Not National Geographic, Too?

Generally existing far above the fray of everyday politics and the arguments involving journalistic ethics in political reporting, it appears as though National Geographic may have a bit of explaining to do, as well.

The Enviroblog is the blog for advocacy group Environmental Working Group (EWG). And according to this entry, Does National Geographic have an integrity problem? - they have a serious bone to pick with Nat Geo over Toxic People, a story appearing in their print and on line magazine this month.

From the email trail posted in this entry, Nat Geo may have relied extensively on the research and expertise of admitted advocacy group without acknowledging or disclosing them as a source at all. It appears as though any mention of the advocacy group may have been added to the on line edition only after complaints were received and presumably the published version will have no acknowledgment of EWG at all.

While it might be a sore spot for EWG, it also raises the question of what types of science various publications, including Nat Geo, rely upon for journalism without accounting for what some might perceive as the biased nature of the source. After all, EWG is, by definition, an advocacy group.

I can think of any number of fields where a publication such as Nat Geo could get away with passing off propaganda for science, not that I am suggesting it happened in this case. But simply the possibility of it happening as a result of less than full disclosure by such an esteemed publication as Nat Geo does raise concerns of journalistic ethics in areas of journalism we might not normally think of beyond some of what we've read on global warming in the press.

Take a look.

Comments

[whatsthatsmell]

Good article Dan, thanks for the heads-up.

[Monkey Faced Liberal]

Dan:

Why are you writing weird posts about how National Geographic and the rest of the media are secretly pushing falsehoods on us developed by leftist advocacy groups?

Shouldn't you be busy trying to smear Ellen G. Hawkins as a radical African Studies teaching, anti-youth smoking, pro-waterfall radical, like the other Allen accusers?

From the NYT
"Mrs. Hawkins, who described herself as a rural Virginia housewife and an active Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday that she heard Mr. Allen use the slur repeatedly at a party on election night in 1976."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/us/politics/27allen.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Oh yeah, she is a "active Democrat." That is smear enough in your book, isn't it.

Since she is an active Democrat, she, like the other five people who have accused Allen of using racial slurs, she must be lying.

See, isn't it nice when I do your job for you?

Peace