Comments on: Sick in America

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:26:07 +0000

the claim that FAIR wanted to be shot
So that I am not later accused of saying that FAIR had planned a mass suicide, I should point out that this should have read, “the claim that FAIR wanted Stossel to be shot.”

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:23:22 +0000

I don’t know how you are so sure the interviewer wasn’t serious about the “or at least fired,” part. Stossel gave the question a serious answer and addressed getting fired specifically when he said, “…I don’t think anyone was planning to fire me ” — leaving the reader with the misleading impression that FAIR was out to get him canned.
I’m not “so sure” that he was not serious. Stating my opinion of it before, I said, “I don’t think we are safe in assuming that ‘or at least fired’ was meant to be taken seriously. It is possible, but that would be a surprisingly quick transition from extreme hyperbole (’to be shot on 20/20′) to a serious claim (’or at least fired over this’).” Neither of us can know exactly what the interviewer was thinking, but considering that the claim that FAIR wanted Stossel to be fired was paired up with the claim that FAIR wanted to be shot, I think it would be a mistake to assume that he necessarily was serious about the firing, just because it is the one of the two that is actually plausible. He was obviously suggesting that FAIR wanted serious consequences for the organic food error, but I don’t think that we can assume that the guy who had just said that FAIR wanted Stossel to be “shot on 20/20″ planned to trick viewers into thinking that FAIR had explicitly demanded that ABC fire Stossel.
As for Stossel’s response, 1) Stossel did not necessarily know what the interviewer intended, so his response is poor evidence of the interviewer’s intent, and 2) even if he did accurately understand the interviewer, I don’t see why it would make a difference in his answer whether or not the interviewer was seriously suggesting that FAIR wanted him to be fired — he knew that the interviewer was talking about FAIR wanting consequences and he heard the word “fired,” and what Stossel said in return makes sense as a response to that.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:52:56 +0000

I do not know why you think it is obvious that the interviewer was serious when he said that FAIR wanted Stossel to be “at least fired” even though he had just said that FAIR wanted Stossel to be “shot on 20/20.”
I don’t know how you are so sure the interviewer wasn’t serious about the “or at least fired,” part. Stossel gave the question a serious answer and addressed getting fired specifically when he said, “…I don’t think anyone was planning to fire me ” — leaving the reader with the misleading impression that FAIR was out to get him canned.

By: Karl

Karl — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:55:56 +0000

I’m not sure why we’ve spent so much time on hyperbole either, Karl. Those statements were obviously made intending to mislead the reader into thinking that FAIR called for Stossel’s firing.
It looks more to me as though a couple of people who agreed with each other were exaggerating for their own amusement. I do not know why you think it is obvious that the interviewer was serious when he said that FAIR wanted Stossel to be “at least fired” even though he had just said that FAIR wanted Stossel to be “shot on 20/20.” I also do not know how it could be obvious that when Stossel responded that FAIR has always demanded that he be silenced, he meant that FAIR made explicit demands that he be relieved of his employment, rather than to its protests of his promotion in 2003, its attempts to pressure ABC not to stop with a mere reprimand after the organic food error, and to all of the times when it questioned whether he belongs on television at all without explicitly demanding that he be fired.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:12:49 +0000

I’m not sure why we’ve spent so much time on hyperbole either, Karl. Those statements were obviously made intending to mislead the reader into thinking that FAIR called for Stossel’s firing.
All I originally intended to do was provide a link to criticisms of “Sick in America.” I just reviewed this thread to see how we got to this point and and only just noted this:
Josh
You chided me (correctly) for attacking the messenger in my comment about the Heartland Institute.
However, (before my Heartland Institute comment) you responded to my posting of the link to FAIR’s critique of “Sick in America” by characterizing its reporting on Stossel’s work as “unhealthy obsession,” and providing a link to an interview that also “attacks the messenger.”
I think what we have here is a case of the pot calling the kettle black…

By: Karl

Karl — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:26:00 +0000

In its response to what Stossel said, it was fair for FAIR to point out that it had never asked for Stossel to be fired, assuming that it is true. However, the fact that FAIR’s response is factually accurate does not establish that Stossel misrepresented FAIR’s treatment of him. Stossel said, “FAIR has always been demanding that I be silenced,” but “silenced” can mean things other than “fired.” Depending on the circumstances, when a journalist is penalized, subjected to restrictions on subject matter, or otherwise reduced in his independence, particularly if the speech is controversial or the response is somehow ideological in origin, it does fall under one of the ordinary understandings of the word “silenced.” A journalist does not have to be made silent to have been “silenced.” Whether a journalist could be said to have been silenced by restrictions or penalties depends on one’s point of view — it would not normally be said that that someone has been silenced if whatever is imposed is meant only to ensure accuracy or punish carelessness. In Stossel’s view, FAIR’s complaints about him are usually wrong and are ideologically motivated, so it should not be surprising that he would use language like this.
In addition to demanding that Stossel’s reports be “balanced,” or that the time given to him be offset by time given to someone who disagrees with him (which is not necessarily unreasonable, but is unfavorable to Stossel and would give him some basis for claiming that he had been “silenced”; some of the time for the liberal version might be taken from Stossel), FAIR’s archives show that it has often encouraged its supporters to contact ABC to complain about him. FAIR also protested Stossel’s promotion to 20/20 co-anchor in 2003. Finally, after Stossel’s organic food error in 2000, according to FAIR, “ABC announced that it would reprimand Stossel and suspend his producer.” FAIR was not satisfied, and urged ABC to “to take the occasion to investigate Stossel’s overall record on accuracy, and to consider whether it lived up to the network’s journalistic standards.” Stossel would not necessarily have to be fired if ABC decided that he has not lived up to its standards, but FAIR does seem to have wanted some kind of action to be taken against him that would have justified him in claiming to have been “silenced,” if he thought that the action was unjustified.
Though it mostly criticizes Stossel’s alleged inaccuracies, FAIR has been fairly open about the fact that Stossel’s ideology is one of its major objections, and a motivation for targeting him. This does not necessarily mean that its criticisms of him are wrong or that (if its criticisms of him are right) it would be unjustified for ABC to exercise greater editorial control over his work, but since the question is whether Stossel was misleading when he said that FAIR wanted to silence him, I think the answer is that he was not. It was a viewpoint-based characterization of FAIR’s efforts to control what he can say on the air, and I do not think suggested that FAIR had done anything that it had not.
I also disagree that the “or at least fired” remark from the interviewer is a misleading statement, as opposed to hyperbole. If the interviewer had made that statement on its own, I would be more likely to interpret it as a misrepresentation, but when the other response he attributed to FAIR, in the same sentence, was to demand that Stossel be executed on national television, I don’t think we are safe in assuming that “or at least fired” was meant to be taken seriously. It is possible, but that would be a surprisingly quick transition from extreme hyperbole (”to be shot on 20/20″) to a serious claim (”or at least fired over this”). The rest of the interviewer’s question does suggest that FAIR wanted Stossel to resign, but FAIR doesn’t deny that, as far as I know — the most it could say is that it has not explicitly demanded this.
My statement about hyperbole a few comments ago was more of a concession than a response to anything you had said, though, so I don’t even really know why we are discussing what was and wasn’t hyperbole.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:45:37 +0000

Karl
Misrepresentation #1. In the question:
“Some people—the FAIR people—wanted you to be shot on 20/20 or at least fired over this.”
Misrepresentation #2. In the answer:
“FAIR has always been demanding that I be silenced.”
FAIR says that they have never called for Stosssel to be fired, that they did ask for Stossel’s reports to be more balanced with commentary from an opposing point of view.
I agree that describing his critics as the “totalitarian left” is hyperbole. Rather discomfiting hyperbole coming from the co-anchor of 20/20, a primetime news show on ABC television, one of the Big Three networks.

By: Karl

Karl — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:10:08 +0000

However, what you call “hyperbole,” I would call “misrepresentation.”
To describe his critics as “totalitarian” is hyperbole. I do not believe that Stossel intended to seriously assert that any significant portion of his critics favor real totalitarianism. Similarly, when the interviewer said that FAIR wanted Stossel “to be shot on 20/20 or at least fired over this” (over an error in a report on organic farming), he was exaggerating for effect, at least as far as Stossel’s execution was concerned. These are not the only examples of hyperbole in the interview, but since I do not know which arguable hyperbole you believe was simply misleading, I do not have any specific responses to that.
As to FAIR. Although it has a well-deserved reputation for advocating for more liberal balance in our national media, I wasn’t aware that they have one for “making errors.” Is that what you are suggesting?
No, I am asserting that the fact that even large newspapers have reported on the claims of an organization does not mean that the organization is unbiased or reliable. They covered Media Matters, too, didn’t they?

By: JohnS

JohnS — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:22:08 +0000

Karl,
Your comments on credibility are duly noted.
However, what you call “hyperbole,” I would call “misrepresentation.” As to the interview’s “value,” Stossel doesn’t address any of the criticisms offered up by FAIR regarding his “Sick in America” special, so I’m not sure why Josh bothered to link to this particular interview.
As to FAIR. Although it has a well-deserved reputation for advocating for more liberal balance in our national media, I wasn’t aware that they have one for “making errors.” Is that what you are suggesting?

By: Karl

Karl — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:06:02 +0000

I brought up the Heartland Institute because it may not be the “genuinely independent source of research and commentary,” it claims to be because of its ties to industry. That suggests to me that the interview, or posting the interview, may have been agenda driven. And perhaps not too credible.
I do not know what difference the Heartland Institute’s credibility (or the question of whether it has an agenda) makes, to the extent that the interview is meant to document the views of the interviewee, as interviews often are. Where the Stossel interview is concerned, the only credibility it needs is the credibility to accurately print what Stossel said in the inverview. When the interview itself is the story (as it is here), the interviewer doesn’t certify that what the interviewee says is true or fair — only that it was said. I see no reason to believe that the Heartland Institute lacks the credibility to do this.
If the interviewer had not approved of Stossel’s libertarian views as this interview appears to do, I doubt that Stossel and the interviewer would have used as much hyperbole as they did, but as long as we can tell Stossel’s hyperbole (”totalitarian left”) apart from statements of fact, that shouldn’t affect the value of the interview.
FAIR has been cited or covered by papers such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and the Boston Globe, to name just a few.
Large newspapers are capable of quoting people and organizations that are biased or that make errors.