Prepackaged News, Scientific Content and Democratic Processes
July 19th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Last February the Government Accountability Office criticized the Bush Administration for its use of “prepackaged news stories.” (See this Washington Post report.). Yesterday’s Washington Post had an interesting story on how the Environmental Protection Agency has been paying The Weather Channel to produce prepackaged news stories on environmental issues. The Washington Post reported,
“The Environmental Protection Agency paid the Weather Channel $40,000 to produce and broadcast several videos about ozone depletion, urban heat problems and the dangers of ultraviolet radiation as part of the Bush administration’s efforts to inform the public about climate change, agency records show.”
This is interesting for several reasons. First, it certainly plays against stereotype to hear that the Bush Administration is engaged in covert propaganda on climate change. In addition, a university professor and NRDC official who looked at the news stories found them to be scientifically accurate. It makes me wonder, only partially tongue-in-cheek, how the UCS folks will handle this situation; I can see the headline in their next report, “Bush Administration Guilty of Covertly Promoting Accurate Science on Climate Change.” More realistically, I would expect that this situation involving EPA and TWC will be completely ignored by those involved in the debate over the “integrity of science” even though this situation involves a breach of law by agencies under the Bush Administration. Why? It doesn’t fit the larger framing! of the issue of the misuse of science by opponents of the Bush Administration. This situation makes things more complicated and thus will be easier to ignore.
More broadly, this situation illustrates the importance of distinguishing process from content. The Washington Post article and the experts they interviewed emphasized the quality of the content of the prepackaged news releases. Here is one example from the story, _Daniel Lashof, science director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center, said: “I think they are actually a very good use of EPA resources to reach the public on these issues. The science, I think, is presented accurately in all of them.”_ But this misses the point of GAO_s objections, and is also representative of the more general conflation of criteria of content and process. We see this conflation frequently when the focus of attention is exclusively on scientific content rather than the processes that are used to produce, disseminate or use that science. Too often judgments on the fidelity of democratic processes are made based on whether or not one agrees with the content of the discuss! ion and not criteria of what constitutes a healthy process (examples include, Iraq war debate, Lomborg debate, scientific appointments, hockey stick, etc.). In this case involving EPA, it is not good enough in the eyes of GAO that prepackaged news stories are accurate.
Here is what the GAO concluded in its February Circular distributed to federal agencies,
_Prepackaged news stories are complete, audio-video presentations that may be included in video news releases, or VNRs. They are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations. To help accomplish this goal, these stories include actors or others hired to portray “reporters” and may be accompanied by suggested scripts that television news anchors can use to introduce the story during the broadcast. These practices allow prepackaged news stories to be broadcast, without alteration, as television news While agencies generally have the right to disseminate information about their policies and activities, agencies may not use appropriated funds to produce or distribute prepackaged news stories intended to be viewed by television audiences that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials. It is not enough that the contents of an ag! ency’s communication may be unobjectionable. Neither is it enough for an agency to identify itself to the broadcasting organization as the source of the prepackaged news story._
And in May Congressional testimony the GAO explained its reasoning as follows,
“The publicity or propaganda prohibition states, “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.” GAO has long interpreted this provision to prohibit agencies from, among other things, producing materials that are covert as to origin. Our opinions have emphasized that the critical element of covert propaganda is concealment of the government’s role in producing the materials. Agencies have violated this law when they used appropriated funds to produce articles and op-ed pieces that were the ostensible position of persons not associated with the government.”
GAO concluded that the use of prepackaged news is wrong independent of the merit of the content of the stories. This is a good lesson for those involved in political debates involving science. Sometimes process trumps content.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:26 am
Perhaps you could explain this so it makes sense given that the former have nothing to do with the latter:
“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”
July 19th, 2005 at 8:38 am
Bob- I agree — Though I am relying on the characterization of content of the videos by the Washington Post and the folks they interviewed. I have not seen the videos.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Script for “Silent Killers” on the dangers of urban heat.
http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/videos/video_heathealth-script.pdf
Ozone depletion and UV videos:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/movies/index.html
July 19th, 2005 at 9:34 am
Dr. Pielke, you wrote:
“I would expect that this situation … will be completely ignored by those involved in the debate over the “integrity of science” even though this situation involves a breach of law by agencies under the Bush Administration. Why? It doesn’t fit the larger framing of the issue of the misuse of science by opponents of the Bush Administration. This situation makes things more complicated and thus will be easier to ignore.”
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.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:17 am
Thanks James very much for your comments. Some thoughts in reply:
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.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:51 am
The said videos were not on climate change (at least those climate changes related to GHG emissions). In fact, Greenwire reported a couple weeks ago on this. Relevant excerpts: “White House scrutiny of federal global warming science led U.S. EPA staff in 2002 to scuttle a series of government-funded documentary videos that were to be produced by the Weather Channel, according to interviews and internal EPA documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.”
“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.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Dr. Pielke,
Thanks for your reply. You make a very good point, regarding the legitimecy of content when the process is questionable. And your example helps me see your point that “sometimes process trumps content.” I appreciate your perspective.
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
July 19th, 2005 at 11:12 am
OnTheInside,
Thanks… very informative.
-james
July 19th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Hmm, OnTheInside raises a very important point:
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.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:18 am
OnTheInside-
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.