Humans Good!
June 29, 2001 7:33 PM Subscribe
posted by ZachsMind at 8:11 PM on June 29, 2001
"Gene by gene alteration? Scientists don't do that...they blast particles and HOPE that something will hook up with the rest of the genes and they keep blasting away until something does..."
If you take out his opinion/synthesis, the footages and interviews are not bad.
Now is it just me, or is Stossel always close to tears during his interviews? Maybe there were just too many lights reflecting off his eyeballs...
posted by margaretlam at 8:18 PM on June 29, 2001
...For the record, this is obviously not (going to be) an example of objective journalism - it's a soap box. Whatever happened to just reporting what's there instead of having to make a statement about it? The lines between the professions of journalism, news reporting and criticism are blurring.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:19 PM on June 29, 2001
(Please note I am not endorsing landrights.org in any way. They just archived the thing, is all.)
posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:23 PM on June 29, 2001
posted by EngineBeak at 8:34 PM on June 29, 2001
"He started asking leading questions and it was very clear what he wanted to get," Quigley said. "He would say, 'Wow, it's really scary, isn't it?' And the kids weren't scared at all and so they just looked at him. He asked that question repeatedly."It seems to me that Stossel has a particular point of view that government is bad and unfettered capitalism is good, which, of course, is his right. Presenting his program-length editorials as reportage isn't, though. He already had his mind made up before he even started this program. From the same article linked above:
According to Quigley, Stossel was having a hard time getting what he wanted. "These were bright kids, and they were responding well. He was clearly trying to elicit certain responses on tape. When he didn't get the verbal response he wanted, he had the crew shoot from behind and had the students raise their hands while he asked, 'Is the air getting dirtier or cleaner?' It was clear that he wasn't interested in honest dialogue but was trying to elicit certain responses for a script he had already written."
In March -- a month before Stossel's producers turned up at Quigley's event -- a group called Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) posted an email to their listserv. RISE serves as a pesticide industry front-group, according to Sheldon Rampton, editor of PR Watch. The email was a message from Michael Sanera, director of environmental education research at the Stossel fan club known as the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The email was later forwarded to environmentalists.posted by icathing at 8:57 PM on June 29, 2001
"I have been contacted by ABC News," Sanera wrote on March 20, 2001. "A producer for John Stossel is working on a program on environmental education. He needs examples of kids who have been 'scared green' by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism in the classroom. (He needs kids and/or parents to appear on camera.) I have some examples, but I need more. Would you send out a notice to your group and ask if they know of some examples."
</sarcasm>
posted by rodii at 9:42 PM on June 29, 2001
That's all anyone does nowadays. There's no advocacy or pov outside of standard panel arrangements or "editorials". I'd prefer if reporters stopped being automatons and tell us what they really think. Whether I agree with them or not. I tend to agree with Stossel but not O'Reilly but they're way more interesting than a ton of other interchangeable MSNBCNNABC heads.
posted by owillis at 10:04 PM on June 29, 2001
"I got sick of it. I also now make so much money I just lost interest in saving a buck on a can of peas."--John Stossel to an audience of conservative lawyers of the Federalist Society, on why he stopped doing consumer reporting:
And while on the topic of Liberal Bias in the Media...
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."--William Kristol, The New Yorker, May 22, 1995
"The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes."--William Kristol, in a Weekly Standard subscription pitch, June 2001
posted by hincandenza at 10:08 PM on June 29, 2001
posted by hincandenza at 10:23 PM on June 29, 2001
NB that "story" is from a left-wing group that has long despised John Stossel, like many other left-wing groups. The reality is that a) none of these parents cared until the Environmental Working Group, which REALLY despises John Stossel, contacted them well after the interviews and fed them some notions; and b) Every network TV newsmagazine correspondent fluffs up their interviewees and edits their responses afterwards. The only difference is that all the others are themselves liberal, so the pressure groups don't mind one bit.
And William Kristol isn't a good guy to "out", since most conservatives have known for years his own personal politics slide back and forth with a puff of wind.
posted by aaron at 10:29 PM on June 29, 2001
My reflex reaction is to say: I prefer being told the facts and from that making my own opinions.
However, I don't normally go out of my way to record 20/20, but Stossel's hour long editorial got my attention. It might be yellow journalism, but it may also "fill the seats." I'd like to believe the news' job is to tell ME what's going on in the world so I don't have to trace Christiane Amanpour's steps to find out for myself what's happening in the world. Unfortunately that doesn't make ratings and it doesn't sell advertising.
Well, unless you're Christiane Amanpour. [what a babe.]
posted by ZachsMind at 11:11 PM on June 29, 2001
All pulling stunts like that, it is entirely justified for watchdogs to eagerly scrutinize his broadcasts.
posted by NortonDC at 12:21 AM on June 30, 2001
And seriously Aaron, the whole "Those awful liberals and their corporate-owned news channels are so biased against everything we rugged noble conservatives believe!" schtick is wearing thin. Click your ruby red heels together and repeat after me: There is no liberal bias in the media, there is no liberal bias in the media, there is no liberal bias in the media...
posted by hincandenza at 12:54 AM on June 30, 2001
Key there is corporate-owned: GE, White Westinghouse, News Corp, Clear Channel, etc. all benefit greatly from current conservative ideology.
posted by nathan_teske at 1:21 AM on June 30, 2001
Y'know, I had just typed a long exposition about this, but I've deleted it (hold the applause... (: ) and will instead link to selections from da Man, Noam Chomsky:
Studying The Media (at Zmag.org)
Media Control (at Zmag.org)
And of course, the classic book "Manufacturing Consent"...
posted by hincandenza at 1:30 AM on June 30, 2001
And I WILL be fast forwarding over the commercials.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:42 AM on June 30, 2001
hincandenza- let me recommend you and all my MeFi friends to read Edward Abby's Monkey Wrench Gang as far as an argument for the development of ecoterorism as a form of recent protest. His other books are also excellent, especially Desert Solitaire
posted by roboto at 5:23 AM on June 30, 2001
Regardless of how it came to light, Stossel's conduct with those kids was unprofessional, cynical and manipulative. He's become an astonishingly bad reporter in the last five years -- he doesn't cover stories anymore; he scripts them.
Quote from an article about the interviews: at one point, Stossel tried to lead the children in a chant to the effect that "all scientists agree that there is a greenhouse effect" ...
How can anyone support a journalist who behaves this way?
posted by rcade at 7:39 AM on June 30, 2001
John Stossel= (Fuzzy/3) x (Heraldo Rivera Lite+Rush Limbaugh)
posted by ParisParamus at 7:54 AM on June 30, 2001
I don't know much about Stossel, but didn't he do a rather good report on the drug war a while back? Or was that someone else?
posted by FPN at 8:01 AM on June 30, 2001
posted by fleener at 8:26 AM on June 30, 2001
Reminds me of what NTK's Danny O'Brien once said about news coverage: "There's a story that you're involved in, and you see the reports, and say: 'It's not like that at all.' And then you think about all the other stories..."
Is there any place for ground-breaking investigative journalism from the major broadcasters these days? That is, beyond yet another consumer report. Even the BBC is less eager to offend sensibilities, though Fergal Keane's report on Ariel Sharon's complicity in the Sabra and Shatila massacres would never have made it onto the American networks?
posted by holgate at 8:50 AM on June 30, 2001
posted by gimli at 1:49 PM on June 30, 2001
posted by dong_resin at 1:39 AM on July 1, 2001
However, I hadn't noticed anyone mentioning one of my favorite schmucks of the enviro movement, Patrick Moore. Yee haw, what a winner!
posted by foist at 9:04 AM on July 1, 2001
Seems like he feel right at home there.
posted by dr. zoidberg at 10:15 AM on July 1, 2001
« Older Pamie | True Guide To New York Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The Oregonian did a pretty complete survey on eco-terrorism, still with a bit of alarmist bombast and the slant that the elves must be wrong. Of course, being a better journalist than Stossel is about as hard as breathing.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:11 PM on June 29, 2001