I like Stossel. I suspect he's still a liberal at heart, but at least he'll give consideration to points of view outside the party line. Funny how badly he gets treated by his peers once he strays from the official version of reality. Maybe we ought to give up the idea of impartial journalism and just start the American version of Pravda. The mainstream media in this country is state-sponsored and controlled anyway.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-18-00.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Targeting a Journalistic Pariah
by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Despite an abundance of wives and concubines, ancient Israel's King David bedded
another man's wife. The prophet Nathan condemned David with the parable of a rich man
who ignored his own flocks to seize a poor man's lamb (2 Samuel 12:1-4). So it is with
left-wing activists who lobby for the firing of ABC's John Stossel.
There is at least one truth in America: the media is liberal. From network anchors to
talk-show personalities to correspondents, the vast majority lean left. Some, such as the
egregious Bryant Gumbel, make little effort to disguise their bias.
Perhaps, the most notable exception is John Stossel, who reports for ABC's "20/20" and
develops his own specials. Years ago, Stossel started out as a reliably liberal consumer
affairs reporter for a local TV station. But he has since metamorphosed into a classical
liberal who actually believes in liberty.
As such, he has become a scourge of lazy statist thinking. Among his targets: crackpot
lawsuits, junk science, environmental scaremongering, whiny victimology, thuggish
paternalism, corporate welfare, special interest regulation and assaults on free speech. His
new "Is American Number One?" makes an unabashed case for the virtues of freedom.
Although there are a few other dissident television voices, particularly on Fox, none have
been as effective as Stossel in challenging left-wing orthodoxy. Which naturally horrifies
liberal interests used to sympathetic media treatment.
Never mind that the left shapes the vast bulk of what emerges from the idiot box every
day. Liberal ideologues, like King David, covet the one position that they do not currently
control.
Stossel's foes have created a Web site to attack him. Now they are demanding his head
because of an error on his recent organic foods show.
The mistake was real, though not serious, and Stossel apologized to a nationwide
audience. That has not stopped the lynch mob, however. Accuracy has never been of
much use to environmentalists, leftists, or trial lawyers, but all now suggest that ABC
should engage in journalistic cleansing in the name of truth.
Stossel's tests found that there is more bacterial contamination of organic than conventional
foods. He incorrectly reported that a similar ABC review found no pesticide residue on
either form of produce. Apparently, a producer was confused by the different tests
performed.
Stossel's error did not actually mislead. Consumer Reports notes that pesticide traces are
found in organic as well as conventional produce. Tests by the Department of Agriculture
have found that two-thirds of foods and the vast majority of everything but fruit don't even
have detectable pesticide residues.
Even where vestiges remain, the levels are too low to harm anyone. The Washington Post
reported last year that not only do organic foods provide no more nutrients than
conventional produce, but the pesticide risks of both are nil.
In short, Stossel correctly demonstrated that yet another sainted liberal cause, organic
foods, was based on myth. Eat organic produce if doing so gives you a warm, fuzzy
feeling. Don't do so because you believe it will improve your health.
What makes the current flap so obviously political is that Stossel's most virulent accuser,
the Environmental Working Group, routinely twists the truth. Science analyst Steven
Milloy, in his Fox News "Junk Science" column, points out that the organization "is well
known for spreading fear of pesticides through misinformation."
EWG spokesmen have made wild statements warning that a million American kids were at
risk of consuming unsafe levels of pesticides, and claiming that even one bite of some fruit
could cause "dizziness, nausea and blurred vision."
Government officials and toxicologists have exposed the charges as false, but, observes
Milloy, EWG has neglected to admit, let alone apologize for, the errors.
Unfortunately, many on the left cannot imagine a good-faith disagreement, so they cast
Stossel as a tool of corporate interests. Never mind that organic farming is big business: the
Organic Trade Association is among the mob.
Indeed, what Stossel defends are markets, not companies. For instance, he criticizes
licensing regulations eagerly backed by the usual business suspects because they impair
markets, and thus impoverish consumers. He opposes corporate welfare, because he sees
no justification for allowing firms to loot taxpayers.
The fact that Stossel does great work doesn't excuse him from the duty of being accurate,
of course, but he knows that. As he said in his apology: "All we have in this business is our
credibility your trust that we get it right. I will make every effort to see that it never happens
again." That's more than many on the left ever say.
Conspiracy theories usually offer simplistic explanations for complex phenomena. But the
attack on Stossel suggests that some conspiracies do exist. Like one devoted to ridding
television of its most effective dissident voice.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-18-00.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Targeting a Journalistic Pariah
by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Despite an abundance of wives and concubines, ancient Israel's King David bedded
another man's wife. The prophet Nathan condemned David with the parable of a rich man
who ignored his own flocks to seize a poor man's lamb (2 Samuel 12:1-4). So it is with
left-wing activists who lobby for the firing of ABC's John Stossel.
There is at least one truth in America: the media is liberal. From network anchors to
talk-show personalities to correspondents, the vast majority lean left. Some, such as the
egregious Bryant Gumbel, make little effort to disguise their bias.
Perhaps, the most notable exception is John Stossel, who reports for ABC's "20/20" and
develops his own specials. Years ago, Stossel started out as a reliably liberal consumer
affairs reporter for a local TV station. But he has since metamorphosed into a classical
liberal who actually believes in liberty.
As such, he has become a scourge of lazy statist thinking. Among his targets: crackpot
lawsuits, junk science, environmental scaremongering, whiny victimology, thuggish
paternalism, corporate welfare, special interest regulation and assaults on free speech. His
new "Is American Number One?" makes an unabashed case for the virtues of freedom.
Although there are a few other dissident television voices, particularly on Fox, none have
been as effective as Stossel in challenging left-wing orthodoxy. Which naturally horrifies
liberal interests used to sympathetic media treatment.
Never mind that the left shapes the vast bulk of what emerges from the idiot box every
day. Liberal ideologues, like King David, covet the one position that they do not currently
control.
Stossel's foes have created a Web site to attack him. Now they are demanding his head
because of an error on his recent organic foods show.
The mistake was real, though not serious, and Stossel apologized to a nationwide
audience. That has not stopped the lynch mob, however. Accuracy has never been of
much use to environmentalists, leftists, or trial lawyers, but all now suggest that ABC
should engage in journalistic cleansing in the name of truth.
Stossel's tests found that there is more bacterial contamination of organic than conventional
foods. He incorrectly reported that a similar ABC review found no pesticide residue on
either form of produce. Apparently, a producer was confused by the different tests
performed.
Stossel's error did not actually mislead. Consumer Reports notes that pesticide traces are
found in organic as well as conventional produce. Tests by the Department of Agriculture
have found that two-thirds of foods and the vast majority of everything but fruit don't even
have detectable pesticide residues.
Even where vestiges remain, the levels are too low to harm anyone. The Washington Post
reported last year that not only do organic foods provide no more nutrients than
conventional produce, but the pesticide risks of both are nil.
In short, Stossel correctly demonstrated that yet another sainted liberal cause, organic
foods, was based on myth. Eat organic produce if doing so gives you a warm, fuzzy
feeling. Don't do so because you believe it will improve your health.
What makes the current flap so obviously political is that Stossel's most virulent accuser,
the Environmental Working Group, routinely twists the truth. Science analyst Steven
Milloy, in his Fox News "Junk Science" column, points out that the organization "is well
known for spreading fear of pesticides through misinformation."
EWG spokesmen have made wild statements warning that a million American kids were at
risk of consuming unsafe levels of pesticides, and claiming that even one bite of some fruit
could cause "dizziness, nausea and blurred vision."
Government officials and toxicologists have exposed the charges as false, but, observes
Milloy, EWG has neglected to admit, let alone apologize for, the errors.
Unfortunately, many on the left cannot imagine a good-faith disagreement, so they cast
Stossel as a tool of corporate interests. Never mind that organic farming is big business: the
Organic Trade Association is among the mob.
Indeed, what Stossel defends are markets, not companies. For instance, he criticizes
licensing regulations eagerly backed by the usual business suspects because they impair
markets, and thus impoverish consumers. He opposes corporate welfare, because he sees
no justification for allowing firms to loot taxpayers.
The fact that Stossel does great work doesn't excuse him from the duty of being accurate,
of course, but he knows that. As he said in his apology: "All we have in this business is our
credibility your trust that we get it right. I will make every effort to see that it never happens
again." That's more than many on the left ever say.
Conspiracy theories usually offer simplistic explanations for complex phenomena. But the
attack on Stossel suggests that some conspiracies do exist. Like one devoted to ridding
television of its most effective dissident voice.