Re: Journalists' ethics

["Craig A. Little" <cpl@ornl.gov>]

Ron, I appreciate your thoughtful response.  I wasn't defending the 
editor's point of view, just reporting it.  I was also surprised, maybe 
even shocked, by his statement that what I saw as the truth wasn't his 
prime concern.

My main issue in opening this can of worms again is that it's easy to label 
something as being unethical (or wrong or immoral) which further limits the 
potential for communication.  Color me naive.

Over and out on this subject.


Craig Little

  At 01:55 AM 1/14/00 -0600, you wrote:
>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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+       Craig A. Little, Ph.D.                                  +
+       Grand Junction Office                                   +
+       Assessment Technology Section                   +
+       Life Sciences Division                          +
+       Oak Ridge National Laboratory                   +
+       2597 B&3/4 Rd.                                  +
+       Grand Junction, CO 81503                                +
+                                                               +
+       970/248-6201 (voice) 970/248-6207 (fax)         +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Learn more about ORNL: Vist our websit at http://www.ornl.gov/

You may also want to visit the DOE Pulse website at 
http://www.ornl.gov/news/pulse/ 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html