---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:20:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Evan L Petee
Subject: Re: 20/200 (20/20 distortions)
Dear all:
As a journalist I am equally dismayed by 20/20's portrayal of MCS but, perhaps,
a little less surprised.
I actually left a daily newspaper after 5 years because of situations like
this (i.e. moral conflicts). The truth was seen as putty:
shapable-distortable-stucky--etc...The idealistic view that journalism can
help human suffering--which good journalism can do--gave way to the reality
that popular journalism often INCREASES human suffering by capitalizing on
it and via manipulative techniques that give the impression that the journalist
cares. Some do. Many don't, at least in their role as journalists.
So lets put my diatribe on hold and look at Stossel's handling of MCS which was blessed by ABC. It must be known that all feature news stories are planned for ahead of time and the general slant pre-determined, in this case "MCS is hooeey." Once the story is okayed by editors, the dutiful reporter then goes out gathering evidence to prove the original slant. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed or included in snippet form to give the impression of balance. In information processing this is known as use of "scripts or schemas"--a narrow range of reference which makes efficient the normal overload of possible information. If our schema is green, blue confuses us, slows us down, makes us think too much---better to look for more green.
Almost NEVER does the reporter write or report a story that falls outside the original slant. First of all they are not receptive to other possibilities and second of all the editors and staff are already planning for the piece as approved. If Stossel had a moment of soulful reflection where he thought "wait a minute, maybe there is something to MCS" he would then be faced with the task of admitting to his editors that he was wrong and proposing that they spend additional time and money telling the true story. It is the same situation as a clerk at Winko Industries pondering going to the boss over concerns that a company product might be unsafe. Such events are very rare. The powers that be don't want to know, especially if the story or product is expected to be a big moneymaker. Look how well ABC promoted the MCS piece. Such promos are planned weeks ahead of time. No monkeywrenches in the machinery, please.
A second point is that many journalists simply don't care about human suffering to any profound degree. Journalists are like cops. After seeing the 100th body all murder victims look the same--humanization only brings hurt whereeas dismissal of suffering lets one continue with their jobs and incomes. There are exceptions in journalism, but they often find a sidestream, away from the mainstream distribution of lies. Thus if Stossel were to admit the true suffering of MCS-ers he would then first of all be subject to FEELINGS (not encouraged in 1997 journalism) and then with the task of doing something about it.
Also, journalists iften have huge egoes. There name is on the front page or in the homes of millions. They are not only fame-lovers who get as musch thrill from turning a clever phrase as most do from sex or chocolate ice cream, but also think of themselves as heroes. Okay, I'm stereotyping. But I have seen such attributes in former colleagues. In real world journalism an editor comments about a shooting victim "if he's going to die I hope he dies before deadline." In real world journalism a fine Christian young man laugh's when he tells the newsroom about a funny language problem when he tried to talk with the co-worker of a Chinese restaurant owner killed in a car crash. Not bad humans in the big picture, but these are the people we are entrusting the truth with.
This is not to say that the report did not raise some valid questions such as the possible improprieties of diagnosis by questionaire and whether some people can be conditioned into MCS when they don't actually have the ailment. Also, psychological investigations are always a valid route of inquiry for any ailment, including the work on support groups and cancer survival rates.
However, the greatest error was in the implication that all such MCS cases are psychological. First of all, they aren't, and second of all you can never get a universal truism by squeezing a few grapefruits. Such false foundations are the basis of all racism, sexism, ageism, etc...Even in this article I've had to avoid stating that all journalists are creepy. Actually most journalists are fine human beings--good fathers or mothers, churchgoers, whatever--away from work. But should you ever walk into a newspaper or television news building, do look for the "check your soul at the door" sign.
The most effective way to influence news departments is through mass letter writing and mass threats of contacting and boycotting sponsors, then you must actually write the sponsors. The days of the "to heck with the sponsors, we're running this story anyway," exist only in black and white movies. Journalism is a business and like any business can be hurt by actual or perceived loss of cash flow. When the CEO of Business X actually calls ABC and threatens to pull advertising, then possibilities come into shape.
An important point with this is that pressure must be sustained over a lengthy time period. All stories generate negative response. It is only when the repsonse is inordinantly large and over time to editors wake-up.
We can really only ask that they take a more thorough look at the scientific basis for MCS. All stories on MCS will present the opposing views which focus solely on pyschological etiology. That must be expected, but we also have a right to expect fair play.
Of course the question arises can a network news show sponsored by chemical, pharmaceutical, petroleum, perfume, clothing (chemicalized), and plastic food industries tell a fair story on MCS, a story which indicts practically all of their advertisers to some degree? All industry wants MCS to go away (as do we!) because of possible financial liabilities in products and to workers and communities. For whatever reason ABC told the version on MCS that industry wants the world to believe. In a magical land far far away, journalists actually respresent the little guy's fight for justice against the evil giants. Ah, fairy tales.
Actually my biggest disappointment, and perhaps the more harming aspect, was that good old Hugh Downs read whatever script was handed him instead of looking for himself. Of course he always does this, same with Babwa Wawa. But Hugh Downs gives the appearance of being everyone's favorite uncle, a man we can trust. If he thinks MCS is a matter of psychological suggestion, what is America to think? Stossel, on the other hand, has a hard time hiding his smirks behind his moustache when he is telling of human suffering. Write Hugh too. He's been misled!
Lastly I must re-empathisize that we must not be like them. Better to dip Stossel in honey than formaldehyde, no matter how tempting. The legal challenge by Dr. Ziem likely only fueled Stossel and ABC's belief in their own righteousness. In sociology this is known as neutralizing behaviors--behaviors which help people dismiss any suggestion that they are hurting people. Two neutralizations are "attack the attackers" and "denial of victim." If our letters sound pyscho or threatening beyond boycott they will only feel more sure of their perceptions of MCS-ers.
Peace and healing to all, even journalists!
--evan
P.S. May be cross-posted to MCS lists (not a member, yet)