Apparently none of those writing comments in this thread have done so. But it is also a learning experience for me as I, and perhaps the person whose comment started this thread as well, hadn't realized that this book had dropped off the radar and that there were so many thoughtful people who didn't understand the reference.
--Thank you, 4thefuture -- I have read little of Kafka's work -- only The Trial and The Castle, both in translation, and had not known of Amerika, or Der Verschollene.
Without meaning to excuse my own ignorance, I do wonder whether many others who read references to the U.S. as "Amerika" in this context -- and indeed, many who themselves, in this context, spell America with a k -- take the spelling to refer to Kafka's story/novel (I gather that the ms. had a complex history). Without any research to support my assumption, I do suspect that the great majority of readers and writers of the word "Amerika", whatever else they may take to be its meaning, would not say, Oh, it's the novel -- or story -- by Franz Kafka. Indeed, I wonder what and where is the evidence that the earliest uses of "Amerika" for America by critics of things American knew any more about the Kafka story/novel than I did before reading your post.
But beyond this -- assuming that everyone other than me and the other writers of the "several comments on the issue of spelling America with a 'K'" to whom your post refers who reads or writes the word "Amerika" in this context takes the reference to be, and to be only, the Kafka piece. The question would remain, at least for me, why make such a reference? What light does it shed on any discussion to spell America as the German speaking, Ashkenazi Jewish, Prague born Kafka did in his short story/novel -- and no doubt everywhere else, except when writing in Czech or French -- or English?
"why make such a reference? " I guess because literary allusions come naturally to some people, me for example, who hope it helps further explain their meaning to others who have the same reference. But I accept your concern that perhaps at least some of those who have used this spelling have not read the book and have either copied someone who used it or thought it was a means of easy disparagement for the reasons you surmised.
Let's face it: this usage just rubs some Amerikans the wrong way.
One could just as easily reverse the inclination to complain, disapprove, or superciliously "analyze away" the usage and put the discomfited on the defensive-- i.e., ask why they are so freaked out by this alternate spelling that they feel compelled to attack or desconstruct it.
Amerika First! ;)
Thank you for this, Hector. I've been irritated with this "Amerika" thing for some time. Not just because I'm a linguist and I pay attention to the what's behind people's use of language. It's the nasty implication that somehow a language or the people who speak a language are automatically or naturally fascist (or racist or sexist or whatever it might be). Pick your nationality/ethnicity/language, and you'll find greatness and baseness. Germans (or Swedes or Turks or Indonesians or Swahili speakers, among the various other people who write "Amerika" for America) are no exception.
Most of the pseudo news on Fox is to perpetuate shows that attack President Obama. I actually watch Fox to see what the latest attack news is spewed forth.
FOX and the GOP are one in the same as they are the mouth peace for the RIGHT as the GOP/Tea Party put forth the worst ideas for this Country to move forward in the 21st Century.
Today April 05 on one particular Fox Show they attacked the President for his personal opinion about Women not being admitted to the Augusta Golf Club which is for Men only.
I never knew you cannot have your personal opinion on a subject here in the United States.
You proved it yourself Ms. Moore---there is nothing we can do to change a corrupt world. What we CAN do is acknowledge the truth among ourselves. Over time--generations perhaps--the truth will become fashionable, regardless of who says it or where it comes from.
This book could be the basis of a high school lesson on research papers. Lack of citations and conflict of interest will get you.... oh wait ....PUBLISHED.
Frankie raises an important issue here. Is it too much to ask that commenters address the issue she raises, and eschew thread drift?
If this blog post is a fair sample of your expository writing skills, I wouldn't trust you to pound sand down a rat hole without a set of printed instructions.
Maybe harsh, but it takes you to the bottom of paragraph six to get to your topic sentance: A supposedly scholarly book by OUP lacks citations.
and, then, you fail to give details (yeah, I know, it would have been hard work for you to do that, it sucks to suck)
you say
hen I got to the author's defense of Monsanto. He cites the "political stigma" that has been attached to GMOs, which "dried up investment" in GMOs in Europe, as a reason that the company now dominates the industry.
The claim seemed so wild that my suspicion was piqued
incoherent, at best - seem spretty reasonable on first glance that political hostility in europe to GMO let an american company dominate the field
I havn't checked to see if the gates foundation does or does not hold monsanto stock, but I'm pretty sure with several billion in money they hold stock in every major company in the world - what on earth else would you expect.
they also fund a lot of stuff; if every writer everywhere refused to take any moeny that had any taint.....
Please, go away and learn to write
@ ezra abrams
Back at you!
Also, it would be better were you to try being more civil while you're at it.
P.S. I read a report that Gates gave an enormous amount of money to Monsanto a while ago, which I found very disturbing. What recourse do we have when the super-rich can do whatever they like with their $$$ regardless of the harm it may cause? At least we should be able to keep our sources of knowledge clear of such influence.
P.P.S. " ....Gates' latest plan is to try to end world hunger by growing more genetically modified (GM) crops.
He's already invested $27 million into Monsanto Company—leading some countries to reject his charity due to the high risks, such as:
• New disease vectors
• Mutated pesticide-resistant insects
• Resistant "superweeds"
• Contamination of surrounding non-GM crops...."
From: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/04/clueless-fabrication-on-gmo.aspx
Some of the comments defending Oxford UP might first want to follow Steven Shaviro's blog entrees (such as http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1030) on their demands that academic research articles in anthologies be treated as "work for hire," in order to have "flexibility," that is so they can avoid having to distribute royalties to authors and focus on shareholders (which of course goes against the spirit of protecting creative rights).
By the way, if anyone knows of worker-owned academic presses, I would be interested in supporting them.
What's the Difference Between Fox News and Oxford University Press?
One has a cable channel.
I signed the petition, as I think the Press should accept responsibility for its publications. In trying to check this out myself, I discover that for some reason the San Francisco Public Library does not have this title, which is a little strange, as they keep a pretty complete collection; moreover, their Link+ system for locating titles from approximately 50 major libraries up and down the California coast listed only one holding, which is most extraordinary. Could it be because the book is sub-standard? I'll continue efforts to see a copy for myself. But meanwhile, I find Lappe's assertions very disconcerting and, knowing her work, probably credible. But I find it most troubling that the Press has rejected requests for meetings, particularly from a woman of Ms. Lappe's stature in the food research community. As a former employee of Columbia University Press I find such lack of openness in a university press shocking. A university press should, above all, be concerned with discerning and presenting the truth as determined by the community of observers.
My respect for OUP took a knock when, some years ago, I sent them five pages of corrections to their recently-published History Of Europe by Norman Davis. The errors (mis-spellings, mis-tranlsations, mis-quotations, minior factual inaccuracies, and so on) were all of a kind which would and should have been detected and corrected by a competent copy-editor. Clearly, the text had not received the attention of such a person. I offered my services, only to be told that OUP was "well-served" in this respect - in itself a fairly massive counter- factual, given the evidence. And needless to say I got no thanks for doing OUP's job for them.
Incidentally, my respect for OUP took another knock when they started using the dreaded "Perfect" binding (arguably the 20th century's most detestable invention) for reference books.
When I entered university as a naive undergraduate I was awed by the reputations of my lecturers and of organizations like the OUP. But as I travelled the path to PhD I came to realize that this awe, and the respect that accompanied it, was somewhat unwarranted. This is the post-modern age: truth no longer has to be truthful but must serve a particular agenda or disappear into obscurity; words no longer have a fixed meaning but can mean whatever the user wishes them to; academic theses need not rely on proof but mere conjecture; we don't argue our case against heretical historians like David Irving, we throw them in jail instead. There are no norms, there are no truths, everything is free-floating and commercial interests can change both on a whim.
It's distressing to note that Oxford has been bought by the same people who have been buying up other universities, smaller companies (smaller as in Texaco-sized), governments, water, farms, air, and well, I guess everything on the planet.
I noted today that the Gates Foundation has withdrawn from ALEC. now we can work on them to withdraw from Monsanto. Then maybe we can pry open their grip and distribute ALL the money fairly and where it will do the most good instead of the most harm.