From loka@amherst.eduThu Dec 18 14:25:32 1997 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 11:16:57 -0400 (EDT) From: LOKA INSTITUTE To: LOKA-L@lists.amherst.edu Subject: Mourning _Technology Review_ (Loka Alert 4:6) Loka Alert 4:6 (Dec. 2, 1997) Please Repost Where Appropriate MOURNING _TECHNOLOGY REVIEW_ by Dick Sclove and Langdon Winner Friends and Colleagues: This is one in an occasional series of electronic postings on democratic politics of science and technology, issued by the nonprofit Loka Institute. If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka Institute's E-mail list, please send a message to: . PLEASE INVITE INTERESTED FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES TO SUBSCRIBE TOO. Thanks! --Dick Sclove Executive Director, The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA E-mail: resclove@amherst.edu World Wide Web http://www.amherst.edu/~loka Tel. +1-413-582-5860; Fax +1-413-582-5811 ***************************************************************** MOURNING _TECHNOLOGY REVIEW_ From: Dick Sclove, The Loka Institute For many years _Technology Review_ magazine, published by MIT, has been a lively, visually appealing magazine, covering many aspects of science and technology. Read widely by engineers and technology policy analysts and decision makers, _Technology Review_ has also been the most influential U.S. venue in which conventional, critical, and progressive perspectives on technology policy could appear side-by-side. For instance, the July 1996 issue included upbeat articles about the World Wide Web and animal-to-human organ transplants, sandwiched between John Horgan's pessimistic claim that the age of great scientific discoveries is over, and my own article about European "consensus conferences" for involving laypeople in technology policy deliberations. A note that we recently received from long-time Tech Review columnist Langdon Winner (see below) suggests that the magazine is relinquishing its function as a unique meeting place for divergent points of view on science and technology policy. For those who believe that a healthy democracy requires mutually respectful engagement with ideological rivals, and not simply self-satisfied preaching to the already-converted, this is troubling news. Here at the Loka Institute, we will particularly mourn this narrowing of editorial vision, because Technology Review's co- sponsorship was essential to the success of our April 1997 pilot U.S. "Citizen's Panel" on telecommunications policy (see our Web page: www.amherst.edu/~loka). --Dick Sclove The Loka Institute ***************************************************************** Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 > From: Langdon Winner > Subject: Technology Review > > As you may have heard, there's been an editorial shake up at > Technology Review. A story on the matter from the Boston Globe > is enclosed below. Evidently, the new editor is pledged to > emphasize "innovation" as compared to "policy." Several staff > members have been sent packing and the rest are (at best) > highly insecure. All four of the regular columnists have been > discontinued as well. I've been given the opportunity to > write one last piece, but I doubt that I'll bother. I told my > editor, Herb Brody, that under the circumstances, my heart > wouldn't be in it. In my judgment, "innovation" is a simply > code word for boosterism. > > My own little soapbox doesn't matter all that much; ten years > in a single venue is plenty and it's probably time to mosey on. > But I fear the changes at Technology Review will mean that a > once lively home for critical discussions about society, > politics and technology will become something entirely > different. > > Best wishes, > Langdon Winner > [Langdon Winner is the author of _The Whale and the Reactor_ and teaches in the Science & Technology Studies Department at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He can be reached at and through his Web page: .] > ******************************************************** > > Staff is chaff at MIT mag > > By Alex Beam, Boston Globe Staff, November 14, 1997 > > By way of proving that not everyone at MIT is a genius, the > administration has made an awful hash of "reengineering" one > of the jewels in the 'Stute crown: the magazine Technology > Review. > > TR is what the alumni magazines at Harvard and Boston > University dream of becoming - a real national magazine with > more than 90,000 paid subscribers, half of whom have no > connection with MIT. About two years ago it started generating > some serious red ink, and the then-editor, former New York > Times journalist Steven Marcus, urged the Institutchiks to hire > a full-time publisher for TR. > > Enter Bruce Journey, former New England advertising director > for Fortune magazine. Within less than a year, Journey and > Marcus weren't seeing eye to eye; sayonara, Mr. Marcus. Not > long after that managing editor Sandra Hackman found her job > eliminated. Then came last Friday's bloodbath: Everybody got > fired. More precisely, two jobs were eliminated and everyone > else was invited to reapply for their old jobs. One hitch, > though. They'd be competing with the readers of The Boston > Sunday Globe and The New York Times, where MIT took out display > ads inviting wannabe science scribblers 'to help us re-launch > our award-winning magazine.' > > New editor John Benditt explains that he didn't actually lay > anyone off, it's just that no one's job figures in "the new > structure." (Isn't this what our friend William Dean Singleton > did at the Berkshire Eagle, by the way?) In a nutshell, the > new crew plans a big direct mail campaign to boost circulation > to 200,000, sign up lots more ads, and change the editorial > focus from "policy" to "innovation." That's all very nice, but > how's Benditt going to put out the next issue with no staff, I > inquired. "That will be a challenge," he allows. > > To be fair, the TR talent dump showed neither fear nor favor. > One job eliminated belonged to much-decorated art designer > Nancy Cahners (as in the wealthy, philanthropic Cahners), who > is a trustee of the Museum of Fine Arts and of the Beth > Israel-Deaconess Hospital. Ambushed at her home, Cahners > exhibited the Fatal Flaw: a sense of humor. "I have to be > careful what I say to you," Cahners mused. "I might lose my > job." > ***************************************************************** ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE The Loka Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to making science and technology more responsive to democratically decided social and environmental concerns. TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE, to participate in our on-line discussion groups or to help, please visit our Web page or contact us via E-mail at . NEW READER ON COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH: The Loka Institute is delighted to announce the release of _Doing Community-Based Research: A Reader_. Published by Loka in collaboration with the Community Partnership Center at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, the Reader includes 12 introductory articles on the how's & why's of community research. With forewords by Lois Gibbs, founder of the Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Waste, and Jim Sessions, Executive Director of Highlander Research & Education Center, the Reader is informative and fun to read. To order a copy, send a check made payable in U.S. dollars to "The Loka Institute" to: The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. Within the U.S. or Canada, the Reader costs U.S. $10.00 + $3.00 for shipping (for a total of U.S. $13.00). To other nations, the shipping cost rises one dollar, bringing the total cost to U.S. $14.00 (please allow 8-10 weeks for surface delivery). TO LEARN MORE about the Loka Institute's concerns and vision, see Loka founder Richard Sclove's book, _DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY_--recipient of the 1996 Don K. Price Award of the American Political Science Association as "the best book of the year on science, technology and politics". For a paperback copy, contact your local bookseller or Guilford Press (in the U.S. telephone toll free 800-365-7006; or, from anywhere, fax Guilford Press in the U.S. at +1-212-966-6708 or E-mail: info@guilford.com): "Mr. Sclove is refreshing in the way he rejects ideas so nearly universally held that most people have never thought to question them." -- _New York Times Book Review_ ###