Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]] Journalists and Others for Saving the Planet [[[[[
By David Brooks, (10/27/1989)
WSJ editorial writer
[From The Wall Street Journal, 5 October 1989, p. A28:3]
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
At a recent environmental conference, Charles Alexander
declared, ``As the science editor at Time I would freely admit
that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news
reporting to advocacy.'' After a round of applause from the
gathered journalists and scientists, NBC correspondent Andrea
Mitchell told the audience that ``clearly the networks have made
that decision now, where you'd have to call it advocacy.''
At that point Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee chimed
in, saying ``I don't think there's any danger in doing what you
suggest. There's a minor danger in saying it because as soon as
you say, `To hell with the news. I'm no longer interested in
news, I'm interested in causes,' you've got a whole kooky
constituency to respond to, which you can waste a lot of time
on.''
Mr. Bradlee is right. Probably a lot of ``kooks'' believe in
objective journalism. But why shouldn't reporters lose their
self-discipline when discussing the environment? Practically
everybody else has.
Somehow the idea has gotten around that the environment isn't
a normal political issue, but a quasi-religious crusade. As a
result, public discussion of the environment has been about as
rigorous as one expects from a jihad.
The shortcomings of advocacy were very much in evidence at the
recent [??-15 September] environmental conference, sponsored by
the Smithsonian Institution. Held in the original museum
buildings that celebrate the achievements of the Industrial
Revolution, the meeting addressed the topic, ``The Global
Environment: Are We Overreacting?'' Every other time I have been
to a conference organized around a question, there have been
speakers on both sides. But not this time. Through the entire
conference, not a single disagreement deflected the steady breeze
of alarmism.
Perpetual apocalyptics such as Lester Brown and Paul Ehrlich
rattled off their anthems of doom (just as Rolling Stones rock
trough the tunes they originated 20 years ago). Speakers and
panels moved briskly on and off the podium: an acid rain crisis,
a toxics crisis, a famine crisis, a population crisis. The result
was a smorgasbord of apocalypse.
On the subject of global warming, a frisky environmental
policy analyst named Stephen H. Schneider presented the gloom and
doom side of the global-warming debate. A number of scientists
are more skeptical about global-warming, such as Hugh W.
Ellsaesser of the Livermore National Laboratory, Reid Bryson of
the University of Wisconsin, Richard Lindzen of MIT, V. Ramathan
of the University of Chicago and Andrew Solow of the Woods Hole
Institute of Oceanography. But they were not to be heard from.
The same sort of stage-managing prevailed among journalist
speakers. Barbara Pyle, who is the head of Turner Broadcasting's
International Documentary Unit, and who lists herself in her bio
as an ``internationally recognized environmental activist,''
appeared on a panel. Many reporters do not see the rules of
objective journalism as obstacles to social progress. But they
were not to be heard from.
The conference was co-chaired by the CEOs of ABC, NBC, CBS,
Turner Broadcasting, Time Warner and the Los Angeles Times, the
director of the New York Times and senior officers of other media
institutions (Dow Jones [publishers of the Wall Street Journal]
wasn't involved). Apparently none of these journalistic companies
insisted on diversity of opinion.
Several of the alarmist presentations were persuasive. For
example, Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration spoke intelligently on ozone depletion. Edward O.
Wilson was compelling on ``Biological Diversity: The Extinction
Crisis.'' But enlightenment was beside the point. The scientists
were limited to 10 minutes, enough time to recite a few familiar
facts and sum up with a grandiloquent plea for action (if you
can't stand purple prose, don't go to an environmental
conference).
Thomas Lovejoy, a tropical biologist who organized this
conference, delivered a summary in which he eloquently encouraged
the idea that we are in a planetary crisis. ``The planet is about
to break out with fever, and indeed it may have already,'' he
said, ``and we are the disease.'' Mr. Lovejoy's views are so
chic he is puffed in the current issue of GQ.
What to do? George Woodwell, director of Woods Hole Research
Center, argued that the world must phase out the use of fossil
fuels. Ruth Patrick of the Academy of Natural Sciences said that
mankind must do nothing less than ``rethink our way of life.''
Mr. Lovejoy suggested that ``we should be at war with ourselves
and with our life styles.'' The anti-growth contingent also made
its presence felt. Mr. Ehrlich declared, ``We've already had too
much economic growth in the United States. ... Economic growth in
rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.''
These sorts of prescriptions made me think I should have done
something violent to the limos that were idling outside the
conference dinner Friday night. Other than that, the conference
offered no constructive prescriptions. Not too many politicians
are going to go before their constituents and renounce economic
growth.
A number of the people in attendance have in the past
advocated politically realistic environmental proposals. But
none of them rose to challenge the radicals, not even Sens.
Timothy Wirth (D., Colo.) and John Heinz (R., Pa.), who sat as
guardian lions at either end of the panels.
Here and elsewhere in the environmental debate, a form of
Gersham's Law prevails. Apocalyptic predictions crowd out
skeptical appraisals. Rabble-rousing eloquence crowds out
measured discussion. Politically absurd cried for a Reformation
of Human Society intermingle with politically realistic ideas.
The reporters who become advocates seem to think they are
doing the environment a favor, but it is hard to see how.
Because there has been so little critical scrutiny, the
politically mainstream environmentalists don't feel compelled to
separate themselves from the Greens who think human progress
should have stopped in the 18th century.
Nobody seems to feel compelled to set some priorities, and
declare that X environmental problem needs to be addressed before
Y. Much of the political right feels spooked about environmental
issues because it perceives all environmentalism to be corrupted
by socialist command and controllers.
Just when it seems someone is about to get somewhere with
intelligent environmentalism, 10 other people mount podiums and
declare humanity a disease on the face of the earth.
------------------------------------
[update 1/7/1990:]
[The following is not part of the original article.]
From TIME, 18 Dec 1989, at the end of the letters-to-the-editor
column:
``We've received more than 3,400 identically worded postcards
[from subscribers to Accuracy In Media (AIM)] referring to this
quote in the Wall Street Journal from TIME senior editor Charles
Alexander: ``On this issue [the environment] we have crossed the
boundary from news reporting to advocacy.'' The postcards said,
``Tell your readers about this.''
``We are happy to. In all our coverage we try to be balanced
and fair in our presentation of the facts and in reporting the
range of differing views on the issues posed by the facts. But
from the beginning of TIME over 66 years ago, we have also
undertaken -- and made no secret of it -- to add our own
judgments on subjects that truly mattered, from civil rights to
arms control. We do not believe this will be news to our regular
readers. Indeed, because they so often eloquently agree or
disagree with us in these columns, it may be part of the reason
they value TIME. We hope so, because we believe considered
journalistic judgments are an important contribution to an
informed society. And, yes, our stand on the planet is that we
support its survival.'' (TIME, 18 December 1989)
That the source of the cards are AIM's subscribers comes from AIM
Report, December-B 1989, published by Accuracy In Media, Inc.,
1275 K Street, N.W., Suite 1150, Washington, D.C. 20005.
Telephone: 202-371-6710.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page