It would appear that the controversy over the NSTA story rejecting the distribution of DVDs of “An Inconvenient Truth” has been heating up lately. NSTA, not surprisingly, in a Nov. 28, 2006 press release has defended their actions as part of their policy of not distributing unasked-for goods to teachers via mail. The producer of the documentary, Laurie David, did not mention that policy in her critical Washington Post editorial of a week or so back. NSTA still cannot explain why it rejected the DVDs by saying first that they didn’t want to take risks with their current sponsors (including ExxonMobil). If they had a policy, they should have made THAT their excuse, not raising the fear of angering sponsors.

There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing going on, and nobody seems to be wearing the white hats in this saga.

Someone sent me a link to a Science Magazine article about the to-do over this. Also, our old friend Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer is digging into the issue as well.

Still, things are not as cut-and-dried as they seemed when I posted about this last week. In reading over the NSTA’s press release, I wonder what the difference is between the activities they tout which were paid for by sponsor money and the action of sending out (or making available) a DVD. It’s a sponsorship, just in a different form. In both cases, a message is being sent (taught), paid for by somebody with a reason to want that message out there. It’s all information, and in a subject as sensitive and important as global warming and environmental science, more information is good.

Stay tuned.