I am not particularly impressed with Ms. DiChristina's crisis management skills or professionalism
If, yesterday morning, she had just published (blog post, tweet, whatever) something along the lines of
We value Dr. Lee's contribution to SciAm. Her allegations about the conduct of a Biology-Online.org employee are, if true, appalling. However, her most recent post raised legal issues we could not adequately resolve before the close of business Friday, and therefore I ordered it removed. I did so before I could communicate with Dr. Lee, which I regret. The issue will be addressed further when we open for business on [Monday] [Tuesday] [whichever applies].
Instead of what she did post prior to this morning (in chronological order)
Re blog inquiry: @sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed.
In a statement published at BuzzFeed
“I’d like to elaborate on the original brief statement on Twitter that this blog fell outside Scientific American’s mission to communicate science. While we interpret that mission with a lot of latitude, Dr. Lee’s post went beyond and verged into the personal, and that’s why it was taken down. Dr. Lee’s post is out extensively in the blogosphere, which is appropriate. Dr. Lee is a valued member of the Scientific American blog network. In a related matter, Biology Online has an ad network relationship, and not an editorial one. Obviously, Scientific American does not want to be associated with activities that are detrimental to the productive communication of science. We are pursuing next steps.”
- Why did Ms. DiChristina hide behind "inappropriate" when in fact the issue was legal?
- Why couldn't Ms. DiChristina "communicate" with Dr. Lee before removing the post?
- Why the hammering on "personal", when in fact the Biology-Online.org employee was communicating with Dr. Lee in her professional capacity as a scientist and a science communicator?
- [More questions to come]