About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Newsweek Teams With Big Oil For Energy Policy Forum

November 09, 2009 12:31 pm ET by Jamison Foser

The New York Times has a good article spelling out the obvious problems with Newsweek's decision to team up with the American Petroleum Institute for a forum titled "Climate and Energy Policy: Moving?"

Here's the situation in a nutshell: API is paying Newsweek, in exchange for which API president Jack Gerard gets to be the featured participant in a Newsweek forum moderated by Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman.  Newsweek says there's nothing wrong with the arrangement, because it is "transparent":

"There's absolutely no conflict of interest, because they're not driving our editorial" content, [Newsweek director of external relations Mark] Block said. "These events are transparent. They're on the record. They're inclusive of media. They're inclusive of people that might disagree. There's no concern of appearance of impropriety because it's an open and transparent process."

That does not, strictly speaking, appear to be true.  Take a look at a "V.I.P. Invitation" email Newsweek External Relations Manager Jennifer Slattery sent out about the forum:

The panel discussion will be moderated Howard Fineman, Newsweek National-Affairs Columnist and Senior Washington Correspondent with special guest panelist Jack Gerard, President & Chief Executive Officer of American Petroleum Institute (API). Newsweek is also honored to have forum invitations currently pending confirmation with notable members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

No mention of the fact that API paid for Gerard's participation in the event.  So much for "an open and transparent process."

And so much for "no concern of appearance of impropriety":

[J]ournalism and ethics experts decried the arrangement.

"You're selling access," said Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va. "Newsweek is using its reputation as a great news organization to convene these officeholders to talk about public policy. Then it's renting out a space at the table for one of its customers who would not be at the table if not for giving money to Newsweek."

John Watson, associate professor of communication law and journalism ethics at American University in Washington, agreed.

"You're enticing them to buy these ads to get this thing of value," Watson said.

Newsweek's claims that API's funding doesn't influence its editorial decisions are undermined by the fact that the forum features Gerard -- but doesn't include any representatives of environmental organizations.  And, it seems, Newsweek doesn't have any pans to address that exclusion:

Asked whether Newsweek planned to invite a representative from an environmental group to the upcoming event, to balance Gerard's appearance, Block said the magazine "would definitely consider that opportunity," if there were a high-profile environmentalist who might be appropriate. But he said that because members of Congress would likely also participate, time constraints might dictate against it.

Yeah, I bet they might.

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Newsweek happily publishes global warming deniers like George Will.  And its probably just another coincidence that Will's column relies on the work of the American Enterprise Institute, which gets funding from the likes of Exxon Mobil and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Trust.  

That's Charles Koch as in Koch Industries, which was once required to pay "the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states."  Or perhaps you know Koch Industries better as the company that got rich in part by stealing oil from Indian reservations and federal lands -- that is, from U.S. Taxpayers.  Then they used the money they stole from taxpayers -- that is, from you -- to fund right-wing think-tanks that advocate policies that would help people like Charles Koch at the expense of, well, you. (Koch Industries agreed to pay $25 million in penalties for stealing all that oil.)

Anyway, I'm sure that's all just coincidence.

Oh, and it's probably also a coincidence that Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post Company, and that the Post got caught earlier this year trying to sell off access to its reporters to corporate sponsors.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wookie (November 09, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
      3 1
      API wouldn't be paying for nothing. It's like paying to sit in a restaurant and not expecting food.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by polderjongetje (November 09, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
      2  
      Let us rewrite Slattery's e-mail so that it properly reflects the ‘panel discussion’. Here's my take:
      Newsweek Escort Agency will dispatch Howard Fineman, Newsweek's highpriced prostitute, to Jack Gerard, President & Chief Executive Officer of American Petroleum Institute (API). Newsweek Escort Agency is proud to pimp out this hot man-on-man encounter to notable members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for their viewing pleasures.

      Can somebody enhance this a bit? English is not my mother tongue.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (November 09, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
         
      This is the result of republican led media consolidation.Anytime regional industry leaders are absorbed into national industry leaders.This cuts down on the number of people who can operate business it the consolidated industry.Media consolidation has created cartels that are very difficult to compete against.It cuts down potential competitors.It cost much more to compete against a national company than a regional one.Even a national company that is losing money.Media consolidation has slowed the flow of a different message getting out.Media consolidation allows different regions of USA opinions to be artificially suppressed or amplified.Today's media are more concerned about their corporate sponsors than their duty to the public.Small business has less financial value to them as sponsors.Over the past 10 tears some industry consolidations across all industries,media and oil included,took place that are not in the security and financial interest of the USA and its people.It can be justified from a scale of operation stand point.But when you reduce the number supplies of vital materials from 10 to 1 national security and financial security interest need to be considered.Over the past 10 years they have not.The USA needs Better enforcement of existing anti-trust laws across all industries,media included.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by EZ4you2say (November 09, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
      2 1
      What's the big deal?
      Does Al Gore ever give the other side a chance to speak at any of his events? And yet he is made out to be some "Environmental God"
      What's wrong with giving the other side a chance to present itself?
      Because your side wants no debate on the issue. That's why.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RavenRog (November 09, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
        1 2
        It's because they CAN'T debate the issue. The science is not on the Goracle's side.

        The socialist movement has revived itself under enviro-militarism. None of this....I repeat, NONE of this has anything to do with the environment. It's about the first-world supporting the third-world without development.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by chrisd3 (November 10, 2009 6:52 am ET)
             
          The science is not on the Goracle's side.

          You guys can repeat this as often as you want; that don't make it true.

          As for debate, there's plenty of debate. It just occurs where it's supposed to occur, in the scientific literature. If the deniers want to debate, they should be writing research articles for peer-reviewed journals instead of blog entries and newspaper columns.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by skiploader1111 (November 10, 2009 7:59 am ET)
            1
          Have you ever thought about what the difference between a first world country and a third world country?

          A first world country has welfare, strong unions, universal health care(except one, which is the only first world country still in a recession), a minimum wage, social security, highly regulated capitalism, environmental laws, and highly taxed rich people.

          If we accomplish conservative's goals of removing all of these things in the USA, we will be the perfect third world country.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (November 10, 2009 8:23 am ET)
               
            universal health care(except one, which is the only first world country still in a recession)


            Please explain the bridge between "universal" health care and a recession?

            We're all ears!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by skiploader1111 (November 10, 2009 10:10 am ET)
                 
              It's a coincidence.

              But isn't it interesting that all of the first world countries are the ones conservatives like to call socialist and communist.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (November 09, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
        2  
        His events aren't don't involve buying influence with supposedly impartial news outlets.

        >>What's wrong with giving the other side a chance to present itself?

        Nothing, which is why the debate shouldn't be monopolized by the highest bidder.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (November 09, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
          1  
          I think that the intellectual dishonesty is best conceptualized in this quote from the dear algore...
          "I want to be polite to you," Mr. Gore responded. But, no. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.


          This is the ONLY area of scientific research in the history of mankind, where the science is 'settled' and further inquiry is deemed unnecessary (?) "for goodness sake"!

          That doesn't even include his complete hypocrisy in lifestyle toward global warming.



          Speaking truth to/about progressives......and doing everything in my power to enlarge my carbon footprint.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Civic Racecar (November 10, 2009 2:17 am ET)
               
            And somehow, it is such a bad thing to be proactive when it comes to the environment. Based on your theory, we should just absolutely ignore climate change because there is a minority of people that believe global warming doesn't exist. As far as I am concerned, I would like to be able to know that when I talk to my grandkids about Iceland, I am not talking about the lost city of Reykjavik.

            There is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to preserve the earth and reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. It is good in so many ways. It has health and psychological benefits. I don't know about you, but I am not particularly fond of breathing in smog and other pollution. I like my small town, surrounded by forests and fresh air lifestyle.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (November 10, 2009 6:47 am ET)
               
            Ah, the perfect summary of silliness.

            >>This is the ONLY area of scientific research in the history of mankind, where the science is 'settled' and further inquiry is deemed unnecessary (?) "for goodness sake"!>>

            Really? So scientists are still working on that flat earth vs round earth thing? Are they still trying to figure out if disease comes from evil spirits?

            >>Speaking truth to/about progressives......and doing everything in my power to enlarge my carbon footprint.

            So if liberals told you not to jump off a bridge would you?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by EZ4you2say (November 10, 2009 9:11 am ET)
             
          So an impartial news orginazation can't let someone present an opposing viewpoint?
          How impartial is that?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (November 09, 2009 10:06 pm ET)
        1 1
        Al controls what media outlet?
        Like Obama the Messiah, Al the Enivironmental God only exists in wingnut minds.
        When was the last time MSM gave the atmosphereic scientist's a soap box?
        The number of people missinformed on golbal warming would indicate that the denier message is being well spread.
        The spreaders of that missinformation have no credibilty on the issue, merely fat paychecks and easy access to the media.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (November 10, 2009 12:15 am ET)
           
        Who cares about big Al?

        What's keeping the deniers from speaking out?

        Nothing seems to stop any of you yet.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by skiploader1111 (November 10, 2009 7:48 am ET)
           
        "Does Al Gore ever give the other side a chance to speak at any of his events? And yet he is made out to be some "Environmental God" What's wrong with giving the other side a chance to present itself?"

        No, but Al Gore doesn't pay news organizations to present forums just for him. API should not have Newsweek make events just for them only. If API wants an event for them only, then they should not have any news org running it. Just make it an API event. Just like Gore events are run by Al Gore.

        "Because your side wants no debate on the issue. That's why."

        The Media Matters article literally says that someone from both sides should be invited to the forum so that there will be a debate. It is Newsweek and API and also you that think that there shouldn't be a debate.





        Report Abuse
        • Author by EZ4you2say (November 10, 2009 9:08 am ET)
             
          Newsweek never said they wouldn't have someone from the other side at this event.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by skiploader1111 (November 10, 2009 10:08 am ET)
               
            "But he said that because members of Congress would likely also participate, time constraints might dictate against it."

            There's your proof. There AIN'T GONNA be another point of view in the forum. They are saying that if there isn't another side, they are claiming that it is still OK to have it that way.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by RussWalker (November 09, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
      1  
      The article you point to is on nytimes.com, but it's not a New York Times article; it's from a specialty news operation based in DC that covers environmental issues. That doesn't undermine the article itself, which is well reported. But I suggest that you update the lead to note the actual source.

      I don't get the barb at Newsweek publishing George Will. Yes, Will is completely wrong about climate change (and much much more), but he's been associated with The Washington Post and Newsweek for (literally!) decades.

      I wonder if you can point to actual instances where Newsweek's relationship with API influenced Newsweek's journalism? The magazine has done some very good reporting on climate change, and I haven't detected any pro-oil bias in their work.

      (Full disclosure: I once worked for WaPo).
      Report Abuse