FAIR’s new action alert takes a look at the pro-fracking spin on the public radio show show America Abroad. If you’re sending them a letter to, please feel free to share it in the comments section below.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart was the activist director of FAIR for 15 years, as well as the co-host of FAIR's radio show CounterSpin. He is now the senior field communications officer for Food & Water Watch.
◄ Previous Post Two Churches Make an Anti-Gay Trend at USA Today
► Next Post Pro-Fracking Spin on Public Radio
Comments
Hello,
I recently heard the show on tracking, called “Global Energy and Innovations” [think I got that right.] It sure discussed how a lot of people are making money from what some like to call horizontal drilling, but I kept waiting for the big story: how it pollutes drinking water, has caused earthquakes, and this only in the short time it’s been widely used: tracking promises to be the gift that keeps on giving. But this fundamental part of the story never came.
I googled around and found out more about this: there are tremendous conflicts of interest between petroleum producers and funders. Can you please look into this and take appropriate action. Hearing this bias on AM radio is bad enough; having this foolishness pass as serious journalism on NPR is disgusting.
Thank you for your consideration,
T.M. Scruggs
My concern is with the April edition of “America Abroad” and the very biased “information” presented regarding fracking. The show was basically a commercial for the oil and gas industry. It was not remotely what I ever want to hear on PRI or NPR–Fox with their faux news takes care of putting out enough inaccurate “information” to satisfy the vested interests and the gullible.
I’m opposed to fracking at this point, but I’m not opposed to hearing the opinions of both sides so I can make my own decision. That’s not what the program provided.
Ask America Abroad ombud Jeffrey Dvorkin to investigate the show’s report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding.
Richard Kuszmar
Warren, MI 48093
At least have someone opposed to Fracking on the show for their views.
http://www.letsbanfracking.org
Mr. Dvorkin,
Your program “Global Energy and Innovations” (April edition of public radio program American Abroad) is just amazing. Everything’s great, according to the people who completely dominated the show. “Clean,” abundant natural gas being unearthed for the benefit of the citizens so we can have cleaner energy. Isn’t that lovely?!
Who are these people, residents of Pleasantville?
If you’re truly alive and at all “aware” on Planet Earth, you know that water supplies are being massively polluted by fracking technology. I’m talking polluted by CANCER-causing chemicals – known and long-proven ones. And this is happening all over America, as one of the happy natural gas men proclaims, “at an amazing rate!”
What do you think we are going to be eating, once our cropland is has been thoroughly poisoning by leaks or irrigation with chemical-laden water? Shall we just pray for rain?
What about the aquifers? Think any of those chemicals will get down there? What will we be drinking for thirst, when benzene and who know what else (fracking chemicals are top-secret) is in every municipal water supply across the nation?
I could go on …
Shoddy shoddy shoddy.
For the sake of TRUTH, you need to see that a program on fracking with actual FACTS is produced and aired, immediately. There are people who actually know these facts. Please get in touch with them and redeem yourself.
I found your “Global Energy and Innovations” show to be totally biased toward fracking. There are a number of studies done on the potential dangers of fracking which were never touched upon.
To be a truly PUBLIC radio, both sides should have been discussed.
As I see it, this show was bought and paid for by big business, and is rife with misinformation. Misinformation is not serving the public.
I ask that as ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, investigate the show’s report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding.
Thank you.
Dear Mr. Dvorkin,
You must investigate NPR’s ‘America Abroad’ report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding.
I am currently an NPR subscriber, but have become truly disillusioned by its reporting in the past several months. It has become clear to me (and to my family and friends) that NPR is now funded by right-wing conservatives. We are all ready to pull our support of NPR.
I await your reply. Thank you.
Christina Pender
Bellvue, CO
Nothing says “public broadcasting”
Like subservience to private interests
My Letter to Jeffrey Dvorkin, re: America Abroad’s report on fracking.
Mr. Jeffrey Dvorkin
Ombudsman
America Abroad Media
Dear Mr. Dvorkin:
I’m writing to request you investigate “America Abroad’s” report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding.
This is an issue of upmost importance to the integrity of PRI and its reputation of unbiased objectivity.
Thank you for your considerations.
Sincerely,
John Catherine
132 East 35TH ST
New York, NY 10016
America Abroad Media
Ombudsman
Jeffrey Dvorkin:
Subject: Flacking for fracking. WHY?? Conflict of Interest
Dear Mr. Dvorkin:
The April edition of the monthly public radio program America Abroad, “Global Energy and Innovations,” sounded like an infomercial for the natural gas “fracking” industry. Which, in essence, is what it was.
The show, which is distributed by Public Radio International (PRI), began with host Madeleine Brand declaring:
Thanks to a breakthrough in the technology known as “fracking,” the hydraulic fracturing of rock, the United States is enjoying a boom in cheap natural gas.
She went to say that “supporters argue that the new technology not only brings new jobs but also provides cleaner energy than coal.”
Please investigate the show’s report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding. Public Radio is NOT the place for propaganda from oligarchs and the one percent. They already own the private media. Public Radio should be reserved for the “PUBLIC”. Thank you for looking into this matter. I look forward to hearing your report.
I agree with all these comments.
Dear Ombudsman,
I don’t know how much power you have to affect the programming, but at the least, I would hope that you can complain to the management that their coverage of an important matter such as hydraulic fracturing should be even-handedly addressed. There should be no underwriting by those who are, in fact, principals, in the story, who already possess an obviously sharp axe, which needs no further grinding, on a program that ostensibly imports to be a public outlet for illuminating subjects of public concern—in other words, not taking the side of the sponsors, as it were.
I doubt, however, that any complaints that we the public would make to you or your masters will make any difference, though. The battle has pretty much already been lost. Big Oil and big money won—again.
I wonder is it possible to shame them? It is in your hands to see whether some of that shame belongs to you.
Yours truly,
Damian I. Cano
Dear Mr. Dvorkin,
I request you to investigate the America Abroad report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding. America Abroad should have done a better job of balancing the guest list of this program to include more critical voices, even though that would have meant directly challenging the business interests of the show’s funders. Pleas, let’s have a little balance.
Lawrence Crowley
“Do Your Parents Know What You Are Doing?”
Dear low-life, especially & astoundingly cheap opinion bitches.
‘America Abroad’ should have done a better job of balancing the guest list of this program to include more critical voices on fracking. But that would have meant just simply doing your job.
Instead, your psycho-broadcast gang chose to help giving children slow & painful deaths in the future due to poisoned water tables. Congrats! So proud of you!
Now, go & kill even more by spreading further dis- & misinformation! Have fun! It’s what Jesus would do! Promise!
And don’t forget to give Israeli apocalyptics a bogus casus belli to start WWIII, like before WWII & Vietnam! You’re the best liars, pennies can buy!
Losing listeners/viewers/readers and therefore the rest of authority & credibility you once had, is well deserved. But don’t cry, little child! The alternative media is mature enough to inform us about the things that actually matter; because contrary to your masters’ believe, the people CAN take the truth!
Have fun as long as you can, mass-murder supporting opinion bitches!
Just leave the country before the upcoming holy wrath of righteous people in large numbers might hold former decision makers & multipliers accountable for treason by cleansing psychopaths from the gene pool via incarceration, deportation and/or any other possible, playful means after a fair trial without corrupted judges; grade of expected fairness is equivalent to the level of triggered rage of course, like in all countless centuries before when that happened.
Right on for totalitarian mercantilism, tidy house slaves…!
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
– Benito Mussolini
Dear Mr. Dvorkin,
I was shocked and dismayed to see PRI running its April issue of America Abroad program on fracking methods for extracting natural gas that was a written and funded by the oil industry. This was a totally unbalanced report that used false and misleading information to downplay the significant dangers to human health and the environment posed by fracking technology.
This, along with recent revelations about the money backed influence of the Koch brothers on public television, are extremely troubling to those of us who had faith in PBS and PRI to present the full, unbiased truth concerning matters of public health and the American economy. Unfortunately, it’s looking more and more like truth and integrity in pubic media are up for auction to the highest bidder.
Respectfully, Dean Nimmer
My letter: to ombudsman,
Dear Ombudsman Dvorkin,
How is it that the shame of this perversion of “Public Radio” is possible? A program on the wonders of fracking, sponsored by Qatar, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and featuring academics supported by Chevron, BP, Shell, and Saudi Aramco.
Without fair representation from reputable scientists opposed to fracking?
Come on, PUBLIC RADIO?
For shame.
Don Porter
Dear Mr. Dvorkin,
It’s come to my attention that an industry-friendly report on hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” was the subject of America Abroad’s April episode. While representatives of companies and concerns that stand to profit mightily from fracking were well represented, I understand that the views of those who oppose the practice–scientists, government officials, experts on the environment, and those who have experienced firsthand its deleterious, dangerous effects–were not invited to participate. This is, of course, the opposite of what should occur in research and resulting reportage on public (i.e., taxpayer-funded) radio.
Please investigate America Abroad’s April episode, “Global Energy and Innovations,” on fracking, the multiple conflicts of interest apparent in the show’s funding, and the drastic imbalance in what was presented to the public that resulted. I look forward to hearing your determination on what I strongly feel is a publicly-funded travesty in direct controversion to journalistic ethics.
Thank you,
S. Grisham
Dear Ombudsman,
The piece about gas development narrated by Madeline Brand presented an essentially pro-gas stance. It gave magnified voice to the overly positive spin that industry places upon this dirty, invasive form of energy extraction. The reality for communities unable to fend off this extractive industry is tragic, indeed criminal. Literally hundreds of non-disclosure legal settlements with farmers, landowners, and sickened citizens hide the facts of extreme harms done to aquifers, sustainable agriculture, livestock, real estate, pets and humans. What’s more, as many Americans now know, the natural gas boom will slow our move to renewable sources of energy. The energy used to develop gas wells has been shown to accelerate climate change as much as or more than coal. And the economic gains felt temporarily in gas boom areas, are now being shown to be minimal, and in no measure able to pay for the damage done to the environment or the fabric of life there.
Faulty reporting which leaves out these harms is inexcusable.
I hope serious efforts will be made to counter the spin of that piece.
Thank you for your willingness to fix this.
Most sincerely,
Gay Garrison, Three Swallows Farm, Ithaca, NY
email sent on May 31, 2013 to Jeffrey Dvorkin :
Dear Mr. Dvorkin,
It is a sad, sad day for Public Radio International. PRI sold-out, thus destroying the trust that the “public” had in them. Why did they sell-out? The April edition of the monthly PRI program America Abroad, “Global Energy and Innovations,” was completely orchestrated and paid for by misinformants from the fracking industry.
The trusting public, including me, work hard to keep public radio alive. We do it to have access to alternatives to the corporate-controlled misinformation from the private media. If public radio also kowtows to the global greed groups as do the private media, then why should we work hard to keep it public media alive?
The only way to salvage a bit of public confidence is if you investigate the show’s report on fracking and demonstrate and move to rectify the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding.
For the sake of the future of public media and the future of an accurately informed America, I emphatically urge you to do so.
America Abroad Media
Ombudsman
Jeffrey Dvorkin,
It is time to investigate the show’s report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show’s funding.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Schwartzman
Dear Mr. Dworkin,
It is once again hard for me to think of “public” radio as being of and for the public when programs extolling the blessings of natural gas are funded by folks with direct ties to the gas industry. (Reference: The April edition of the monthly public radio program America Abroad, “Global Energy and Innovations.”) Shame on you for presenting what is essentially an informercial in the guise of a news program. I join others in responding to posting on the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) website that details this business-as-usual approach to news. Please investigate and broadcast a follow-up program that highlights the ties between the energy industry and media coverage of energy issues.
Sara Schaffzin
Ithaca, NY 14850
As a sustaining supporter of National Public Radio, I was appalled to hear the one-sided reporting of Ms. Brand that totally ignored the strong and growing evidence of the dangers to public health and the ongoing environmental controversy surrounding fracking in the U.S. today. Public Radio International undermines its credibility and long term viability by conforming its news reports to satisfy corporate advertisers. Ms. Brand’s report is a disservice to NPR’s members and the public. We, your public supporters, expect better.
Very trulu yours, Leonard D. Polletta
I was disturbed about a recent public radio program on America Abroad, “Global Energy and Innovations,” that put a very positive spin on fracking. This show was loaded with conflicts of interest related to its funding. It’s obvious why the program didn’t include critical voices – it would have directly challenged the financial interests of the show’s funders.
I expect public radio to be more than blatant propaganda in favor of a dubious technology that’s been shown to cause many harms. We can achieve energy independence without fattening the purses of the likes of Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, and Saudi Aramco.
Please investigate this show’s report on fracking, and ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again.
Mr. Dvorkin,
The April edition of Public Radio International (PRI)’s monthly public radio program America Abroad, “Global Energy and Innovations,” was an astoundingly bad example of what Public Broadcasting was created to avoid – program content dictated by program funders. Commercial broadcasting long ago succumbed to sponsor interference and control of program content, something public broadcasting was supposed to reduce or even eliminate.
Fact-based, unbiased programming could not possibly present such a grossly one-sided report as did “Global Energy and Innovations”. It is too late now to correct the distortions-by-omission of this program, but it s not too late to present a more factually accurate, balanced report of the fracking issue, particularly noting its hazards, long term economic, social and environmental costs and numerous unknowns and uncertainties.
Please insist that such a balanced report be presented in a near future America Abroad program.
Dear Mr Dvorkin,
I am DEEPLY concerned about the April monthly public radio program, “Global Energy and Innovations,”it was not balanced and needs reviewing.
I understand that some of the general funders of America Abroad are large oil Companies but regret that in a public venue they are allowed to present such a
biased case without any rebuttal. Fracking, in some of our views, is one of the
most destructive practices to our land and we do not even know the unintended consequences to date. We don’t know, I might add, but these Companies and Qatar Foundation International, probably know but are not sharing the data. Just the fact that none of these Companies really are held to full account for their restoring the land after their practices is enough to warrant a really, really good look at what is happening.
PLEASE investigate this report with the multiple conflicts of interest regarding funding.
Thank you for listening: Yvette Schultenover, Grand Rapids MN
Please investigate the conflicts of interest in airing your April program about fracking which essentially was financed by oil companies! This is unacceptable. Given the environmental damage of fracking, it is irresponsible to discuss the procedure without referring to environmental consequences. I expect a program that presents the case fairly, not one that promotes oil interests.