Does it matter that Greenpeace journalists lied in order to expose academics-for-hire?

[Judi Lynn]

Does it matter that Greenpeace journalists lied in order to expose academics-for-hire?
December 16, 2015 5.56am EST

Earlier this fall, Greenpeace announced it was hiring a team of journalists and making investigations a pillar of its advocacy work.

Now the public is beginning to see the fruits of that investment, as well as some of the questions that get raised when advocacy groups utilize some of journalism’s more controversial reporting tactics.

Last week, the group published a report showing how two American academics agreed to write papers in support of – and covertly funded by – the fossil fuel industry.

To get the story, Greenpeace’s journalists posed as energy company representatives and offered to pay the academics – who were both prominent climate change skeptics – to write about the benefits of coal use and carbon emissions. They also asked that the payments not be disclosed. The academics agreed. (You can read the email exchanges here and here.)

In many ways, Greenpeace’s reporting nicely approximates journalistic ideals of watchdog reporting. It builds on previous work by advocacy groups and news organizations that has revealed the hidden ties between the industry and climate change skeptics. Where others have focused on the role of corporations in funding the work of climate skeptics, this report highlights the willingness of academics to lend their scientific credibility to support the aims of industry.

More:
http://theconversation.com/does-it-matter-that-greenpeace-journalists-lied-in-order-to-expose-academics-for-hire-52192

[Old Codger]

1. No

Not at all,in this case I think the ends justify the means

[yeoman6987]

4. I don't know why they need to hide themselves to get results

If free peace is right then no need for tricks. Just be who you are and do the job.

[HassleCat]

2. It does not matter

There is no indication they lured the academics into doing something they would not ordinarily do. When people get caught, they always claim they were entrapped, but entrapment involves using extraordinary incentives to convince somebody to break the law or do something unethical.

[Igel]

6. There's also little indication that the academics were bribed to do something, either.

"We believe X. We routinely write articles that promote our beliefs."

"So would you take $_____ to write an article saying X?"

"Of course."

"Look, these people are scum, they'll write something because they're paid to do it!"

The entire claim sounds good if you accept that the last line is true, but otherwise it fails. Such academics aren't ordinarily bribed to write something they disagree with, that's not the "something" they'd ordinarily be doing. They're like researchers who take money to do things they'd ordinarily be doing anyway if they had the money. Or be doing what they'd be doing anyway, because they money isn't required.

My diss advisor wrote on historical Slavic linguistics. When he got a grant to write a monograph he did nothing different. He'd planned this monograph, he'd been working on the monograph, and he got money to write the monograph. By the time he got the grant the monograph was pretty much finished. The only difference, really, was that he didn't have to scrounge to get the money to present a paper on it at some prestigious European conference or to hire a proof-reader and pay postage for proofs, etc.

[kristopher]

10. I wouldn't say "bribed" but I would say "prostituted"

It's especially telling that the academic is extremely well versed in concealing the financial support behind his "work". Academic ethics dictate a level of objectivity and honesty in published writings, and that carries a great deal of weight when informed public debate is taking place. To deliberately withhold the funding source while simultaneously touting academic affiliations is the behavior of an amoral skunk.

[SamKnause]

3. No.

[iandhr]

5. If a conservative organization...

Last edited Wed Jan 13, 2016, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)

employed similar tactics I think folks here would say that's outrageous.

[nxylas]

15. A conservative organisation wouldn't behave like that

A conservative organisation would be more likely to interview them and then, if they refused the bribe, edit the recording to make it look as if they'd said yes.

[cheapdate]

7. No. They are neither public officials

nor professional journalists. They're activists. I applaud them.

[nxylas]

8. Remember investigative journalists?

They used to do stuff like that all the time.

[swilton]

13. ++++++++++

[KoKo]

14. ....!

[bemildred]

9. Lying hasn't mattered for a long time in journalism.

Even pretending not to lie hasn't mattered for a long time in US journalism.
The only thing that matters in US journalism is reading the text they put in front of you today.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Their misrepresentation was...

... both justified and necessary to expose the paid shills posing as unbiased academics.

[geek tragedy]

12. investigative journalism requires subterfuge nt

[bemildred]

16. No, it matters that "scientists" can be hired, not whether the employers were really reporters. nt