The very best American media companies are being used as propaganda mouthpieces for fossil fuel lobbyists and big oil companies.
I love The New York Times. I grew up reading The New Yorker magazine. I always digg the Harpers index. I think National Geographic is pretty much the coolest club on the planet.
But I won’t be reading any of these fine publications until they stop taking money from lobbyists and PR firms that are determined to thwart necessary reforms of American energy policy.
The sad truth is that the finest American newspapers and magazines are serving as disinformation platforms for a massive social media campaign being launched by an energy industry that is refusing to change its destructive ways.
This onslaught of cutting-edge, highly funded fossil-fuel propaganda campaigns are more dangerous to our health than tobacco ads, and have no place masquerading as well-intentioned information on the websites of our magazines and newspapers.
The Evil of Greenwashing
When I saw greenwashing ads for Chevron in The New Yorker I smelled hypocrisy.
How could the magazine that publishes Elizabeth Kolbert’s devastating reports on climate change allow itself to be sponsored by one of the most heinous and destructive energy companies in the world today?
When I saw banners for “Clean Coal: America’s Power” on The New York Times website I was sickened. Coal is not clean.
Coal smoke is choking us. Wrapping filth in the American flag is an insult to every citizen who loves this country.
The claim that coal is “cheap” power becomes very false very fast as soon as health care costs are taken into account.
Explore sustainability with Shell and Harpers?
As a friend put it, that’s like saying “learn more about diversity! Contribute to the KKK!”.
But the final straw came today, when I visited The New York Times opinion page and saw a banner ad promising “The Truth” about the Canadian tar sands.
Let’s get one thing clear: the massive tar sand projects in Canada are fueling climate change and causing vast ecological destruction.
Thanks to wonderful journalism from sources like the Times, we know just how much we stand to lose if climate change is left unchecked.
Opposing the expansion of the tar sand projects is a life or death issue, not just for the cancer victims of Alberta, but for all Creation.
Editorial Separation
Apologists will argue that big media companies maintain a wall between editorial and advertising. That is no excuse. In the age of new media, common sense morals are more important than a self-righteous blind-eye.
How can anyone trust an institution that purports to give us the truth about important world issues, but is sponsored by harmful propagandists?
The big energy companies are mounting a sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaign.
They are pouring money into online media projects. We need to fight back.
Boycotts and Counter Attacks
Sorry, Nick Kristof. Sorry, Gail Collins.
Tom Friedman – how big is YOUR carbon foodprint?
As much as I love the Times, I’m going to get my news elsewhere for a while. I encourage you to do likewise.
Here are some good alternatives:
Additionally, in the face of the massive energy lobbyist PR campaign, it’s imperative that all of us work overtime to counter the faux-patriotic green-washing of the energy industry.
The energy reform challenge is as imperative as the civil rights struggle was in the days of Martin Luther King.
Call them out.
Expose the false arguments. Look beyond the carefully market-tested messages.
If you know someone who buys into the fossil fuel lobby’s misleading claims, sit them down for a serious talk. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Ask why the places where fossil fuel is central to the economy – like West Virginia – are the poorest and unhealthiest places in America.
Ask why places where the fossil fuel lobby is effectively countered by informed citizens – like Vermont – boast healthy populations and strong local economies.
Our future depends on our willingness to reform our energy policy. Big oil companies and their big media collaborators are standing in the way with billions of dollars on their side, but the truth needs no ally.
Further Reading
Yes, we have an energy crisis. But the problem isn’t what you think. Read “The Crisis Of Too Much Energy”.
Wondering who to trust? Read “How To Evaluate Claims About Big Oil”.
Interested in social responsibility? Read “Manifesto of a Young American”.
About the Author
Related Posts
12 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Thanks for the comment – you’re exactly right that we need to contact the folks who are letting this happen.
Here’s info. for the NY Times public editor:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html
↵ -
Sigh, not surprising. Most news outlets are owned by big corporations who are only interested in making cash. Even if it means taking money from companies that they like to wag their finger at.
↵ -
It’s the sad sad truth. Also, it’s easy for them, they just take the PR ready-to-run pieces and go with it. Less labor costs=more money in their pockets.
↵ -
Don’t get me wrong – I think the Times, The New Yorker and Harpers are all fine institutions. They DON’T take the PR pieces. Instead, they’re among only a few media companies that consistently produce really high-quality journalism.
But when the left hand and right hand are working at opposite ends, nothing good can get done.
↵ -
I guess I should also throw in a don’t get me wrong too. I was referring to big media in general. I don’t follow the Time, New Yorker, or Harpers…but with your glowing endorsement, perhaps I should. Just not now, right?
↵ -
Well, maybe the first step is to contact their editorial boards and let them know about your concerns…
↵ -
I think the publications involved are run by extremely competent, selfless and professional journalists. The problem is that the institutions are no longer economically viable and their management would do just anything to help the bottom line.
The great democratization of media means we’ll hear a lot more voices – it will be interesting to see how many of these voices take money to promote dirty energy.
↵ -
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the article – enjoyed it and also enjoyed revisiting the links at the end of the piece. I agree with your general sentiments and your surprise regarding the messages in some prominent papers’ advertising campaigns, but how do you suggest that newspapers and other media sources make value judgements regarding the ‘truth’ behind their advertisers’ campaigns? I would argue that this is a slippery slope.
I’ve also been surprised to see many of the CSR campaigns which emerge from the bigger oil companies (and car companies for that matter) but think that greenwashing is a reality of the market right now and struggle to imagine a defining line for the ‘common sense morals’ in advertising you suggest. Perhaps this is simplifying the issues, but I would argue that it would be wiser for papers to look into some of these campaigns through investigative journalism and features writing. Agreed that it’s certainly wise for angry readers to express concern on the opinons pages and via newspapers’ ombudsmen, but I don’t see a straight advertising boycott as the answer.
↵ -
Thanks for the note, Kat.
Although I respect the slippery slope argument about editorial value judgments, I think there is a clear moral line that must be drawn, especially on a massive public health issue like this one.
Did you know a classmate of ours was just arrested for picketing a coal plant in West Virginia? For many Americans, our reliance on coal is a life and death issue, and we need to fight on the right side.
↵ -
Tim, I really appreciate the links to other new sources.. a good example of not just exposing the problem but offering an alternative. Your reporting and writing are always spot on.
↵ -
Thanks Josh – but I have to say, I’m going through pretty serious nytimes.com withdrawal.
↵
