Should the News Coverage of the Energy Industry Meet Chevron's Approval?
I don’t think of myself as overly suspicious of the motives of others. But I have to say that I recoil at the end of every PBS NewsHour when Jim Lehrer signs off and we’re told that the broadcast was sponsored by Chevron. The idea that the information I just received met the approval of an oil company, with its obvious interests vis-à-vis clean energy, is deeply offensive. It certainly makes me call into question the validity of everthing I just heard.
Why does Chevron target PBS? I think the answer it pretty obvious: covering their bases. The established energy industry already owns the flow of information coming through the for-profit corporate-owned media. PBS offers access to the “well read” demographic, many of whom have taken the smart tack with respect to commercial television, i.e., they’ve turned it off. Thus PBS is the perfect tool to reach them.
For Chevron, it’s a no-brainer. But for me, it cuts like a knife.
I’ve written to PBS and to Lehrer personally, explaining that the increase in their credibility would more than justify telling these people to take a hike. I hope you will too.
I am amazed that this is such an issue for you. You know how and why advertizing works (“sponsorship” at PBS). Companies pay to get thier name out there, producers of shows could not survive without it. Chevron has no more control over PBS content than Clorox has over soap opera story line.
I hope you’re right. But I still think it’s wrong to have a business relationship with a company that you’re supposed to be objective about. It’s funny; I didn’t think this was a terribly controversial idea.
Do you really think that Chevron “approves” what is said by Jim Lehrer and reported by PBS? Your observations regarding why Chevron would want to sponsor the program are correct, but to suggest that Jim Lehrer, one of the only remaining true journalists in broadcast media, would tailor his words to meet a sponsor’s agenda, is offensive to me and disrespectful to him. PBS needs money to complete their mission. Sponsors provide it. End of story! btw… surely you know that Chevron owns one of the largest energy efficiency companies in the US. Are they really “the enemy” as you seem to imply?
Thanks for your viewpoint, Greg. And I respect Jim Lehrer too. But to answer your question, I think we have every reason to believe that the presence of Chevron’s sponsoring a news show has the crystal clear possibility of clouding that show’s objectivity in covering energy.
Fossil fuels cannot be left out of the energy supply loop. Chevron supplies energy, both petroleum based and alternatives as well. Why does this have to be an “us vs them” story. You should be glad that Chevron (the old Texaco) is not still blowing out wells in West Texas with no environmental concern. You can hold their feet to the fire but we need them to help pull the wagon for the forseeable future. chem lem
Although there is reason for concern, it would not be correct to assume that Chevron is actually influencing the content of any PBS programs. I wish we could be entirely sure, though.
While It might feel strange or distasteful that Chevron ‘Sponsored’ the last bastion of truth, at PBS, but I think the comments above covered the commercial aspects of the matter, and it seems strange to me that Shell Solar – a division of Shell Oil, has not started putting Solar Panels on the roof tops of the canopies of their Gas Stations, and some batteries in back to store a days worth of electricity for themselves, so when the grid goes down – they can still pump their black gold!
My thoughts go back to the North East Power Blackout of about 6 years back, and in the mean time – when the Solar Panels are working – they could be selling electricity to the grid too!
Beyond that, Tomorrow night at the 6 PM News in Ontario, Canada – Global News will be covering – Charging Electric Cars, and my car is possibly going to be in the spot! http://www.myelectricfly.com! http://www.globaltoronto.com/
Craig, if Chevron approached you and said they would contribute a few million dollars to support the 2 Green Energy blog. and did not specify any editorial control over the content would you accept the offer?
Don Harmon
It’s an excellent question. It would sure be a heck of a discussion I’d have with my wife! But here’s a question for you. Wouldn’t you expect a different level of coverage if this blog actually were sponsored by Chevron? I would certainly expect you to.
Here’s a new post I just wrote on this, btw: http://2greenenergy.com/chevron-sponsoring/7710/.
What did the “powers that be” put themselves in charge of by controlling the pulling the string sticking out of the behind of every elected official in Washington DC? The bulk of the citizenry. When BP “accidently” blew up their oil rig in an attempt to convert the Gulf of Mexico into a lifeless and barren sea as a first feeble attempt at “depopulation through famine”, these megalomaniacal, self-appointed ego trippers had assumed nobody would care if people were arrested by completely unofficial “enforcement” troops for shooting a photograph of the dead animals BP managed to tip the hand of all of the Globalists.
What the Globalists had not accounted for, was that the world will be 80% Muslim within 100 years
Craig, if I follow your initial thoughts and the replies to comments to their conclusion, it suggests that no sponsors can be allowed. If you were to replace Chevron with Siemens, or GE, both known for their renewable energy efforts, how would that possibly taint or influence the broadcast any less? If there is influence at all, you might argue that the Siemens example would lead to a different slant. And that would make it acceptable?
I don’t watch Lehrer regularly, but if I did, I would look closely for proof of bias or impact due to sponsorship. For what it’s worth, I don’t recall thinking of bias when watching on occasion.
No, as I wrote here: http://2greenenergy.com/chevron-sponsoring/7710/, I don’t see any evidence of slant; it’s just not a practice that I think is a good idea.
Craig, as you noted; “PBS offers access to the “well read” demographic, many of whom have taken the smart tack with respect to commercial television, i.e., they’ve turned it off.” It is a more discriminating audience and will notice right away if Jim tilts anything in Chevron’s direction. I know I would. It’s too bad, but we should probably be glad Chevron threw a little money their way or there might not be any attempt at objective journalism on TV, especially after the new congress cuts funding for PBS and NPR.
Astute point; thanks for writing. And, as I wrote here: http://2greenenergy.com/chevron-sponsoring/7710/, I don’t see any direct evidence of a slant. In fact; I think they do an excellent job; it’s just not a practice I think is smart.
Craig, I would be more concerned if Chevron was Anonymous, and we couldn’t hold their hand in the fire and they had influence. They cannot “Get Away’ with influence from a Public News source without secrecy.
By the way what do you think of this as a campaign? [I respect your opinion.] Dennis
A Tiny Subscription can Help save the World.
Electric Cars are going to be the solution to personal transportation in the near future. To implement their use requires TWO Infrastructures; the First is Battery recharging, at each owner/driver’s home, and Work, and in many public locations. This is being implemented by a multiplicity of companies, many with Government Grants, Loans, or Auto Manufacturers Funding Support. Hundreds of weatherproof outlets called “Charging Stations” have been installed and thousands more are already planned. And that is good! But, what is being done for the Second infrastructure? Electric Vehicle Service and Repair; who will train auto mechanics how to work safely around the over 350 volt battery pack? How to fix electric motors? [Not replace a motor because the wire on a brush is loose, at a cost of several thousand dollars! The mechanic can replace a sparkplug, Brushes are replaceable also.] We need all the mechanics [or a large percentage] to be trained in Safety, motor repair, troubleshooting, and adjustment of the motor control electronics, wiring/batteries, and battery charging system. But no-one is providing training except auto manufactures, and only for their employees; what about the mechanics who do not work for a Dealer? Three Million of them in the USA and individuals who want to learn to fix their own? There needs to be an alternative! We want to offer it, at Electric Vehicle Technical Institute. If you think this is a good idea, we have a way for you to help us and we will help you too. If you buy a Pre-Opening Subscription for $500; [Transferable, you can buy one for your son, daughter or other relative who loves cars!] It can be applied to the tuition for a $1,000 credit and guarantees a reserved position to be in the first classes in order according to date payment is received; or we will give $1,500 credit, [one per contract] toward a “License” to open your own School using our proven system and curriculum And if you or they change that decision after one year, or earlier if funds are available, I will give 100% refunds. No way to lose. [Money is to be held in an escrow account until we have sufficient subscriptions, to finance opening] If we don’t get enough we send it all back.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dennis Miles
PHONE: 1[813]434-3884
Thanks, Dennis. I’ll send you an email on this in a moment.
Hi Craig, Thanks for occasionally letting me slip a bit of personal publicity into your comment reply list. I try to not abuse it. You left a comment that you would send me an e-mail in a moment. But I’m not being pushy, even after five days. and no-body called me in five days either. I may need more help than my individual effort to kick start this Technical School. We really can start it with $180 K to 200 K And I know that is a little small for your Firm to promote; But if I started with five million dollars, we would have to have 50 teachers, and 200 students each month working on at least 100 conversions and sell them each month, in 50,000 square feet of shop and 10,000 sq.ft. of classrooms and offices and restaurant access for the 200 students. By the time we are considering that large of an operation graduating 2,400 trainees a year, we would have to call it E.V.University. Of course I know of a 60,000 sq.ft. part of the mall, [a store] is available, a short walk from the a 350 room hotel and restaurants inside the mall. and all on a US Highway [US 98] and adjacent to a major Interstate [I-4]. There is even a Sears Store in the other end of the mall where they could all buy their tools. And we could rent another store to sell the conversions. Heck, I know of several locations on that scale but the scale was more than I was seeking then. Or we could open a group of the smaller schools at the $200,000 each funding and for $2 million open ten in ten cities nationwide. Or for $5 million open 25 schools in 20 selected states [5 states get 2 schools.] What would you think of that Craig? (But I won’t teach Nursing or Manicuring, or Massage Therapy…
Your concern about the main stream media is right on target: (blogs.myspace.com/robert.fisher)
Chevron “green washes” everything about global warming. Chevron has the controlling interest in the answer to globalwarming/climate/change, but has kept The Ovshinky NiMH auto battery secret until recently.
I was an environmental/energy correspondent on a PBS public affairs program called TechnoPolitics back in the 1990s and I never felt that the corporate sponsors were influencing my news coverage. Nobody told me what stories to do or how to do them.
As long as you make “oil” your enemy you will always think this way. Your paradigm is false. Without the finding and use of oil by mankind your standard of living and all in the developed world would be much much less than it is. If you hate fossil fuels and all who stand for them then just try to live the rest of your life not paying $$ to any company or for any product that in any way uses fossil fuels in their supply chain. Do you have the integrity to try? Good luck!!
By the way PBS is a left wing propganda machine and they will take $$ wherever they come from because to them…the ends justify the means….zero integrity. Just like Al Gore who preaches global warming and at the same time flys private jets around the world. I’m so glad America is waking up…..the Nov. 2, 2010 elections proves freedom will once again prevail. I can’t wait until 2013 when the more founding father types take control and we can really then wake up to more INNOVATION and free market solutions to our energy needs. Nuclear and local oil drilling here we come!! And yes….we do it in a CLEAN way and with safety!
“Standard of living” is a very relative term. More, faster, cheaper–wash and repeat. This cannot go on forever–perhaps the party will last through your “expiration date”?
You make some decent points about Al–he is also an misogynist. However, fighting for fossil fuels is absurd–yeah, I bet you think cigarettes are good for mankind too.
btw- you and Al Gore are both asses.
“More founding fathers in 2013”? I don’t see any on your side of the spectrum! Our founding fathers were forward thinking not BACKWARD thinking which how this country was formed. Wake-up! Its the 21st century my old friend not 18th century.
I find it at once quite amusing and tragic that there are still folks of legal age who are innocent enough to believe that large advertizing clients, donors and ownership interests don’t have any influence – intended or otherwise – on content within news publications.
History is replete with both subtle confessions and open admissions by editors, publishers, and journalists of the reality of such influence – I have no doubt whatsoever that a half hour spent adroitly on Google will yield many such examples, and there are many more that remain hidden.
Whether Chevron actually has or will have significant influence – even if only in the form of anticipatory self-censorship – on what Lehrer reports going forward is as yet an open question. I have certainly perceived a palpable movement toward the right-wing in both PBS and NPR in the last dozen years or so – as well as a movement away from thoroughness and honor.
However, one thing is certain, anyone who – for example – posits that Fox is fair and balanced, or that GE’s media properties report aggressively, genuinely and completely on nuclear issues, has thus shredded their credibility with any worldly audience. Humans are not angels, corporations much less so, and both generally see quite clearly on which side their bread is buttered.
That’s certainly the way I see it. I was actually flabbergasted that I got chopped up a bit for this post — but hey, c’est la guerre.
The problem goes way beyond Chevron ads on PBS. Try Reading “Into The Buzzsaw” edited by Kristina Borjesson,
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-Leading-Journalists-Expose/dp/1573929727
Excellent example, Peter! 🙂
Here are a few links that may prove educational for the curious:
http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/AMA%20Publications/AMA%20Journals/Journal%20of%20Marketing/TOCs/SUM_2009.6/Does_Advertising_Spending.aspx
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=60
http://www.newslab.org/articles/newsforsale.htm
http://enx.sagepub.com/content/1/2/67.abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/453360v6x0306128/
http://www.members.cox.net/kellyecampbell/portfolio/litrev.pdf
http://www.jeankilbourne.com/cantbuy/chapter1.html
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/8/3/3/8/p283389_index.html
http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/reviews/problemofmedia/problemofmedia.html
I’m not nearly as upset about that as I am George Soros and Media Matters. Now there’s an organization that outright stifles free speech!