Alert columnist Dave Barry recently made this observation. Bill Moyers took him seriously.
Bill Moyers and Sherry Jones just aired their long awaited and highly touted TRADE SECRETS on PBS. My initial impression was surprise at just how little substance this 2 hour marathon contained. Truthfully, I really did expect some attempt to be made at an appearance of presenting both sides of the issue. But Bill, who apparently regards himself an "investigative journalist", played exclusively to the "tv science" audience, which was unlikely to question anything he said, at the expense of the truth.
The lowlights were numerous. Here is a review of just a few.
Bill's contention is that the entire chemical industry producing vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth about the dangers of this substance. It's a 40 year old story with little or no relevance to anything happening today.
Television was used in all its glory as an image-creating device. Numerous shots of "smoking" chemical factories were silently sprinkled throughout. Bill avoided informing the viewer that the "smoke" was just steam--water. His silence conspired to create the myth that leaks of deadly chemicals pervade every corner of the typical chemical complex.
We heard the story of the guy with chemical burns on his feet--from standing in "something." Why didn't Bill mention that vinyl chloride is a gas? Whatever that "something" was, it wasn't vinyl chloride.
Enormous mileage was eked out of the million pages of company documents collected in Dan Ross's ten year law suit against his employer. Bill clearly subscribes to the sausage school of journalism. If you stuff the report full of enough information, no one will notice that the quantity exceeds the quality. Bill talked about the million pages as if they alone constituted "evidence".
He cited several references to industry's reaction to Ralph Nader and Rachel Carson, making industry sound like it was trying to dodge these avenging angels. But, Nader's witchhunt against the auto industry is well known. And, Carson's Silent Spring, tame by today's standards, is nonetheless the first example of junk science. She established the precedent of making baseless assertions to instill fear in an unsuspecting public. Of course industry feared these same unfair media tactics that environmental groups and consumer advocates now routinely use.
Bill's selective editing of the documents was criminal. At one point he quoted a Chemical Manufacturer's Association report that "very little data exists to respond to the public's perception" of the risk of vinyl chloride. He felt that deserved repeating. But he only repeated the phrase, "VERY LITTLE DATA EXISTS..." effectively creating the impression that the paucity of data relates to a lack of study of the "untested" chemicals and not to a lack of a way to respond to public perception.
At one point we are shown a company document minimizing the risk of exposure to vinyl chloride. Bill was careful to point out that several doctors even signed it. Did he talk to any of them? No. He even electronically obliterated their names to prevent us from doing so. Is this investigative journalism? Or is this a conspiracy to hide any evidence that doesn't agree with Bill's preconceived conclusion?
Bill had an excellent opportunity to explain to us why toxicology is such a complex issue and why answers don't come quickly and glibly (as they do for him 40 years after the fact). Instead, he supported his story only with anecdotal tales from three chemical plant workers, two historians, a pediatrician and a smattering of people from environmental activist groups. Not one organic chemist was interviewed. Not one toxicologist. Not one manager from any of the various chemical companies indicted. Not one community leader from any of the communities where these plants are located. Not even one official from the EPA. The existence of none of the numerous studies, publicly published in major scientific journals, of the toxicology of vinyl chloride was acknowledged.
The major portion of the show was spun around the tale of vinyl chloride. But toward the end, the story was fleshed out with all the other usual suspects. Times Beach, MO and Love Canal were dutifully trotted out--just to show the pictures of a town being demolished and angry screaming residents. Since the story broke in the 70s, the mainstream media has yet to admit that Hooker Chemical ran a state-of-the-art landfill at Love Canal that turned into a disaster only when the local school board basically took the land, scraped off the clay cap, and built on the land. Rain eventually filled the clay-lined pit and overflowed the chemicals that had been buried there. Bill maintained the conspiracy of silence about what actually happened.
We were told that cancer rates are up in numerous key categories. Breast cancer is rising steadily. (It's due to abortion and the use of birth control pills. That's known, but no one is going to talk about it.) Brain cancer is up 29%; testicular cancer has increased twofold; infertility is up, etc. And yet, we are living longer than ever. The US Census Bureau reports that in 1940 AD about 70% of people survived to age 60. In 1990 AD, about 90% of people survived to age 60. Is it just possible that Bill reported large percentage increases of very small numbers?
Bill bravely had his blood tested for synthetic chemicals. 84 were found. The analyst announced that 83 of these would not have been detected in Bill's grandfather's blood. Thirteen of them were dioxins. Dioxins are always produced when organic material is combusted. Not only have we always had forest fires and volcanoes, but there was a time in our past when wood or coal fires provided the bulk of our heat. In all likelihood, Bill's grandfather would have had a higher dioxin concentration in his blood than Bill. But we can never know that; his grandfather did not have his blood tested. To assert, unequivocally, that none of these 83 materials would have been detected in blood from two generations ago is not just bad science. It's a lie.
Does this mean there has never been a bad decision made within a chemical company? Does it mean no chemical plant official has ever bent the rules, hidden vital information, compromised the safety of workers or the community? In the absence of any evidence from Bill, I have to conclude probably not. But the world is full of morons. The human managers of chemical plants come in for their share. (So do investigative journalists.) Has Bill Moyers proved even one such evil act in TRADE SECRETS--let alone an industry-wide conspiracy? No.
One of Bill's historians admitted he is squeamish about conspiracy theories. There are good reasons to be so about this one. It works only if you assume that all the researchers and chemical company officials live on another planet. We don't. We breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. We are just as interested in maintaining the purity of these vital resources. Of course, the companies are interested in making money; that's the whole point of being in business. You don't make much money, though, if you kill off your workers and your customers.
Bill points out that the chemical industry has fought against the passage of much legislation. He offers this as proof of a conspiracy to pollute. That's silly. Not every proposed law is good law or good common sense. Passing laws just to appease the viewers who have learned all their science from "A Moyers Report" doesn't solve any problems and frequently creates many more.
Bill did exactly what he accused the chemical industry of doing. He manipulated and hid data from the public. He has an enormous responsibility to that public. He has the power, the forum, and the intelligence to bridge the gap between a fearful public and a possibly understandably, paranoid industry. He chose to burn the bridge instead. Shame on him.
The panel discussion after the "report" was disgusting.
It was the ONLY portion of the broadcast in which the companies involved were allowed ANY response. Basically, they were given about 10 minutes, in a hostile forum, to answer 90 minutes of attack.
They were outnumbered 2 to 3 on the panel.
When industry reps answered a question, the camera panned the faces of their inquisitors to record their carefully simulated expressions of shock and outrage. The industry reps were not accorded the same creative courtesy with the camera when they were being attacked.
We were told that science is easily manipulated by money; researchers always find the answers their employers pay them to find. As old as this argument is, it never fails to anger me. It impugns the integrity of an entire profession. It's offensive and insulting, and it's unfounded. It's such an extraordinary charge, it demands extraordinary proof. And yet, proof came there none. It stood unassailed--a simple, bigoted lie unchallenged by our investigative reporter. I personally demand an apology for this heinous statement on behalf of all researchers.
Bill's most outrageous comment was his attempt to defuse the revelation that his life had been spared by the very chemistry he was vilifying. As Terry Yosie, American Chemical Council VP, outlined the role chemistry played in repairing his heart, Bill asked, "Are you sorry about that now?" It was a crass remark, unworthy of a true investigative report, but typical of the attitude Bill carried in the chip on his shoulder throughout the presentation.
PBS must shoulder its share of the blame for a biased, unfair presentation. At least in Detroit, PBS elected to run a test of the emergency broadcast system in the middle of a Yosie answer to a charge. True, they also obliterated a comment from the other side. That won't float, though. Industry was allowed too little time too late. They could have run the test 10 minutes later, after the broadcast ended. It made the network look small and exposed it for the fear-mongering, ratings-grabbing machine it has become.
The "experts" asserted that we need a national Proposition 65--the Right-to-Know legislation in California. We already have such a system. A Pre-Manufacturing Notification (PMN) must be filed with each new chemical brought to market. This registers the substance on the TSCA inventory. No chemical gets registered before its toxicological profile is evaluated. To suggest otherwise is untrue and misleading. Anyone purchasing any chemical product can demand and easily receive a Material Safety Data Sheet outlining the toxicology, handling and disposal issues of the substance. In fact, the consumer is presented today with explicit instructions on the label of any chemical product detailing use instructions and misuse consequences.
The "experts" know this and that is why they kept playing the "C" card. We don't know the "effects on our Children." Are they really suggesting that we do chemical exposure tests on kids? Be serious. They demand this because they know the tests cannot be done. That way industry opponents guarantee they can always argue that insufficient testing has been done.
We heard a lot from them about perfectly safe alternatives. Did you notice they proposed not one such alternative? You can bet that any such alternative would meet the same fate. They would suddenly discover that "insufficient testing" had been done.
The chemical industry alone is held to this unattainable standard of testing till risk-free. Judges make bad decisions and they become precedents. Teachers conduct educational experiments ("Grammar is optional. It stifles creativity."), produce illiterates, and get pay raises ("Merit pay? No way. We aren't responsible for the results of our students.") Politicians enact ill-advised social policy and get reelected (well, I guess that's our fault.) Cops strike illegally, endangering the public, and get rehired. Every industry and profession is capable, through maliciousness or incompetence, of doing as much damage to society as the chemical industry. Most, probably all, have. Had Bill Moyers been held to the standard he sanctimoniously demands of the chemical industry, this special would never have seen the light of day.
Sorry, Ron. Bill may be a great guy and a good neighbor. But he is a lousy journalist. And he is clearly NOT an investigative journalist in any sense. He is just another member of the "don't confuse me with the facts--I've made up my mind" school of thought.
CENTER>