"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 (1–2/03), "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.

It's worth remembering, though--since they won't remind you--that for many months after 9/11, some outlets--the New York Times in particular--downplayed the fallout and mustered shockingly little journalistic skepticism of government reassurances about safety.

The attitude of Andrew Revkin, the Times' environmental reporter at the time, says it all. As I wrote in 2006:

The Times' Revkin told American Journalism Review (1–2/03), "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."

Instead of acting as the watchdog it's supposed to be, the New York Times reinforced misleading government claims that directly impacted the lives and health of thousands of New Yorkers. It's an important history that you won't hear about from the Times, which has never acknowledged or apologized for its reporting.

You can read that history in my article, "Gullibility Begins at Home: NYT Accepted False Reassurances on Ground Zero Safety" (Extra!, 11-12/06).

Revkin has increasingly found himself--and his paper’s coverage--the target of critics on both the right and the left, particularly in the often vitriolic blogosphere. He described himself as "an advocate for scientific reality," not for either side of the debate.

"The right," in this sense, means people who dispute the idea that humans are causing global climate change, whereas "the left" means people who affirm that we are--in other words, people who believe in scientific reality. Revkin's willingness to pretend that science is not on one side of the debate explains a lot of the criticism he's taken lately from pro-science bloggers.

That's not the way corporate media handled the illegally taped cell phone call between Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and other Republican congressmembers in which Gingrich violated the terms of a ethics sanction by strategizing about how to minimize the charges against him. In that case, they focused on the illegality of the taping--and the unauthorized leaking of the tape by Rep. Jim McDermott (D.-Wash.).

That's also not how the press handled the case of  Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Michael Gallagher, who illegally listened to voicemails at the Chiquita corporation in pursuit of a series of stories that charged the company with involvement in bribery, fraud and the abuse of workers. Again, the wrongdoing that was considered newsworthy was the reporter's, not the target of his investigation.

It's hard to imagine what ethical code would tell journalists to ignore information about corporate skullduggery or congressional ethics violations if it was obtained through illicit means, but if it concerns the academic politics of climate scientists--dig in!