TODAY'S LETTERS: Readers Respond to Outing's Column on Climate Change -- And a Note from Whittaker Chambers' Grandson

By: E&P Staff A recent column by Steve Outing about how newspapers can address climate change sparked heated letters that criticized newspaper objectivity and questioned the concept of global warming.

But before getting to a few responses, a note from the grandson of Whittaker Chambers after reading Mark Fitzgerald's current Newspaper Beat column on the Tufts controversy..
***

By mentioning Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley, Jr., in the same breath, Mark Fitzgerald's excellent commentary reminded me of a family episode involving academic censorship.

In 1922, Columbia University expelled my grandfather, Whittaker Chambers, then incoming editor of its literary magazine, "Morningside," for writing a short play entitled "A Play for Puppets" which satirized Christianity. Chambers describes this event in "Witness." In his biography, Sam Tanenhaus details this episode and cites it as a direct influence on Chambers' road to Communism. Interestingly, Chambers used a pseudonym as a byline when
publishing the piece.

I believe Whittaker Chambers would have supported Tufts' president
completely. On the one hand, he would have supported the right of publications to withhold bylines. On the other, witless parodies or mock advertisements aimed at African-Americans or Muslims would never have made "Morningside" under his editorship. He might have exercised Free Speech by taking a moment to critique such parodies and mock advertisements--but only a moment. Such has been the action of Tuft's president: to publish the university's own comment.

While allowing free speech, Tufts has demonstrated how to treat and react to such worthless publishings--with "intellectual rigor and discernment," as Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned. Following Tanenhaus' interpretation of events nearly a century ago, had Columbia's president acted with the same discernment as Tufts', my grandfather might well have remained within New York's literary community and not, as an outcast, become a communist.

Ironically, after a career as Communist spy, TIME senior editor, and
government witness, Chambers managed to exercise Free Speech on any number of occasions. He critiqued Rand's "When Atlas Shrugged" in Buckley's National Review --with his own byline. He then chose to resign from NR's staff.

David Chambers
Reston, VA

Just a quick note to say thanks for a terrific column on recent events
at Tufts. I especially liked your line saying that the "Primary Source"
makes Ann Coulter look like Dorothy Parker. What is frustrating is
getting young writers -- whether conservative or liberal -- to
understand that they do not cover themselves with glory when they write with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. I will find a way to point them to your column. Perhaps you will have more success in educating them than I have.

Lawrence S. Bacow
President
Tufts University

***

Outing and Objectivity

Your whole contention about newspapers giving up objectivity, so as to battle global warming, is akin to a whore giving up her virginity to honor Santa Claus. Both are incapable of giving up something already long gone for some collective fantasy.


Tim Estes
Phoenix, Ariz.


How about shutting down news print operations entirely? Many trees and energy would be saved if this huge waste of paper and gas for deliveries, electricity for wasteful printing presses, etc. were eliminated.

Most information in the papers is aged by the time it is printed, it is way past time for the people who call for drastic change to show how critical they think the situation is and put their words into action.

Adrian Alejandro
Santa Cruz, Calif.

Clearly, if the newspaper business had any moral interest in the
global warming debate they would do the obvious thing and abandon
business as usual in the news distribution industry. Cutting trees,
bleaching paper, printing and transporting newspapers are all
detrimental to the environment, yet not once have I heard journalists
support online solutions to these carbon intensive activities. The
reasons are obvious.

Think of the savings to humanity. I would propose the same for
teachers. How much simpler and cost effective would it be to educate
children at home through computer technology and distance
communication systems saving billions in transportation costs and
salaries? All that carbon from commuting would be eliminated.

You'll notice that these suggestions are never put forward by the
interested parties obviously due to their own self interest and
selfishness. When I finally see proponents making the hard
sacrifices, then maybe I'll believe that they really consider global
warming a serious problem.

Set the example, and others may follow.

Bella Reeve
N.J.


Last time I checked, journalism is supposed to always strive to be objective. You?re really taking a personal and emotional approach to "global warming".

You say there is ?scientific evidence? that mankind is altering climate change. Have you read the other side of the argument in an objective way?

Maybe you should just write newsletters for a PR firm on Global Warming or something. You?ve officially fallen off your rocker.

And, for the record, after carefully reading and writing about both sides of this argument (yes, the debate still continues), it appears to me that this Global Warming stuff is really a bunch of bunk. I?ll let you know if there is anything that changes my mind, but there has been no ?evidence? that has been placed before me to help me out with this theory about climate change.

Garrison Rodgers


As a journalist, I read with dismay Steve Outing's call for organized bias regarding global warming in Wednesday's edition of Editor & Publisher online.

Outing is calling, just this once of course, for newspapers to shed fairness for advocacy. So let me be devil's advocate -- where does it stop? Once editors and reporters cross that line, they will cross it again, and again, and again, in the name of "doing the right thing."

Advocacy journalism is rarely the right thing, for it requires one side to be painted as the bad guy, the nemesis, the force opposed to progress. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is bias.

What's more, Outing's call for global warming bias comes just weeks after NASA's assertion that the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990 was proven false (the new data have six of those 10 years in the 1930s and 1940s). Whoops. I don't suppose this "inconvenient truth" would make it into any of Outing's stories on the matter.

In one aspect, Outing is behind the ball. Media have been tilting stories for years on the matter. I could count the number of stories I have seen citing contrary evidence on man-made global warming from respected scientists on one hand while wearing a mitten.

If you want to write articles extolling recycling, or hybrid cars, or shade-grown coffee, fine. But what Mr. Outing is proposing is preposterous. Subscriptions and readership are plummeting nationwide, and contrary to what E&P and others believe, lack of trust in us is just as much of a factor as the Internet. Biased stories will not help reverse this trend.

If we want to do something unique in this day and age, how about writing global warming stories with all credible sides involved (and yes, some dissenting scientists are very credible indeed), and letting our readers make up their own minds? Surely at least one of Outing's journalism school professors mentioned the concept. Fairness is easy if you try.

Kevin Craver
Lakewood, Ill.

Wow, Steve Outing has discovered that objectivity, when used as an ideal for newspapers reporting on controversial subjects, is pass?. Still, he bemoans the fact that advocacy journalism has been "relegated" to the alternative press and "perhaps blogs too."

If only Outing had made his discovery 15 years ago, when Matt Drudge did, he would be a freakin' genius. The alternative press, blogs and news sites catering to a specific demographic and point of view have made significant inroads on daily newspaper readership and ad revenue. Whether this is a good development or not may be argued, but the handwriting has been on the wall for more than a decade.

Outing then uses his belated observation to promote his position regarding global warming. Sadly, while global warming is a serious problem and one that cries out for innovative solutions, Outing suggests a strategy consisting of the most hackneyed clich?s in the news business. Hold contests? Solicit ideas from readers?

Advocacy journalism involves artfully telling the reader what they should think, Steve, not the other way around. Its great practitioners, from Ida Tarbell to John Stewart, don't waste time on such self-important navel gazing.

Mike Hudson
Editor, Niagara Falls ReporterM


I was trolling through Newsbusters this morning when a column caught my eye. They had covered Steve Outing's Aug 28th article and I thought I was reading misconstrued words. I had thought that this was a prime example of taking what someone says completely out of context.

I was going to begin my morning smoke break talking about how right leaning Americans blow things out of proportion so often. That is until I realized they had reported accurately to my dismay.

Suggesting news outlets, especially from a respected journal like E&P, avoid objectivity just further reduces the credibility of the faltering industry. As much as he fleshed out his point and reasons, the argument could be used to prop up other controversial subjects when editorial staff is in harmony on the issue in question.

This kind of article gives ample fuel to right wingers who need examples of the "irrelevance" of the mainstream media. I just wish you hadn't added this fuel to an already raging fire.

Nicolas Ian Cruickshank
Toronto


The polemic by Steve Outing about climate change was both shameful and disgraceful. Let's be clear, the global warming hysteria is a hoax and a swindle. It's a desperate grab for power by the far left.

Erik Blair