Nationally syndicated columnist Alston Chase gives a run-down of some of his more miserable experiences with the environmental media. Here's his column. See our comments at the end.
Copyright 1998 THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Primer on media tactics to deceive"
by Alston Chase
August 2, 1998
I don't know about you, dear reader, but personally I'm not moved by the crocodile tears the national media are shedding upon finding that some of their best and brightest are liars, cheaters, prevaricators, and Munchhausen-sized exaggerators.
I refer to the orgy of self-flagellation over the rash of journalistic scandals. In recent weeks, the Boston Globe and New Republic confessed to publishing articles fabricated, at least in part, by their writers. CNN and Time conceded their Vietnam nerve gas story wasn't true. And the Cincinnati Enquirer retracted articles it had published on Chiquita Brands International and agreed to pay the company millions of dollars to avoid a lawsuit.
Only ombudsmen for the industry could be surprised by these exposures. We readers know such inaccuracies are daily occurrences. False and distorted reporting is so entrenched in the national news business it couldn't be dislodged with an abalone knife.
And nowhere are these falsehoods more frequent than in environmental reporting. Here are a few of the tactics used to deceive us, based on this writer's personal experience:
1. The pre-interview. The producer of a major television show calls to ask if the writer would appear on-air to talk about global warming, but first she asks, "Do you believe it's a major threat?" When he answers 'No," she replies, "We'll get back to you."
2. Peer pressure. A prominent op-ed writer for a major newspaper reads a book about mismanagement of the national parks. She tells its author she's writing a rave review of his work. Two days later, she calls to say she cannot praise the book after all, because her colleagues don't like it.
3. The editor's decree. A reporter is assigned to investigate mismanagment in the national parks. His editors, not wishing to offend authorities, order him to "tilt" in favor of the government. When he refuses, they rewrite his piece, thereby ignoring the evidence of scandal he has assembled.
4. The magazine's imagination. During Desert Storm, a magazine editor asks the writer to investigate environmentalist predictions that burning Kuwaiti oil fields will darken skies, causing crop failures worldwide. After consulting with the nation's top scientists, the writer reports to the editor that such a "petroleum autumn" is a physical impossibility. Nevertheless, the magazine runs the scare story anyway.
5. The fact-check blues. Over time, the writer learns that publications never bother to check claims they already believe are true and usually refuse to publish reports they think false, no matter how well verified.
6. The art of innuendo. The writer reaches middle age known only as a harmless sort who loves his wife and is kind to animals. Then he makes the mistake of challenging environmentalist dogma. Suddenly, the national news magazines are calling him "cantankerous," "a curmudgeon" and most hurtful of all, "a conservative."
7. The half-truth. The writer discovers that, according to weather balloon and satellite data, the Earth has been cooling for 14 years. He waits for the national media to report these findings--and waits and waits. Likewise, he searches in vain for balanced news reports about ozone depletion, species extinction, sport utility vehicles, second-hand smoke, pesticides, nuclear waste and national parks.
What accounts for this free-fall of journalistic ethics? Many things, including:
A. Scientific ignorance. Polls indicate most journalists feel they do not have sufficient educational background to fully comprehend the issues they report on.
B. Moral backsliding. In 1979, the Carnegie Foundation warned that most colleges and universities "had become lax in punishing students for academic dishonesty" and, as a consequence, cheating on tests and papers "appears to involve a substantial minority of undergraduates." Some of these cheaters are today reporters in mid-career.
C. The absence of accountability. Nothing very bad happens to news organizations caught misinforming the public.
D. Reliance on government. Studies show that more than 40 percent of environmental news stories originate in the press ofices of federal agencies. Journalists have become lazily reliant on these handouts and hence reluctant to anger their sources by suggesting that entities such as the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency might have made mistakes.
E. Journalistic values. Since the Washington press corps relies so heavily on government sources for news, its power and influence--and monopoly over information--increases in direct proportion to the degree that public agencies grow. This affects journalistic attitudes. Hence, whether the issue be smoking, health care, presidential security or speed limits, the media tilt in favor of bigger government.
Combined, these social trends have transformed the press establishment into a juggernaut that is ignorant, unaccountable and without an ethical compass, and which always favors government power over individual liberty.
And this makes it the greatest danger to democracy since Hitler's propaganda minister Josef Goebbels invented the Big Lie. ______________________________________________________
SEPP Comments: We can't attest to all of Mr. Chase's points, but we've certainly seen Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7.
#4: During Operation Desert Storm, Dr. S. Fred Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti oil fires on ABC News "Nightline." Sagan said the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere, disrupt the monsoons and lead to ecological disaster. Singer said such a view was ridiculous, that the smoke would go up only a few thousand feet and then rain out. Three days later, black rain began falling over Iran, which pretty much put an end to the speculation.
#5: Time magazine--again and again. Time's letters editor recently rejected a letter from Congressman John Peterson for pointing out the scientific fallacies in one of Time's global warming scare stories. The letters editor said she'd circulated Peterson's letter to Time's science editors, then said it was the position of Time magazine that global warming was real, and that they were not about to publish any letter that raised doubts about it. When pressed by Peterson's chief of staff, she backpeddled slightly. Time would reconsider Peterson's letter--if he footnoted it.
#6: "Greenhouse curmudgeon" is among the nicer things Singer's been called.
#7: Actually, it's more the government that peddles half truths. The press is to blame for not looking any farther than the government press release.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.
Copyright © 1998 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved on original material. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.