The Tragically Biased Wall Street Journal
The Tragically Biased Wall Street Journal
Promoting Chemophobia and Anti-Industry Fear Campaigns
Every now and then an article is published that is so regrettably polarizing, so tilted to a “Good vs Evil” world and so biased as to be laughable in its silly pointlessness. But in all comedy, there is an underlying tragedy, in this case that such lamentable activist tirades help to shape an anti-industry, anti-innovation bias that is impoverishing society, promoting ignorance and a naïve “Us vs Them” worldview.
Such is the case for a recent article by Susan Pulliam, published in the Wall Street Journal. Pulliam claims to be an investigative reporter covering finance and Wall Street. If this is the best the WSJ can provide to cover this beat, then that news group is having serious trouble finding and keeping talent.
The very title of the article (The EPA Cop Who Became a Warrior for ‘Forever Chemicals’) shows how naïve Pulliam’s perspective of the situation is. She frames it as a “Good Cop vs Bad Industry” battle and rather than naming the chemical class, PFAS, Pulliam opts to promote the activist label, “Forever Chemicals” knowing full well that the term not only triggers fear and outrage but also promotes ignorance on the benefits this class of chemicals provide.
The article is essentially a smear piece on Michael Dourson, the former Environmental Protection Agency director, who left government to set up a non-profit to speak and advise others on setting up risk assessments. Pulliam chose to frame 72-year-old Dourson as a converted industry shill who has profited from the revolving door, peddling his influence to the chemical industry. A “good cop gone rogue”, going for the big payouts without any care for public health or environmental safety. Not only is this insulting, playing loose with the facts and inherently biased, it also reveals the naïve worldview and scientific illiteracy from which Susan Pulliam chooses to practice her craft.
Pulliam quotes Dourson in a manner that is meant to highlight some pro-industry bias towards chemicals that the rest of the (caring) world knows are dangerous, terrible and used with evil intent by a greed-driven industry with no concern for public health or safety.
Dourson is a toxicologist speaking on the toxicity of DDT and glyphosate and he is correct – both of these substances have very low toxicity levels. Those are scientific facts, no matter how many organic food lobby funded campaigns try to amplify public fears and no matter how many tort law firms try to invoke the outrage of Monsanto to enrich themselves. Unless this Wall Street Journal investigative reporter can actually pull up some credible toxicity data from her collection of alternative facts that says otherwise, these activist fear campaigns do not belong in a serious article, let alone using these claims to insult a scientist who had spent his life respecting facts and scientific rigor.
It is interesting to note that, buried later in the article, the journalist admits that most studies acknowledge that DDT and glyphosate have very low toxicity levels, but then she adds that these facts are being challenged in the courts. I suppose this is where Pulliam gets her scientific evidence. The facts also show that PFAS exposure is very low, but the investigative journalist then claims, without references, that studies raise a wide variety of alarms about this class of chemicals. This is chemophobia in its most egregious form, in what used to be a respectable media source.
But Pulliam is not interested in the science. She quotes the usual anti-industry activists, like Tracey Woodruff, to moan about revolving doors from government into industry, or Joel Schwartz, to discredit industry research. The investigative journalist does her best to denigrate this ‘turncoat to the cause’: how he failed medical school, how he weekends at his 240 acre ranch that he farms organically (ie, refusing to practice what he preaches) and how he has published hundreds of papers (which Woodruff alludes to as a tobacco industry tactic to “distort public discourse”).
On one paper, the journalist cited several scientists who disagreed with Dourson’s opinion. I suspect Pulliam has never gone to a scientific conference to witness the acrimony firsthand and is clearly writing on a subject far out of her depth.
The Double Standard Hypocrisy of the Revolving Door Argument
Pulliam’s main contempt toward Dourson is how he left a government agency to profit from a high-paying salary in industry. This “revolving door” criticism is very common among anti-industry, post-capitalist campaigners – that governments and industry are corruptly working together to poison humanity. The article cites his former, and somewhat bitter, EPA colleagues with a collection of passive aggressive slurs.
But her litany of charges of corruption of a public figure is less than convincing. Dourson set up his own non-profit to advise on conducting risk assessments (so he did not sign on for some immediate industry payout). As both industries and governments need to conduct risk assessments, it was quite surprising that almost half of his income comes from governments, not from industry. And as for the advantages and insider networks that industry then enjoys when government officials cross over to the dark side, well, … Dourson left the EPA in 1995. That terrible revolving door has been spinning for 29 years. Is this the best this investigative reporter could come up with?
Even if Dourson would have left the EPA in 2023 and signed on at a big chemical company for millions, I have to question the point of such accusations. Should public servants not be allowed to benefit after years of service? Do they need to take a vow of poverty to go into government? And in government offices, shouldn’t there be strict policies in place for any dealings with former colleagues? Even if Pulliam’s arguments had not been so ridiculous, the revolving door argument is simply a silly nothing burger.
What activists like Tracey Woodruff fail to understand is that any undue influence is greater when the revolving door spins into government offices. Anti-industry campaigners cheer when activists leave their NGOs or foundations to take government posts (where they can continue their campaigns with more impact). They celebrated when former Greenpeace International head, Jennifer Morgan, became the chief German representative to the UNFCCC COP climate negotiations. When Ann Carlson, who was part of the activist group raising money for Sher Edling to pursue public nuisance lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, took the post of acting director at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, most activists felt this would give her more influence. People like Woodruff look at this activist revolving door as a positive evolution to push their agenda further. I look at it as pure hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is not Susan Pulliam’s biggest fault here. She is promoting a bias that what industry does is bad, any chemical that industry uses is highly toxic and that anyone who works with industry is an evil shill. The Wall Street Journal used to have standards and editors that would ensure that such bias and factual incoherence would never go to print. Not any more.
Another sad day for objective reporting and media responsibility.