"Good grief! Jeremy Rifkin is proof positive that if someone says often enough thay he is an 'expert,' he will eventually be quoted as an 'expert' by the press. The 'most hated man in science?' The implication, however slight or semantic, that Rifkin is 'in science' is absurd. The goal of science is the objective pursuit of truth, not, as Rifkin claims, the mere pursuit of efficiency. Scare tactics and unwarranted lawsuits are not the hallmarks of objective truth-seeking. They are, of course, quite efficient if one is seeking media attention.
Few would deny that new technolgies must be tested, or that the public should become involved in informed debate about the ethical implications of new research. Scientists are not gods, and should not be placed on false pedestals. But the public should be equally wary of Rifkin. Our most renowned scientists do not claim to be experts in every field--yet Rifkin apparently does. Rifkin attacks the credibility of established scientific institutions, yet his so-called 'Foundation on Economic Trends' is seldom questioned by the press. (The most notable exception I have seen in the past, was, ironically, in TIME.) Yet Dick Thompson lets this and other inconsistencies pass in his profile. He even goes so far as to say that if Rifkin happens to delay medical research or to halt basic advances, this is a 'small price' to pay for the 'prudent' application of science. Oh really? I am sure that many-- like those dying of AIDS, couples struggling with infertility, and farmers in the underdeveloped nations--are glad to pay this small price. After all, we have been saved (temporarily) from the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!
Thompson exonerates Rifkin's deplorable tactics by saying that they contribute to informed discussion. How can irresponsible distortions of the truth--no matter how nobly intended--lead to a responsible public debate? In fact, how can the press contribute to an informed discussion by printing--even praising--such hyperbolic hogwash?
A gadfly is one who not only irritates, but illuminates. Jeremy Rifkin is no gadfly; he is a common pest. He swears 'they'll have to deal with me for the next thirty years.' It is not the scientific community that needs to learn how to deal with him. It is the press."
Well, that's true. In fact, that's what seems the most true today. I have since come to see that Jeremy Rifkin, the anti-science alarmist, is far from alone as a creation of a lazy press. When reporters on assignment are under the deadline gun, they need sources and they need them quickly. Hacks like Rifkin are attractive to quote because they're easy--they're all too available and eager to talk for the record. After they've been quoted once, they take on a new life as "published sources." The second and third journalist can rely on the judgment of the first. Soon they all forget that the "source" is nothing but hot air.
Likewise, the more controversial the source subject, the more interesting the resulting story will be. A writer looking for a compelling story, one that will grab readers' attention, will be drawn to the source who can't or won't refrain from unreasonable views. Those views may have no relation to reality, but they make for a story people will read and remember.
Especially unfortunate is the use of "colorful" sources to "represent" certain groups. Yes, Al Sharpton is a media whore, but does he really command more air time and column space than say, Jesse Jackson? Who makes that decision? Jesse would surely talk to a reporter who called him. But even if he offers an inspirational slogan that rhymes nicely, he's just a little too sane. What he has to say has value, but not controversy value. The press overall seems genuinely sorry that race relations in America aren't more positive, but doesn't recognize its own role. What is America, black and white, reading, and watching on TV? Whose views are heard the most--and do those views promote harmony and progress, or violence and recrimination?
Another phenomenon of the false spokesperson is the "feminazi." The press didn't put words into Andrea Dworkin's or Catherine MacKinnon's mouths. But who printed them? Geez, isn't that bad enough? Wingnut chicks who think all sex is rape, yadda yadda, are far from representative of all feminists. But those views make more exciting copy than reasonable calls for equal treatment and better laws. Too bad that they also make weapons turned against all women's rights in the hands of reactionaries.
The press does not deliberately create these media monsters. If a journalist argues that he only describes the existing views of these weirdos, only records their words, his argument is correct. These extreme views do exist and the unstable people who espouse them are real. But they never had to become "sources." Every act of the straightest "reportage" is didactic. There is no avoiding it. There are an infinite number of real views that could be presented, myriad people who can speak their minds. The editorial choice of what to highlight is a serious one, often made too quickly and lightly. It all boils down to simple human laziness, but it unleashes monsters. It turns cranks into respectable sources, pests into gadflies. It unleashes the attack of the killer tomatoes.
