ON THE LISTS

by Bob Finn

nasw-talk

On June 7, the New York Times Magazine published an article by Gary Taubes, freelance science writer and three-time winner of NASW’s Science-in-Society Award. In the article, Taubes argued that a low-fat diet, which is supported by many physicians, scientists, and public and private organizations, rests on shaky scientific footing.

Instead Taubes endorsed the Atkins diet, a low-carbohydrate, high-fat approach to weight loss.

On August 27, the Washington Post ran an article by staffer Sally Squires taking issue with Taubes’s article and his conclusions, and describing the controversy his article sparked within the nutrition community. Squires quoted Taubes as discounting the entire science of epidemiology. Taubes dismissed one researcher as merely a “grand man” and “not a good scientist.” He described low-fat-diet guru Dr. Dean Ornish as “a faith healer, not a scientist.” And he alleged that another scientist made up his data.

Subscribers to nasw-talk discussed the Taubes article and the Squires response beginning the same day the latter article appeared. They discussed whether Taubes’s personal experience (he lost 17 pounds on the Atkins diet) colored his conclusions, and whether this was a bad thing. They discussed whether he committed libel in some of his characterizations. They discussed whether Squires might have ambushed Taubes at an unguarded moment, or whether it is even possible to ambush a journalist with 20 years experience who certainly knows the rules of engagement.

For the full discussion, go to the nasw-talk index at nasw.org/lists/ and search for messages with the subject header “Taubes & fat.” There was also some discussion of the Taubes article on nasw-freelance; search the index for “Taubes followup.”

nasw-freelance

On July 23, Jim Kling, a Washington D.C.-based freelance science writer, asked for suggestions on dealing with a publisher who had stiffed him on a $4,000 fee for six columns. Repeated invoices and phone calls had not produced a check after three months. Jim asked for suggestions on dealing with this.

Amy Adams, a freelance science writer from Mountain View, Calif., was the first to suggest small-claims court. In her case, the mere threat of taking the case to small claims magically produced a check in a week-and-a-half.

On the subject of threats, Kurt Ullman, a freelance medical writer from Carmel, Ind., suggested that if the deadbeat is a local paper, one should threaten to go to the local TV station’s consumer action reporter. “They dearly LOVE to twist the tail of the papers when they can,” he wrote. “That threat finally got me paid a couple of years ago.”

Jeannette de Richemond, a freelance science writer from Doylestown, Pa., wrote, “I’ve tried letters and lawyers and small claims court at times—but making friends with the bookkeeper works best for me.”

Deborah Ausman, a freelance science writer from Austin, Texas, advocated a proactive approach. She includes a clause in her contracts stating that past-due amounts will be subject to an interest charge after 30 days.

Freelance science writer Alan Wachter, from Grasonville, Md., mentioned a technique that he does not endorse, but which nevertheless worked for him. “I bitched to a financial writer friend about a three month-old invoice. My friend called the publisher’s CFO and asked if rumors that they were in financial trouble are true, since writers’ invoices were months overdue and people are speculating as to why. He called me back to tell me to expect a check overnight by FedEx, and it came the next day.”

Alison Gillespie, a freelancer who does not list her address with NASW, is related to a lawyer who gave her some pointed advice about writing a “light-a-fire-under-their-fannies” letter. Alison writes:

1) Remember that anything you send could be read by someone else. (I know that sounds really basic, but when you are really super pissed it is a good thing to keep in mind.) That someone else reading your words could be another editor who might decide not to hire you in the future if your letter makes you sound like a hothead. It also might be a judge in small-claims court. So try to keep it cordial no matter what. Getting nasty in the letter is not likely to get you your money. It is just likely to inflame someone’s temper.

2) As someone else on this list advised, it is really good to put in some concrete dates and deadlines. Saying that you will be forced to hire a lawyer if you don’t have the money by X date, for instance, is good. Be sure to also put in a record of what has happened up to this point. For example: “On May 31 I sent you invoice number 334 asking for X amount. On June 15 I notified you once again via e-mail that I had not received paymentÉ” etc. etc. Put copies of all past transactions into the letter, including copies of e-mails or invoices. Get detailed. Show that you have a good paper trail. This scares people sometimes.

3) CC ing can be a powerful tool. CC a supervisor if you think it is appropriate. Or, as others have suggested, CC someone specific in the accounting department. (You can get that name of the mystery contact by calling the office receptionist and saying you have a bill that is past due. They will tell you which person to contact.) No one likes to look bad in front of the big boss or their coworkers. (Thus another reason to be cordial in your letterÉif you look like a nice guy who is being treated badly by the office screwup, it can only work to your advantage.)

For the full discussion, go to the nasw-freelance index at nasw.org/lists/ and search for messages with the subject header “going after a publisher.”

#

Bob Finn administers NASW’s Web site and e-mail lists at nasw.org. His e-mail address is cybrarian@nasw.org.

Return to NASW homepage.

Return to NASW Members' Lobby.

Return to ScienceWriters Newsletter home