And they call US spin doctors? Part 4 of 6

December 18th, 2009 → 5:29 pm @ Bob

16


The consequences of misinformation: How the New York Times worked with an activist group to mislead the nation

“Let’s give ‘em something to talk about.”
– Bonnie Raitt

BonnieRaittIn 2002 a relatively unknown study about consumer perceptions of food safety was published (1). In it, three researchers discovered a startling point: Given the choice between information delivered by experts and views offered by activists, consumers overwhelmingly sided with negative information, despite the credibility, or lack thereof, of the source.

The study went like this: A sampled audience was given descriptions about the process of food irradiation to examine the effects of how the information was presented. Participants were grouped into ten groups of six to twelve. Each participant received a neutral description of food irradiation based on current scientific literature. Some groups received additional positive information from a consumer education association, other groups received negative information from a consumer advocacy group and finally, the rest of the groups received both the positive and negative information about food irradiation.

The results showed that “even though the scientific evidence is favorable, claims by opponents, even if they are inaccurate and only suggest potential risks, will tend to reduce consumer demand” (p. 192). Negative information, in other words, dominated the test subjects’ perceptions leading to changed perceptions of food irradiation that disfavored the scientific information.

The researchers concluded:

“The surprising result is that when we presented both positive and negative information simultaneously, the negative information clearly dominated. This was true even though the source of the negative information was identified as being a consumer advocacy group and the information itself was written in a manner that was non-scientific.”

The public, therefore, is more easily swayed by emotional appeals and potentially misleading or incorrect information from non-scientific sources even when expressed simultaneously with scientific information.

* * *

Nearly four weeks ago an email was sent nationwide. In it, a New York Times reporter, Charles Duhigg, was asking representatives of state agencies to submit “any and all” data pertaining to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act for the years 1998 to the present. The data request would, at least for Nevada, amount to 1.5 to 2 million data points.

The asked-for deadline was November 30, eight days later.

What was not indicated in this email was that the reporter was already working with data from both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Working Group. EPA information is fairly extensive and available online. The Environmental Working Group and its data appear to be another matter entirely.

The same day the resulting drinking-water-quality story was released and published in the New York Times (yesterday), EWG sent a solicitation email requesting donations from its supporters. It was signed and promoted by Bonnie Raitt and Erin Brockovich, who both apparently had the time to read the lengthy New York Times story, examine its data and sidebars and also craft and deliver a colorfully designed message to supporters by 9:21 a.m. PST.

In the email, both say that the EWG’s release of information was with the New York Times.

“I’m blown away by everything EWG does. Just this past week, they released, with The New York Times, the latest update to their National Drinking Water Database. You can use the database to look up the chemical pollutants in your tap water and learn what you can do to protect your family against them. Who would do all this research if EWG wasn’t around?” [Emphasis in original text.]

Actual researchers, that’s who. It turns out what EWG does is not research, not subject to the benefits of peer-review and apparently has little basis in reality. But that doesn’t stop the group from being well-funded and well connected.

EWG has a history of inflammatory public relations tactics that, generally, appear to be well received. (It should be noted that the group’s executive editor, Nils Bruzelius, is a member of the National Association of Science Writers, which maintains as its constitution a principle to “foster the dissemination of accurate information regarding science and technology in keeping with the highest standards of journalism.”)

What sets apart this situation was that the New York Times was using the Environmental Working Group’s data for its story, despite warnings from others, such as the American Council on Science and Health, about EWG’s repeated scare tactics and misleading claims.

Despite the tenor of the stories – EPA regulations are not enough to protect average consumers from what EWG calls a “cocktail of contamination” and what the Times calls “toxic waters” – both draw dubious conclusions.

The New York Times Screen CapThe Times, using EWG’s data for only two years, claims that Truckee Meadows Water Authority has exceeded legal limits of both arsenic and tetrachloroethylene. Yet, records clearly show TMWA has never exceeded legal limits nor has it had health-based violations, “especially for arsenic,” according to TMWA’s Paul Miller(2).

That does not stop the Times from making the claim that “communities where the drinking water has contained chemicals that are associated with health risks include Scottsdale, Ariz.; El Paso, Tex., and Reno, Nev. Test results analyzed by the Times show their drinking water has contained arsenic at concentrations that have been associated with cancer.”

The New York Times’ use of data supplied by an activist group that has a well-documented history for misusing scientific information, and which has an obvious agenda, has contributed to a firestorm of media coverage not just here in the Truckee Meadows, but all around the country as water purveyors have scrambled to counter the misinformation supplied by EWG and lapped up by the news media.

And this is exactly what the Environmental Working Group wants.

Bonnie Raitt and Erin Brockovich spell it out:

“(EWG is) not afraid to shake things up if that’s what it takes to give people the information they need to make this world a better place.”

Even if it means using scare tactics and the peddling of misinformation. EWG likes to send out inflammatory news releases, but when countered on claims, or called onto the carpet for withholding information about its motives, suddenly the group gets more honest – or nasty – about its intentions.

An EWG representative summed it up:

“We’re trying to move Congress and the EPA to set tougher standards for drinking water across the country so we don’t end up with situations where people drink water with 10, 20 or 30 different contaminants in it, and have the authorities say that that’s safe.”

Meanwhile scientists and regulators are forced to counter a glut of irresponsible claims while consumers watch perplexed, wondering if in fact their water is safe to drink. If the food irradiation research study of 2002 is any indication, consumers are more likely to be swayed by EWG’s fear mongering.

It’s the consequence of misinformation.

* * *

This series of posts, called “And they call US spin doctors?” examines how business-as-usual journalism is fraught with potentials for misinformation, leading to the conclusion that information shapers of all stripes — in particular, reporters and their editors — are unwittingly, or not, significant players in the process of misleading the public. The series is extensively researched and uses real-life, current examples of news outlets deliberately misconstruing news to be more salacious. The series runs for six weeks. Read part 1, 2 and 3.

Sources

(1) Hayes, D. J., Fox, J. A. & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Experts and activists: How information affects the demand for food irradiation [Electronic version]. Food Policy, 27, 185-193.

(2) Information was taken from emails and a personal conversation with TMWA’s Paul Miller, who said that the New York Times data are definitely incorrect. Paul said he spoke with the Times reporter, Charles Duhigg, who was trying to verify a number about arsenic. Paul’s response: Prior to 2006, the TMWA system-wide average was just over 3 ppb (parts per billion) when the arsenic regulations were a limit of 50 ppb. The regulations were then changed to the current standard of 10 ppb. Paul said the system-wide average is now just under 3 ppb, but the New York Times chart shows TMWA’s “average result” to be 7.09 ppb (EWG claims it is 7.06 ppb). The Times also only shows data from 2004 and 2005, when the limit was 50 ppb, even though the legal limit listed by the Times is the current limit of 10 ppb.

Email, print or share this post.
  • email
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
Tags:  charles duhigg, environmental working group, new york times, toxic water