Stossel's Reflections on Alarmist Reporting
Commons blog
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 4 June 2006 · Environmental Alarmism
ABC's John Stossel, winner of 19 Emmys, was introduced as a "skeptic's skeptic," who has been willing to take on many widespread beliefs in his reporting. "It makes you feel inferior to come up here after Michael Crichton, who's sold 150 million books, Stossel said. He recalled how he did a story on Crichton's State of Fear, and said he was struck by how few of those who criticized the ABC segment engaged the substance of Crichton's arguments, and instead engaged in ad hominem attacks ("he's a novelist" or "he took oil money").
Stossel began his career as a consumer reporter. In this position, he recounted, he was constantly approached by alarmists trying to sell scare stories. The incentives for scare stories in the media are tremendous. Scientists have an incentive to raise scares if they want to get on TV. (If they don't raise a scare, they get to stay in their labs, in anonymity, doing important work.) "More of you will watch" if a story is scary. Moreover, many alarmists are terribly convincing â€" and make for good television â€" and it often leads to terrible policy.
Stossel said the history of environmental scares and alarmist reporting (some of which he had done himself at one point) has made him skeptical of global warming claims. But it's become a major issue today. Stossel said he is afraid that global warming has become the vehicle for those who want to increase government power. He showed a graph of federal spending since 1789 that looked suspiciously like the infamous hockey stick.
Senator Schumer is proposing a "Manhattan Project" to solve energy problems. Stossel said he asked Schumer had not this been tried before in the wasteful Synfuels project. Schumer acknowledged that failure, but said it was because politicians decided how the money was spent â€" and this time the decisions would be made by scientists. "Sure they will," Stossel said â€" and even if they are it will be the politicized scientists, not those who are disinterested.
Stossel eventually got tired of alarmist reporting on consumer scares when some of the stories did not add up â€" noting one story in particular pitched by a plaintiffs attorney. "There's an evil relationship between investigative reporters and the trial bar." Its very difficult for reporters to resist because the plaintiffs attorneys do all the research and hand over a packaged story. Stossel pitched stories on "real" risks to the network, but was unable to make them until he received an offer from another network â€" which led to his prime time specials, beginning with "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?"
Stossel recounted some of the risk data from the special â€" noting that the greatest risks people face come from driving, smoking (for those who smoke), and lower incomes. "Wealthier is healthier," Stossel said (quoting Aaron Wildavsky). This means that when the media trumpets minor risks that lead to the wasting of public resources, we are all made less safe. Even terrorism is a relatively minor threat â€" killing a fraction of the number of Americans that die from house fires and the like.
Stossel asked the audience whether people would accept an alternative fuel that is odorless, colorless, poisonous, and explosive, and is pumped into people's homes. A few said this would scare them, and that at least a risk assessment would need to be conducted first â€" and that if this fuel killed 20 Americans a year the benefits would have to be enormous. Of course, we already allow this â€" it's natural gas, and it kills 400 people a year. Yet we allow this risk, Stossel noted, because it is old and familiar. But he wondered whether natural gas â€" or other dangerous products â€" could be approved today. In the end, Stossel said, we need to be skeptical of scare stories, including global warming.
commonsblog.org |
