There is a fairly widespread mentality in journalistic circles that goes something like this: Anything that is funded by, or associated with, the for-profit world of private industry is to be greeted with the utmost scepticism and should prima facie be considered false, unless proven otherwise.
Conversely, any claims made by groups of militants from the nominally not-for-profit realm should be accepted as the "Truth" coming down to us from the Heavens and should never be double-checked or challenged. This trend is most observable on environmental matters and on matters of so-called "public health."
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not advocating the reverse: i.e., to give a naive free pass to the "PR" people of the corporate world and to always assume that the Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace, and similar activist organizations systematically have some sort of a hidden agenda. I'm merely saying that journalists, and especially "investigative journalists," should be even-handed in the application of their critical thinking. "Fairness" and "balance" are, after all, supposed to be two pillars of professional journalism.
The latest example of this trend is a recent investigative piece done by CBC into the questionable science funded by the asbestos industry, aired the National.
The report claims that a McGill researcher, whose department had received money from the asbestos industry, was not credible because of a vested financial interest. Ok, fine. Then the story presents Dr. David Egilman: Everything he says is presented as the absolute truth to be trusted without any reservations by the viewers.
But here's the thing: Dr. Egilman has made large sums of money over the years working for trial lawyers who are suing the asbestos industry. In other words, Dr. Egilman is actually someone who has a personal financial interest in stirring up the anti-asbestos frenzy. Furthermore, the Honorable Frank Plaut, a First District Court American judge, once characterized Dr. Egilman as an expert who was, and I quote: "biased, prejudiced (...) and neither objective nor reliable." (You can also read Dr. Egilman's perspective on this particular aspect of this file).
None of these facts were ever mentioned by the CBC reporter.
Now, if Dr. Egilman is able to make a good living because of some expertise and rhetorical skills he has developed, I say good for him! And I don't think that this fact, in and of itself, should disqualify him from having an opinion on these matters. But, then, why the double standard by CBC toward the McGill researcher who, contrary to Dr. Egilman, has published peer-reviewed research on that topic? I'm merely saying it would have been interesting for the viewers to know about all this.
It may very well be that judge Plaut is dead wrong in his appreciation of Dr. Egilman. Judges are fallible human beings just like the rest of us. But, again, as a viewer, I would have liked to know.
For the record, I do not have strong views (either way) on the reopening of the Jeffrey asbestos mine as such. No, what worries me, and actually makes me quite upset, is this childish, superficial, and somewhat intellectually dishonest trend described in my introduction.
I'm not asking CBC's investigative reporters (or any other journalists) to be pro-this or anti-that. I'm just asking them to be fair and even-handed and to show a tiny bit of scepticism and critical thinking when dealing with activists who claim to be acting solely and exclusively for the well-being of the general public.
CLARIFICATION: The characterization of Dr. Egilman by the Honorable Frank Plaut was thrown out by a unanimous decisions of justices of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Justices Ney, Rotherberg, and Vogt in their September 5, 2002 judgment concluded that Dr. Egilman was denied due process. The Appellate court did not find any merit to Judge Plaut's comments. It should be clarified that Dr. Egilman testifies in asbestos cases at the request of both asbestos product manufacturing companies and victims or alleged victims.
Follow Michel Kelly-Gagnon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/iedm_montreal
Don't mess around, or else!
But what I seem to be missing is how the one example of an expert witness who gets paid for his testimony, by trial lawyers suing the Asbestos industry, has anything to do with the initial question and broader point being argued.
Obviously this guy and the trial lawyers are getting paid - hence this seems to be more along the lines of a for-profit enterprise. Since when has any law firm, or paid testimony by an expert witness, been a not-for-profit enterprise?
I would heed caution when attacking the non-profit sector in the way expressed here. If you don't think that non-profits are scrutinized, just take a look at the way that the #KONY2012 initiative has been analyzed so intensely by the media and public, just because they are a non-profit and have raised a substantial amount of money. For the private-sector to cry "discrimination" is downright silly and completely ignorant to the plights that the non-profit sector faces which are compounded whenever they come to prominence.
You say it would only be fair that CBC mentions this guy makes money fighting the asbestos industry. OK, fair enough. But then maybe CBC should have mentioned the asbestos industry has a motivation to squash anything that proves the extreme dangers and deaths caused by their product. So which is worse?
THe fact that you seem to have no opinion, over than that CBC should have tried harder to paint this scientist in a negative light, tells me that like most right wingers, you don;t care at all about science or people when profits are on the line.
And the way non-profits survive is by making "shocking revelations" that motivate people to donate to them. An environmental non-profit that reported that on the whole we're taking care of the environment quite well would soon shut down.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/29/news/companies/nonprofit_salary/index.htm
Hardly compares to for profit CEO's who are receiving that much and more in bonuses. And it is hardly the norm. Also, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that the median compensation for chief executives at the biggest nonprofit organizations in the USA was $361,538 in 2009, a number that hasn't increased much since.
And what of the many smaller non-profits that seek to serve their communities in a variety of ways? What are the people running them making? Anywhere from $40,000 to $70,000, hardly a preposterous amount given the long hours and dedication most of these jobs require.
You don’t get it do you! It is clear that the man will do the job, whatever it is, for some money. Tell him to prove its white, he will. Tell him to prove its black, he will.
So you're saying that this "rent a scientist" is credible. To you, it is, I'm sure of that. You can pay him to tell anything. And you’re the President Of Montreal Economic Institute (iedm.org)! What a joke sir.
How about that Montreal Economic Institute, for example?
The Gazette may feel the Institue's files may need a thorough going over by the press, and perhaps a government-ordered forensic audit should be called for in a Gazette editorial, if they fail to co-operate with the press.
I think Kelly-Gagnon's point is well taken. The media has a tendency to assume that non-profits are honest brokers, and that is a questionable assumption.
cheers