One More Post on the News Media, Objectivity, and Energy
I was somewhat surprised at the pushback I received to my recent post suggesting that the PBS NewsHour should not accept sponsorship money from Chevron, as such a relationship could affect PBS’s objectivity in its coverage of the energy industry. A few people asked me in a huff for specific proof that such a relationship has affected NewsHour reporting.
I openly admit that I have no proof. My point isn’t that something unseemly has happened; it is that something could happen. It’s a situation to be avoided — kind of like the late king of pop Michael Jackson’s having young boys sleep in his bed with him (regardless of what happened): it’s just a bad move.
Having said that, I do have two close and trusted acquaintances who have told me stories that I believe speak to the issue:
Cal Tech was researching cold fusion until Union Oil threatened to cut off its sponsorship of the university.
The University of Kentucky was quite interested in a particular biomass-to-energy solution until an unnamed oil company made the same threat.
Think about it. Can anyone be shocked that a monopoly would exert its influence to maintain its position? Wouldn’t we be far more gullible to believe the opposite? Again, it’s naïve to think that the sponsors’ money does not taint the purity of news coverage.
So, to be clear, you suggest that no news organization should ever accept sponsorship from certain companies who aren’t fully vested in an appropriate position for the future on the grounds of potential, not actual interference? My suggestion would be to willingly take their funds UNTIL such time as there is a clear conflict. If the source attempts to intervene, for example, or until such time as the outlet may choose to conduct some series that may not reflect well on the source – say an investigative reporting effort – then why not make use of the funding?
I work closely with the renewable energy industry. Within that field, for example, the problem I have is that it is too often negatively tainted by political matters and not matters of fact or reason. We would be much further along in reaching better cost parity in energy were it not for politics. Just one example, the customary leverage of large corporations in influencing the elected class means a GE, as one example, benefits greatly from policy and incentives while more innovative smaller companies are left with scraps at best. And if I were to follow your lead, I might also want to force certain outlets from accepting sponsorship from GE because they aren’t an appropriate enough part of the solution in my view. I have nothing against GE in reality, and I just used that name as an example in the thread.
So, I am on board with your sentiments, just not the actions. They seem more political than anything else without more evidence. And most often politic actions lead to further emotional noise that anything else.
Just my view.
Great observations. This really is a fantastically complicated area — and perhaps there is no silver bullet in terms of providing us the objectivity we all want within the current political/economic framework. Thanks for the excellent post.