Thanks much for these clarifications and new information (Hey Greenwire! Some good reason here to make your archives public!

Looks like the WP mischaracterized the videos as being on climate change. It would have been accurate to characterize them instead as being on “environmental impacts.”

As to whether ot not the videos are legal or not hinges on interpretation of the the relevant legislation, which GAO attempted to do in its circular to the agencies. For its part the WP noted that this issue is contested in several ways:

“EPA and Weather Channel officials defend the project as appropriate… The administration and the Government Accountability Office have been at odds over prepackaged stories that tout federal programs and have been aired without changes by some television stations. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, has contended that the government must always reveal its role to avoid violating a federal ban on “covert propaganda.” Bush officials have said the burden of disclosure falls on the stations.” FWIW, I agree with the GAO’s interpretation,a nd not that of the Bush Administration. I suppose the different views will co-exist unless/until the issue is raised in the courts.

Bit even so, my main point still holds. Judgments on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of videos (prepackaged news stories) on science by government agencies should be made based on the same procedural criteria whether the issue is ozone depletion or women’s reporductive health. Whether or not one agrees with the content is a different issue.

The ozone videos were produced as an alternative to Climate Change Videos that were originally contracted for.

It seems to me that anyone who writes on the issue should have been aware of that and brought it to his readers attention.

Therefore, before opining, it would have been good to track back and see when and by whom the original contract was let. Were all of the negotiations done under the current administration with its particular world view? Was the topic of ozone substituted by EPA after TWC insisted on presenting good science and enforcing its contract? These are but a few of the relevant questions.

It seems to me that Prof. Pielke’s original post was more concerned with grabbing a bat to beat UCS then on figuring out what actually happened.

Anyway, thanks very much for posting on this topic. I’m really very concerned about the government’s use of these “news releases” and I wish that there was more public discussion on the issue of their legality and their role in our democratic process.

Kind regards, james

“The videos were designed to “present accurate information about climate change in a way that is accessible and meaningful” to a broad public audience, the document says.
But EPA staff changed the terms of the agreement and asked the station instead to produce two videos on a less controversial subject…”

Bob correctly links to the segments that were produced on Ozone Depletion/UV and on urban heat issues

These are educational, factual videos about relevant environmental issues and agency programs and not news releases or propaganda. EPA’s Water Office , NOAA (more extensively than EPA), DOT and the Forest Service have all formed these partnerships with TWC and developed videos. Essentially, the partnerships provide an opportunity to cost effectively demonstrate to tax payers how their tax money is being spent and to educate them on the important issues that may aid in the protection of life, property and the environment.

These projects are viewed as a win-win for the agencies and TWC in that the agencies can reach a very large audience while TWC creates compelling, educational content for its viewers. Six months after being airred on TWC, the agencies have full rights to these videos so that they can reproduce them and use them in educational/outreach efforts.

1. You write, “Do you think that the UCS and NRDC should be tracking the Bush Administration’s news propaganda activities? If so, what unique expertise could they bring to bear on this issue? Also, I’m not so sure that members would go along.”

You might guess from my post that I verty much think that scientists should pay careful attention to the processes that involve science as much as the content. Let me give a different sort of example. What if an administration “stacked” a science advisory committee with their cronies, but the subsequent report of that committee was deemed to be scientifically accurate? I’d argue that the process (clearly flawed in this hypothetical case) runs the risk of delegitimizing the science and creatintg obstacles to using science in policy making. Similarly, if the government is engaging in unlawful propaganda activities that involve science, it runs the risk of delegitimizing the science, irrespective of the scientific merit of the content. So, yes, I do think scientific watchdogs need to pay close attention to government processes that involve science.

2. On your second point, I agree with your general statement. The scientific community has to be careful in either appearing to be or actually sanctioning lawbreaking when they agree with content (as the WP article seems to frame the UW scientists and NRDC as saying) and disagreeing with lawbreaking when they don’t (e.g., reproductive health). This may create a perception that it is the convenience of political expediency, not judgments of scientific integrity, that underlies such differing positions. Again, a focus on process is important. Scientists should feel comfortable stating that violating propaganda laws is unhealthy, regardless of the merits of the scientific content.

I think that these are two separate (both very important) issues… however you seem to be conflating the two.

Firstly, I strongly agree that this issue of “video news releases” (government propaganda) is important, both in light of the GAO ruling that you cite and the fact that the Bush Admin. spent over $250 million tax payer dollars on these videos and related PR products in his first term, alone. Thus, there is no question that government propaganda deserves careful and constant independent oversight. But the NRDC and UCS are not generally in this business, unless a “news release” turns out to violate public trust by misrepresenting science. However, in this case, as you point out, the news releases were scientifically accurate, even if they are ostensibly illegal for other reasons. Do you think that the UCS and NRDC should be tracking the Bush Administration’s news propaganda activities? If so, what unique expertise could they bring to bear on this issue? Also, I’m not so sure that members would go along.

My second point is that just because the EPA, under Bush, produced a few scientifically accurate “news releases,” does not negate the work of the UCS and others, like Rep. Waxman, who have compiled a growing list of cases where scientists feel that that the Bush Administration has misrepresented certain facts and thusly put ideology ahead of science when crafting certain policies (not that you suggested otherwise… I’m just saying). Look at women’s reproductive health and foreign policy (weapons intelligence) and the evidence supporting this “larger framing” mounts very high, indeed.

http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/videos/video_heathealth-script.pdf

Ozone depletion and UV videos:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/movies/index.html

“several videos about ozone depletion, urban heat problems and the dangers of ultraviolet radiation”…”plays against stereotype to hear that the Bush Administration is engaged in covert propaganda on climate change”