Re: FW: News Media and How to Deceive

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

     Here are a couple of additional ones from my own personal experience 
     (this is not second or third hand):
     
     1.  A reporter doing a story on arsenic emissions from the ASARCO 
     smelter in Tacoma told me, point-blank, "We don't want to interview 
     you because you are too knowledgeable."
     
     2.  I used to have environmental reporters talk to the introductory 
     environmental science class.  One reporter told the class: "I am 
     successful if I can get a day's stories by making phone calls and 
     never leaving my desk."
     
     3.  Another reporter admitted that the Greenpeace media events were 
     put-ons, but said they had to cover them because other media would 
     cover them.
     
     4.  In 1985 I reviewed an EIS for a LLW incinerator for an industrial 
     client, and was part of a team presenting results to the local city 
     council and media.  At the urging of the Sierra Club salaried state 
     lobbyist, a reporter asked me how much I was paid to do the review (I 
     told him) but refused to follow my suggestion to ask the Sierra Club 
     lobbyist how much he was paid.
     
     And so on
     
     Clearly ownly my own opinion
     
     Ruth Weiner
     rfweine@sandia.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: FW: News Media and How to Deceive
Author:  pac4@cdc.gov at hubsmtp
Date:    8/11/98 6:00 AM


some of us might find this interesting - especially those of us who 
interface with the media --
paul charp (pac4@cdc.gov)
     
     
> Primer on media tactics to deceive 
>
>                          Science and Environmental Policy Project, 
> Fairfax, VA
>                                           August 9, 1998 
>
>
>
>      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. 
************************************************************************ 
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription 
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html