By REALITY BY MATTHEW GLASSER
I had dinner on the Third Street Promenade last Friday. As I walked toward my restaurant of choice, I ran into the minions of Michael Moore. There was a jubilant atmosphere as these folks waited to see one of the first screenings of Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911.” There were tables with literature about the big bad Bush. One man brought a video player and screen to show movies about the evils of the administration.
Apparently, the president also is responsible for starting the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I and II, and Vietnam. The only thing missing from the festivities was an actual visit from messiah Moore.
Forget for a minute that most critics and reporters have declared Fahrenheit 911 as much fantasy as fact. If you hate the president as much as Moore’s followers, you will believe anything that supports your point of view.
For example, in one scene, Moore shows a child flying a kite in pre-war Iraq. Moore wants us to believe that life was much better for Iraqis before the Americans came to town. Try telling that to the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis and Kurds who were tortured, raped, and murdered by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.
I’m not going to analyze Moore’s movie point by point. There is a bigger issue here. And it’s a problem that’s larg-er than a Moore movie. The fact is that Moore’s documentary is not a documentary. It’s film masquerading as a documentary that is edited and written to promote his point of view. This habit of selective and irresponsible reporting is one of the greatest threats to our ability to live happy and productive lives.
We have become victims of broadcast media propaganda and many of us don’t even realize it. In this case, media refers to more than just the press. Media is reality TV, local and national news, news magazines, and entertainment programs.
One of the criticisms of Moore’s films is that he uses selective editing to push his point of view. He picks and chooses the pieces of video and the quotes that best express his perspective and disregards the rest. But this editing technique is certainly not reserved to Moore. It happens every day and is used to shape your opinions, ideas, and beliefs.
For example, a father may tell a reporter that “I would never let my son go to Iraq without giving him a long hug.” But the news may cut the quote to “I would never let my son go to Iraq.” The edited version has a very different meaning than what the father intended to say.
As a former television news producer, I witnessed first-hand the power of selective editing. It’s used all the time to add to the drama of the story or create controversy when there isn’t any. Editing is just one of the ways the media shapes a story. Unsubstantiated, and cut-and-paste reporting is another.
News programs have no problem scaring viewers with the results of new studies or surveys. Mercury is going to kill our kids. Pesticides are everywhere. Dogs are going to take over the world and enslave cats. The problem with these news reports is that most of them are wrong and even fewer of them are fact checked.
Here’s how it works. A producer or reporter checks the wire services for interesting news items. They find a provocative study — more sex leads to a reduced chance of cancer — and they run with it. They grab the information from the wire, usually sent right to their computer, and turn it into something for the evening news. Very few reporters or producers, especially in local news, will actually take the time to research the study. They won’t call the study sponsors or read the actual study literature. All of their information will come from an overworked and underpaid Associated Press reporter who is doing the best she can to meet her impossible deadlines.
As a result, we’ve spent decades inundated with fear.
Just last week, the news media reported that a study shows that milk may actually be harmful to children. They claimed that certain chemicals in the milk could result in childhood problems. Then they went on to the weather. They didn’t provide anyway to get more information or a way to evaluate the credibility of the report. So what’s a parent to do? They have the word of the anchor that this could be a problem. But do they really have any useful information? Are they supposed to stop giving their child milk?
The media throws this information out to the public but doesn’t give them the facts they need to make an educated decision. It’s just a provocative headline. There are dozens of examples of this kind of irresponsible journalism.
Many of you may remember the Alar scare. Alar was a chemical that was sprayed on apples to improve their shelf life. A non-profit environmental group decided that the chemical was a health risk and produced a study using a risk assessment model. This is a research technique where you plug assumptions into a computer until you obtain the results you want.
After the group computed that Alar was dangerous, the organization’s PR machine contacted the media. They appeared on every news program in the country and created a nationwide panic. Apples were pulled off the shelves and people protested the use of Alar. It turns out that the study was based on faulty science and there was no actual evidence that Alar was dangerous. But the result of this media campaign was a significant reduction in the consumption of apples. And the health problems from not eating fruit may actually be worse than the health issues related to consuming Alar.
The media once reported that chocolate may actually prevent cavities. It turns out that the study was sponsored by the company that makes M&Ms. But very few media organizations followed up on the study or alerted its viewers about the study’s sponsors.
A child welfare group once issued a study declaring that one in eight children go hungry. The group had the noble goal of ending childhood hunger but the study was wrong. Despite the faulty analysis, most news outlets reported that millions and millions of children were going hungry. The news reports created quite a stir and resulted in changes in public policy. What most people didn’t know was that the study was partially funded by Kraft Foods in an effort to increase the purchase of groceries.
I could go on and on. The point is that you shouldn’t believe what you see and hear without checking the facts for yourself. Should we all give up produce and fruit because of potential pesticide problems? Should we stop eating fish and meat because of health concerns? Should we avoid driving SUVs because they may roll over? Do you really want to let a news anchor make those decisions for you?
You have to research these issues for yourself. Don’t rely on any single source for your information. Moore’s film may be convincing but you owe it to yourself to look into his allegations. We must become active information consumers, and read and view multiple publications, TV programs, movies, and Web sites.
The Internet is a fantastic tool for researching these issues. Many of the original documents that news reports are based on can now be found online. If you really want to know about life in Iraq prior to the war, go visit the Web sites of Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, and the United Nations. Don’t just take Michael Moore’s word for it. And the next time your local news anchor tells you about a potential health problem, call your doctor or visit a health Web site and check for yourself.
Before you change your behavior in response to a media report, you might want to check out the facts for yourself. Sometimes the changes in behavior are more dangerous than the original problem. Consider that the next time you hear about a miracle cure or the danger of eating foods that are green. (Matthew Glasser by e-mail at).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 29, 2004. Read the original PDF.