Journalists' ethics

["Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu>]

The recent posting by Craig Little regarding journalistic ethics prompts
this reply and a rather differenct viewpoint.  Craig's your experience was
interesting and likely provided invaluable experience and insights.  His
editor was entirely correct in saying that he wanted to report the news --
ie who said what (my paraphrasing).  But the editor failed to point out that
if you only interview or publicize persons with one particular view point,
you are effectively managing and censoring the news.  For example, in the
recent presidential primary debates, virtually all the coverage goes to
Democrats Gore and Bradley and Republicans Bush and McCain.  There are
others running, but they get very little coverage.  If by and large you hear
the names of only those four, it is very likely that you will be inclined to
contribute to their campaigns and to vote for one of them since you will
have little familiarity with any others; indeed, here in the great Pacific
Northwest I hear more about the NY senate race (and the two I hear about
even offically candidates yet) than I do about the minor or third party
candidates running in the soon to be held presidential primary in New
Hampshire.

The point is that the media can and do manage the news -- indeed they must
as they cannot publish everything about everything, just as your local
library cannot buy every book that comes out.  But if the library only
bought books and subscribed to magazines put out or recommended by Friends
of the Earth, would their patrons be getting a fair and balanced picture of
radiation hazards.  From personal experience I can tell how (and can even
document) editing of a long interview is deliberately and purposefully was
done to essentially change your point -- this was the case with my interview
with "60 Minutes".   Year back, the late Harry Reasoner posed in the context
of a discussion about the lack of identifiable radiation induced pathology
in USTUR registrants (ie plutonium workers) what I had found in my research
with respect to the adequacy of the radiation protection standards.  My
reply was "nothing startling" and was followed immediately by an explanation
that the standards framed years ago seemed to have a high level of
conservatism or safety built into them as intended by their framers.  After
the editing, this came out on TV as:  "And we asked him what he had found
out in his 22 (I think that was the number) years of research"  The answer,
of course, were my two words in response toa rather different question, viz.
"nothing startling".  Well, Craig, I did say those words, but when taken out
of context and put into a different question. gave a wholly different
picture.    "60 Minutes", like many if not most other media interviews, will
not let you review for accuracy what they put together before they air it.

The media can and do distort -- sometimes deliberately -- and manage the
content of their news stories.   One way is by selecting who they choose to
interview and how much currency/space they give them in print or on the air.
Seldom do the media they seek out and interview interview mainstream
scientists in health physics and radiation biology; we are not good copy.
The preferred people are those who are critical of the mainstream scientific
viewpoint, or who make dramatic and sweeping and sometimes unsupported
assertions, often implying that those in the mainstream are less than honest
and ethical.  Compare, for example, the amount of coverage a critic such
asJohn Gofman gets, or the amount of coverage Greenpeace gets vis a vis the
Health Physics Society on issues pertaining to radiation safety.

And, I'm not at all sure, Craig,  why it bothers you for us as scientists to
".  .  .  judge the ethics of another group about whom we know little."  I
daresay we know more about journalists and the media generally than they
know about us and our science, yet apparently it is OK for them to judge our
ethics.   Do not the same ethical principles of honesty and fairness apply
to the media as well as to scientists? And consider the ad hominem comments
or innuendos made about the motivation and actions of mainstream scientists
who are often painted as nefarious figures while those who challenge are
portrayed as heroes (as was the case with Eileen Welsome on The History
Channel recently).

As for educating the media, I have concluded that in general they do not
want to be educated, nor do they have the time to do so.  Ask any HPS past
president of the past 20 years how successful the Society's efforts have
been at bringing the media to the meetings or how successful they were in
opening a dialogue with the media.  In my niavite, the year I was president
of the Society I tried to get invited to media professional meetings to
present the HPS position and failed utterly.  In fairness, the media need to
cover a broad spectrum of action, and clearly cannot be knowledgeable in all
areas that they must cover.  To get educated requires many hours that they
do not have.   And, unfortunately, some media people do have axes to grind.
On the plus side, there are many honest and ethical media persons some of
whom I have personally dealt with over the years.  One of these is Jon
Riskind of the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch Washington Bureau who has written a
very balanced series of articles on uranium.  He was conscientious and
zealous in his desire for scientific accuracy and fairness, and in my
opinion is more deserving of a Pulitzer than Ms. Welsome.  (IDEA -- listen
up HPS Board -- jhow about an annual award for the best media presentation
on radiation safety -- could be made at the new big multiorganization
conference [formerl;y annual meeting of the HPS] and might do a lot towards
fostering good media relations.

The situation is not all black and white, either.  We scientists obfuscate,
are notorious for hedging our answers, and, yes, sad to say, are often
restricted in what we can say by the policies of our employers or the fear
of not getting a grant.  Many, myself included, are chary of talking to the
media (or at least some members) because we have no control over how or even
if they will present what we have said. [ I for one will never again talk
with "60 Minutes" and even had the pleasure of telling them so when they
contacted me not too long ago.]  So in many respects it is a two way street.
Unfortunately the media have pretty much a free hand, and the damage done by
biased reporting is enormous and spread over a wide audience.  Since few
(here I'm hedging -- the proper word is none) of us in the health physics
have access to wide circulation print or electronic media, those in the
mainstream have no effective means of response, even were they so inclined.

With thanks to those of you who have taken the time to read this entire
posting and apologies for its length,

Ron Kathren



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html