Once again, I can't keep up with all the latest reactions to Nisbet-Mooney. There are just too many of them (over 160 comments at PZ's blog alone; and even my own blog is pushing 40 right now). I'm in Australia prepping a series of talks, and that's the top priority at the moment. However I'd like to make one major comment: There's a somewhat disingenuous critique circulating out there, which is that we don't give any specifics, or even that we don't back up our argument with data. On the contrary, the Science article was amply referenced, and Matt and I have been continually elaborating on the argument online. Anyone who reads Matt's blog receives data constantly about public opinion, media coverage patterns, and so on. He has also explained framing numerous times. The "no details" critique is also unfair given the clear space constraints when it comes to writing for Science or The Washington Post Outlook section. Finally, it is obviously implied from our argument that for many issues, we don't know what the right frame is: Much research about public opinion and testing of messages will be necessary to identify it. And of course, different frames will resonate for different publics. Finally, these different publics must be reached through the appropriate media platforms--again, research may be needed to identify these platforms. All in all, this is an empirically grounded communications strategy and there's much work that must be done to implement it. That's one reason we're making this argument: So that investment in such research becomes a priority. All of that said, we will be elaborating on specific proposals in more detail in future writings and in a series of upcoming talks. So, stay tuned....
