but Stossel looks so cute with that bushy hair...

[Guest guest]

FAIR-L

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Media analysis, critiques and news reports

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION ALERT:

Stossel Tampers with the Facts

 

July 17, 2001

 

John Stossel plays by a different set of rules than other journalists, as

demonstrated most recently by " Tampering with Nature, " a one-hour special

that aired on ABC on June 29.

 

Taking advantage of the unusual leeway the network gives him, ABC's favorite

free-market zealot used the special to attack environmentalists, who are

caricatured as " preachers of doom and gloom " whose extreme anti-technology

views would have us all " running around naked, hungry for food, maybe

killing a rabbit with a rock, then dying young, probably before age 40. " As

is often the case, Stossel's reporting relied on biased sources, twisted

facts and the exclusion of information that might conflict with his thesis.

 

Central to Stossel's argument is that schools are overrun with green

propaganda, leaving him to wonder: " Is this education or environmental boot

camp? " To hear Stossel and his carefully chosen guests tell it, kids are

being brainwashed when in fact there's little reason to worry about the

environment.

 

Deforestation, for example, is a non-issue, according to one of Stossel's

main sources, Patrick Moore, a former director of Greenpeace who now works

for the timber industry. Moore explains that " the forest cover in the United

States today is about the same as it was in 1920. " Stossel chimes in, " I

don't read that in the Greenpeace fundraiser, " suggesting that groups like

Greenpeace are part of a " huge industry " that profits by manufacturing a

crisis.

 

It's true that total U.S. forest cover has been roughly stable over the last

century. But taking total acreage as the sole indicator of environmental

well-being is a simplistic approach. It discounts, for example, that the

U.S. has logged most of its old-growth forests, which are crucial to

biodiversity. Deforestation is a global crisis with global impact-- most of

the forestry work done by Greenpeace, for instance, focuses not on the

relatively well-protected U.S., but on Brazil, Canada and other areas where

forest loss threatens the climate, endangered species and indigenous

peoples. The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization finds that

deforestation is running about 22 million acres per year, an estimate many

environmental groups say is too low, since it counts new tree plantations

the same way as older forests (Environmental News Service, 3/12/01).

 

And are you worried about pollution? Then you're no better than those

brainwashed schoolchildren: " Why don't they know the facts? The EPA says

over the past 30 years, the air has been getting cleaner.... Every major

pollutant the government measures is decreasing. "

 

Stossel's implication that EPA data shows environmental improvement across

the board is clearly incorrect. In fact, the EPA's website states that

" total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions " -- which include carbon dioxide,

nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur

hexafluoride-- have risen significantly over the last several years, to 11.2

percent above 1990 baseline (as of 1998), and that emissions per person in

the U.S. " have increased about 3.4 percent between 1990 and 1997. " These

emissions certainly qualify as " major pollutants " in terms of their

environmental impact.

 

Stossel's discussion of global warming was highly selective in the

information it presented. Instead of reporting the increasingly strong

scientific consensus on global warming, Stossel chose to highlight the views

of so-called " skeptics, " giving center stage to three dissenters from among

the 2,000 scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

which recently released a report stating that global temperatures are rising

almost twice as fast as previously thought.

 

To back up the skeptics' claims, Stossel presents some deceptive evidence:

" You may have heard that 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of

'devastating consequences.' But I bet you hadn't heard that 17,000

scientists signed a petition saying there's 'no convincing evidence' that

greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate. "

 

The implication is that 10 times as many scientists question global warming.

What Stossel doesn't note is that while the first petition was circulated by

a group well-respected in the scientific community, the second petition has

been famously discredited.

 

The first, smaller petition came from the Union of Concerned Scientists and

its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178

living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National

Medal of Science winners. The latter petition was a project of the George C.

Marshall Institute, whose chair, Frederick Seitz, is also affiliated with

the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group calling itself the " voice

for business in the global warming debate " ), in conjunction with the Oregon

Institute for Science and Medicine, a lesser-known group whose leader, wrote

columnist Molly Ivins, is a biochemist who " specializes in home schooling

and building nuclear shelters " (Los Angeles Times, 8/17/98).

 

Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included

dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the

only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact,

OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a

number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and

Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively

packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk

global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in

the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance

was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition

" does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy. "

 

None of this controversy was mentioned in Stossel's report.

 

Stossel also cites an Energy Department study that " says if we try to reduce

global warming by restricting emissions, gas prices will go up 50 percent.

Electricity 80 percent. " Stossel doesn't say exactly what study he's citing,

but the numbers are most likely from the Energy Information Administration,

which supplies data for the Energy Department.

 

In October of 1998 , the EIA predicted that if the Kyoto Protocol were

implemented, electricity prices might rise anywhere from 20 percent to 86

percent by 2010, while gasoline prices might rise 11 percent to 53 percent.

But the report also predicted that prices would decline " as energy markets

adjust and more efficient, new technologies become available and gradually

penetrate the market. " The report also cautioned: " The amount prices must

rise is uncertain.... Forecasting technological change and public response

to it under various pricing scenarios is an inexact science. " It becomes

even more inexact when Stossel picks the numbers he likes best out of a

broad range.

 

During the program, absurd contentions from the guests Stossel favors pass

without comment: " The average person hears the temperature has changed a

half degree, " says Richard Lindzen of MIT. " So what? Changes more than that

while they wait for the street light to change. " It's obvious that local

temperatures have a wide range, yet even small changes in average global

temperatures can have profound effects (Los Angeles Times, 7/13/01).

Stossel lets this sophistry pass, but activists he doesn't agree with are

not treated so kindly. " You're a scaremonger, " he scolded genetic

engineering critic Jeremy Rifkin, " Why should we listen to you? "

 

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the piece was Stossel's use of

children. ABC had filmed interviews with schoolchildren from Santa Monica,

California. The childrens' parents originally signed consent forms, but

later withdrew them, citing concerns over Stossel's leading questions, and

the fact that Stossel's participation had not been mentioned until the last

minute.

 

Stossel's strategy was to get the students to make inaccurate statements

about the environment, then blame the environmentalist propaganda that is

taught in the schools. The tactic is demeaning and absurd; one could

imagine Stossel quizzing students on spelling or math, and explaining

incorrect answers as the result of a propaganda campaign. Stossel doesn't

mention the fact that actual propaganda-- paid for by industries bent on

improving their environmental image -- is increasingly used in place of

materials designed by educators in America's classrooms (USA Today,

6/23/98).

 

In the end, Stossel took a fair amount of criticism for his manipulative

tactics, and ABC forced him to pull the original interviews from the

broadcast. One can't say he learned from the incident, though: He merely

interviewed a different set of children to achieve the same results.

 

It's hard to imagine another journalist getting away with what Stossel does.

It's ironic that a report on the evils of " propaganda " relied so heavily on

misinformation and selective omissions-- tried and true propaganda

techniques-- to prove its points.

 

ACTION: Let ABC News know that Stossel's manipulative interviews with

children for the " Tampering with Nature " special were not the only things

that should have concerned them. Ask them to provide airtime to advocates

for the points of view Stossel attacks in his reporting.

 

CONTACT:

 

ABC News

Phone: 212-456-7777

Fax: 212-456-4292

netaudr

 

John Stossel

stossel

 

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if

you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair with your

correspondence.

 

For more of FAIR's work on John Stossel, see:

http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/stossel.html

 

----------

 

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair ). We can't reply to

everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate

documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of

your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to us

at: fair .

 

FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the Fox

News Channel's " Fox News Watch, " which airs which airs Saturdays at 7 pm and

Sundays at 11 am (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings.

 

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in

the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit

http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .

 

Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra!

For more information, go to:

http://www.fair.org/extra/.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.

 

FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New

York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see:

http://www.fair.org/internships.html

 

You can to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org , or by

sending a " FAIR-L enter your full name " command to

LISTSERV . Our r list is kept confidential.

 

You may leave the list at any time-- just send a message with " SIGNOFF

FAIR-L " in the body to: LISTSERV .

 

FAIR

(212) 633-6700

http://www.fair.org/

E-mail: fair

 

list administrators: FAIR-L-request

[Guest guest]

Hi

>

> ACTION ALERT:

> Stossel Tampers with the Facts

 

That was interesting. I think a lot of the media people do that sort of

thing. I bet we get a programme from him over here soon. George Bush has

arrived here today. There have been some demonstrations, and apparently an

American man streaked - he had 'go vegan' painted on himself. I suppose

it's the only way to get something reported here. I think there is another

demonstration in London either this Saturday or the next. We might be able

to get there.

 

Jo