Re: Just who is on the defensive?

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

David Goodman wrote:

"Now as quick comment to start off, their PR advisor has chosen 
what are perhaps the weakest arguments against open 
access...."Public access equals government censorship""

Honestly, I've been wondering what took the big publishers so 
long to react. They've allowed the pro-OA side to frame the 
debate, control language, and even create a lobbying 
organization.  No wonder why they are defensive and going out for 
professional help!  Rhetorical positions about transparency of 
government, accountability, public interest, and social justice 
are very powerful and have been used astutely.  Censorship, on 
the other hand, is a dirty word and most academics have an 
immediate negative reaction to this term, which is why it will be 
used.  Dezehnall's group will undoubtedly find other negative 
associations, the right language, and the right frame for a big 
media campaign.  They are very good at this.

The debate over Open Access, like the debate over abortion, the 
death penalty, euthanasia, taxation, and other controversial 
topics create polarized groups for the very reason that their 
arguments are grounded in different value-systems.  This is why 
Dezenhall's PR group is attempting to associate the OA debate 
with some deeply held values of scientists.  David Goodman may be 
right about the weakness of this argument, but "Media messaging 
is not the same as intellectual debate."

Phil Davis
PhD Student
Dept. of Communication, Cornell University