Catapulting The Propaganda
For over seven years the White House has had a smooth operation when it come to controlling the news. Staff members would issue press releases or would hold press conferences, and a compliant press would take notes and then publish the releases practically unaltered. Occasionally, however, some truth would slip out, and when that happened some wonderfully strange things would happen. A prime example of such a slip up is noted in today's Washington Post.
Back in September, 2006, James Hansen, who runs NASA's Goddard Institute For Space Studies, complained that the NASA press office was censoring his views on global warming. Both the Washington Post and the NY Times picked up the story. Some members of Congress, among them Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), demanded an investigation into Mr. Hansen's assertions. Well, the report of the Inspector General is out:
An investigation by the NASA inspector general found that political appointees in the space agency's public affairs office worked to control and distort public accounts of its researchers' findings about climate change for at least two years, the inspector general's office said yesterday. ...
From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA's public affairs office "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." It noted elsewhere that "news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution."
...the report found "by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career public affairs officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior public affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases." ...
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the senators who pressed for the investigation, said in a statement that the report showed that citizens had been denied access to critical scientific information that should inform public policy. [Emphasis added]
Now, was that so hard?
When the press actually does its job and actually informs the public of the truth, the public (and their representatives in Congress) can get a better handle on issues and sound public policy can issue. That's the way it's supposed to work, and the way it did work in this case.
Ironically, however, this article, one that I think incredibly important, didn't make the front page of WaPo. The online version I linked to notes that it appears on A02. Nevertheless, it's a start.
Back in September, 2006, James Hansen, who runs NASA's Goddard Institute For Space Studies, complained that the NASA press office was censoring his views on global warming. Both the Washington Post and the NY Times picked up the story. Some members of Congress, among them Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), demanded an investigation into Mr. Hansen's assertions. Well, the report of the Inspector General is out:
An investigation by the NASA inspector general found that political appointees in the space agency's public affairs office worked to control and distort public accounts of its researchers' findings about climate change for at least two years, the inspector general's office said yesterday. ...
From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA's public affairs office "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." It noted elsewhere that "news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution."
...the report found "by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career public affairs officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior public affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases." ...
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the senators who pressed for the investigation, said in a statement that the report showed that citizens had been denied access to critical scientific information that should inform public policy. [Emphasis added]
Now, was that so hard?
When the press actually does its job and actually informs the public of the truth, the public (and their representatives in Congress) can get a better handle on issues and sound public policy can issue. That's the way it's supposed to work, and the way it did work in this case.
Ironically, however, this article, one that I think incredibly important, didn't make the front page of WaPo. The online version I linked to notes that it appears on A02. Nevertheless, it's a start.
Labels: Cronyism, Free Press, Global Warming
posted by Diane at 4:03 AM
2 Comments:
It's the same with the EPA. Before 2000 we participated in (and made good money at) a study which DuPont was forced to conduct measuring the bio-accumulation of a Teflon ingredient. And it was highly absorbed once it entered the food supply. After 2000, the EPA didn't seem to think bio-accumulation of non-degradable fluorocarbons was a problem. We used to employ two people full time on this project; we finally had to let them go after the work dried up. Sunday evening I had dinner with someone whose husband has had similar experiences regarding the EPA's turning a blind eye to their duty. Honestly, the benefits are so large for companies to have a weakened EPA that I really wonder if anyone will be able to turn things around, as opposed to dramatically applying fig leaves.
I've got a slightly-worn copy of Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science around here somewhere.
Journamalists are busy, what with the martini lunches, Sunday morning television gabfests, scrapbooking parties and all, so I guess a lot of them don't have time to read books and interview people.
Post a Comment
<< Home