When it comes to stories bashing business, it appears that
fairness and balance — offering the chance for a business or
industry to defend itself against critics — are no longer mandatory
at the CBS Evening News. Two recent stories — one criticizing
electricity deregulation in California, and a second questioning the
safety of the food supply — prove the point:
On September 13, the Evening News led with a package of
stories on the "energy crunch" crisis, beginning with a story in
which reporter John Blackstone panned the concept of de-regulation
and allowed sources to impugn electricity providers. He quoted a
consumer advocate, a protester, an industry critic, and a liberal
Democratic politician — but no one from the industry under attack or
experts who held contrary positions.
"San Diego is the first city in the nation where electricity has
been freed from price controls," Blackstone told viewers before
showing a woman leading a protest: "There is price gouging going
on."
"Deregulation was supposed to bring prices down," Blackstone
continued, "but in California, the wholesale cost of electricity at
peak demand has soared from $25 a megawatt reaching $250 a megawatt
today." He then allowed a Democratic politician, Rep. Bob Filner to
lambaste utility companies as crooks.
"This is not an, an issue about supply and demand and markets not
working. This is criminal activity by a bunch of folks who decided
to gouge us for anything they could get," grandstanded Filner, who
in 1999 earned a zero rating from the American Conservative Union.
Even after the incredible allegation of criminal conduct,
Blackstone did not allow any industry spokesman to offer an opposing
view, but piled on with another quote from an industry critic,
Nettie Hoge of the Utility Reform Network. Referring to the state’s
power shortages, Ms. Hoge claimed, "that’s a problem which allows
free market exploiters to come in and demand the highest price
possible." (In Ms. Hoge’s lexicon, out-of-state or independent
electricity providers who step in and provide needed power when
local utilities face shortfalls are "free market exploiters.")
The CBS Evening News story was stunningly one-sided, as
source after source condemned the power companies who were given no
chance to respond. Perhaps sensing their unfairness, CBS followed-up
six days later (September 19) with another California power story,
this time including the perspective of power company sources and an
industry analyst who said that the issue was basic
supply-and-demand, not greed or criminality.
"Energy analyst Mike Zenker says the demand for energy in
California has grown at close to double the national rate, but no
new power plants have been built in the state for a decade, "
explained Blackstone. On-camera, Zenker added that the supply
shortages mean "reliability and price levels are both going to be
called into question next year, no question about that."
While neither Zenker nor Blackstone said so explicitly, that
analysis directly refuted the charges leveled against the industry
in the previous story. Unfortunately for viewers, that bit of
balance was incredibly tardy — it should have been included in the
September 13 story which broadcast the inflammatory charges in the
first place. And, of course, the second story was buried deep inside
the newscast, airing after the second commercial break.
Harvest of Panic?
The pattern of one-sidedness was evident again on September 18,
when the CBS Evening News began with what seemed an alarming
report from Wyatt Andrews about dangerous food in American
supermarkets. "Food safety groups have been warning about it for
years," anchor Dan Rather gravely noted, "genetically-altered foods
not approved for human consumption getting to your dinner table
anyway."
That’s not what they’ve been warning about, actually. Most of the
critics of genetically-modified (GM) foods oppose even FDA-approved
products, including corn that has been genetically altered to be
resistant to crop-destroying pests, claiming that government testing
is insufficient and that these crops may contain unknown dangers for
consumers. In fact, because modified corn, soy and potato has been
included in so many commercially-prepared foods, practically all
Americans have eaten the stuff for years, and there have been no
reports of any problems apart from food allergies. (For example, if
a peanut gene is spliced into another food, people who are allergic
to peanuts will probably be allergic to the resulting food product,
too, and current FDA rules require such products to be labeled so
consumers can protect themselves.)
Potential
allergies are the problem in the case of the taco shells. "The
charge is that Taco Bell taco shells sold in grocery stores contain
a gene-altered corn specifically banned from food because of the
risk of allergies in people," reporter Wyatt Andrews expanded.
"While there are no known reports of injury, this finding by a
coalition of environmental groups is the most serious evidence so
far of the potential danger in some gene-altered food."
Andrews then quoted Jane Rissler, a representative of the
left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists, who declared "this is a
possible allergen that is illegally on the market." Andrews then
showed Larry Bohlen from the self-styled "Friends of the Earth," who
was even more dramatic: "We’re saying that the FDA should exercise
their authority and seize the product." The only other on-air quote
came from Anne Haegert, the scientist hired by the environmentalists
to conduct the tests, who declared her results were proof "without
any doubt." None of these sources were labeled as liberal
anti-industry activists.
Four days later, on Friday, September 22, Kraft had completed its
own testing and initiated a voluntary recall of the taco shells. The
CBS Evening News once again pushed the story all the way to
the top of its evening newscast. "The fear became reality tonight,"
Rather sensationally claimed before telling viewers about the
recall. "All this adds new urgency to the debate over
genetically-altered foods and what your government is and isn’t
doing to regulate them," he ominously added.
"The unprecedented recall is the first one aimed at any
genetically-modified food," Andrews echoed, before quoted two
anti-GM food activists (neither of whom was labeled as liberal):
Andrew Kimbrell, the lawyer who heads the Center for Food Safety,
and Rebecca Goldburg, a spokesperson for the Environmental Defense
Fund. As with his first story, no representatives of the company, or
industry spokesmen, were shown on-camera, although Andrews did
summarize Kraft’s press release.
On both days, CBS made it seem as if public health and safety
were in immediate jeopardy, and reinforced the sense of urgency by
placing the stories at the top of the newscast. CBS also bolstered
the credibility of the environmentalists by quoting them so
prominently and without any countering sources. Not only does that
bias the individual report, it also provides support for the groups’
overall campaign to use isolated instances such as the taco shell
story to discredit all genetically-modified foods in consumers’
eyes.
Compare CBS’s urgency to NBC Nightly News, which didn’t
bother to even mention the taco shell story when it broke on
September 18, although Robert Hager reported on the recall on
September 22. ABC’s World News Tonight skipped the recall,
but covered the story on September 18. Unlike at CBS, the ABC
correspondent followed the accepted journalistic practice of quoting
both sides. After quoting Friends of the Earth’s Bohlen, ABC’s Barry
Serafin announced that "the biotech industry says before any action
is taken, the test results must be verified, noting that the lab in
this case has been wrong before." Serafin then showed Val Giddings,
Vice President of the Biotechnology Industry Association, who told
viewers that "these results have been alleged by a company that has
a history of finding things that aren’t there."
The subtext of both of Andrews’ pieces was identical to the
explicit message of activists such as Kimbrell, Goldburg, Rissler
and Bohlen: that all genetically-modified foods — even those that
have been approved by the FDA for sale in grocery stores — may
contain hidden dangers. The absolute absence of harm to people who
have already consumed GM corn is, in the activists’ formulation, no
proof that some dangers may lurk unnoticed. The consumer fears
spawned by the media’s uncritical repeating of this line is to blame
for the reduction in sales of modified seeds to farmers this spring
— although farmers recognize the benefits, they’re wary of producing
crops which they may not be able to sell.
By only showing sources who think this corn is dangerous, Andrews
was peddling panic, not journalism. In his introduction to the
September 18 story, Rather boasted that "Wyatt Andrews has been
investigating this story for days." If that’s true, then his failure
to offer viewers a balanced report wasn’t the by-product of haste;
it was premeditated. As in the case of John Blackstone’s story on
electricity prices, there was another side to these business-bashing
stories — and CBS withheld that story from its viewers. They deserve
better.
— Rich
Noyes