The New York Times‘ reassuring reporting on the radioactive plume drifting across the U.S. continues the paper’s troubling tradition of parroting comforting words from officials in the midst of modern-day environmental crises–like the environmental fallout post-9/11. Let’s compare headlines:
“Radiation Over U.S. Is Harmless, Officials Say” (3/22/11)
“Workers and Residents Are Safe, Officials Say” (11/2/01)
As I have documented (Extra!, 11-12/06), in the months and years following the September 11 attacks, the Times ignored studies and voices that cast strong doubt on official proclamations that the air and dust near Ground Zero were not a serious hazard. Andrew Revkin, the Times‘ environmental reporter at the time who was responsible for much of the reassuring coverage, explained the stance taken by the paper:
The Times‘ Revkin told American Journalism Review (1â┚¬“2/03), “We were, I think, bending over backwards to be sure we were reporting a risk only if we knew it, whereas others, I feel rather strongly, were flipping it the other way.” Revkin cited the Daily News as an example. When asked how he thought the 9/11 health story would end, Revkin told AJR, “I think it’s going to fade away.” Unfortunately, the chronic health problems already measured among those exposed to Ground Zero pollution ensure that this story is going to be with us for years to come.
News outlets certainly shouldn’t be spreading unnecessary panic in the aftermath of disasters. And no doubt there are many differences between the radioactive plume and Ground Zero dust and air. But the Times‘ failure and culpability on 9/11 reporting should have taught it something about official reassurances and role of journalists in questioning them.
You failed to link to my letter to American Journalism Review adding vital context on the Trade Center. I stick with my approach and the importance of letting reality — including real uncertainty — shape my reporting.
I also discussed the Trade Center coverage in a book chapter I wrote on writing on environmental issues.
The difference between “dread and risk” is explored in depth on my Dot Earth blog today.
Mr. Revkin says that he had a thorough approach to determining the certainty of good air quality after 9/11. I beg to differ. I am and was an expert in dioxin and other toxic emissions from incinerators and knew what kinds of toxics and carcinogens were in the atmosphere when the fires kept burning and the dusts were everywhere. I delivered testimony at the City Council and state oversight hearings. See the first hearing testimony given November 2001, here: http://geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/WTCAirQualityStatementNov8-2001revised.htm Check out what I said and see how it still is relevant today. Please read it. Note that the government was keeping the emissions data under wraps for weeks. Gee, why would that be? Wouldn’t that have been a red flag to a journalist? Here are many more links to things I wrote in that time period. http://geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/WorldTradeCenterAirQuality.htm I wasn’t the only one writing things like this and testifying at the public hearings. I was never approached by the New York Times until June 2002 when the Times, tongue in cheek, did a Public Profile of me. Having had experience with the Times’ reporting on local solid waste issues, again taking the City’s point of view and ignoring the recommendations of the borough solid waste advisory boards, it was not surprising. The City continues to export 85% of its discards, most of which could potentially be reused, recycled, or composted, if we only had responsible government. But I digress. But the WTC fires and collapse impacts was a matter of life and death. In such cases the Precautionary Principle should govern. Any scientist should know this. It should not be the other way around, which is how the TImes operates.
I’m confused Ms Holler. Do you have any other sources indicating that the radioactive plume poses a elevated health risk to US residents as your title implies? You appear to be just looking for a reason to rehash what you feel is poor media reporting that was done a decade ago. I expect better from FAIR which prides itself in “fairness and accuracy in reporting.” Please list the studies you imply are being ignored by the NYT about the present environmental crisis and how it impacts the US.