For example, it frequently has a prominent location on the (internet) opinion page of the NY Times, where it appears to be a Times’ sponsored discussion — clicking the link doesn’t bring you to the bloggingheads site, it starts the diavlog.

The times that I’ve watched diavlogs on NYT, the embedded video only played part of the diavlog, and if you wanted to watch the whole thing (for example, if you found the snippet really interesting and wanted to see more), then you had to go to Bh.TV

I hope you find better uses for your time and energy. The quality of bloggingheads has been dropping lately. I used to look at the site frequently, and be sure that I’d find at least moderately interesting material. Now it seems to be day after day of windbaggery. The right-wing kooks and templetonian doublespeakers have become regulars and the reality-based intellectuals have moved on. And there’s only so much folksy George-and-John back-fence chitchat any one person can take in a lifetime. “It’s hot here in New Mexico.” “Yeah? Whaddaya know, it’s hot here in New Jersey, too.” “Wonder if it has anything to do with summer?” “Could be.”

To me the same would be if the Washington Post had a Science section and had asked Carl and others (science writers and scientists who write) to contribute periodically. And after some time the contributors suddenly noticed YEC and ID people spewing their silliness in that same Science section.

Isn’t Carl’s decision akin to Mooney’s explanation for why he left Scienceblogs (partly because he didn’t want to share the same web platform with PZ Myers)? Wouldn’t such logic lead one also to disavow writing op-eds for the Washington Post, since it might appear next to a George Will column on global warming?

If Blogging Heads is, on balance, a place where stimulating, well-argued debate takes place, shouldn’t that count for something?

Science is not science without integrity.
Carl Zimmer demonstrates his own integrity by his actions in this matter.

I would hope that this would increase confidence in the veracity of his books, and thus increase book sales. We need honest and accurate interpreters of scientific information. I’m glad that he will search for other venues for his work.

I hope those of us who would like to see it happen can change Carl’s mind. Come back, Carl!

From what I can gather Robert Wright has complete editorial control. Although, as he writes in the above link, he has published well-articulated critiques of creationism, his recent work (’the evolution of god’) is not science and seems remarkably mushy. Putting “evolution” in the title is suspect.

Seems like its time for more diversity in this new medium.