The Flack

 There was a time just a few years ago when an investigative segment on “60 Minutes” would spark such public outrage that heads would roll, hearings would be held and legislation enacted to eradicate the malfeasance uncovered by the pathbreaking TV news magazine.

Alas, those days are gone. Media fragmentation (coupled with the successful campaign to undermine the credibility of the so-called-liberal-media) have all but emasculated the once mighty torch-bearers for the Fourth Estate.

OK You argue no big deal: citizen journalists have picked up the mantle in defending the greater public interest by amplifying (and extending the life of) the issues of the day. You cite the demise of Trent Lott and Dan Rather as evidence of this. The blogosphere you say, as a whole, will serve this function. Yet, there are scant few bloggers, among an expanding sea of divergent voices, who today have the power to tip the needle of change compared to days gone by.

Last night, CBS “60 Minutes” visited James Hansen, the NASA scientist who is the nation’s leading expert on global warming. You may remember the recent smattering of coverage involving the resignation of a low-level NASA appointee who faked his credentials and tried to thrust his political leanings on Dr. Hansen.

NASA agreed to make Dr. Hansen available to CBS, but only in the presence of a NASA communications person — who looked very uncomfortable sitting there in the background on camera — and with NASA’s own cameras rolling on CBS rolling. (A journalistically acceptable PR practice nowadays.) The program’s request to interview someone from the administration was met with: “…we will never be available to ‘60 Minutes’” (or something like that).

Last night’s segment, “Rewriting the Science,” on which The Moderate Voice of Joe Gandelman blogged this morning, was one such segment that could have moved mountains in the old media environment. This segment on the U.S. government’s deliberate alteration of science to advance policy would have spilled onto the pages of mainstream news organizations prompting a consumer and legislative uprising.

It didn’t, but perhaps there’s hope. A number of influential blogs have pointed to this compelling piece of investigative broadcast journalism, which has prompted some political rumblings.

PR weblogs journalism public relations “60 Minutes” 

The New York Times today reports on the front page of its national section (not to be confused with its front page) an effort in Ohio to reverse some of the legal gains made by the Intelligent Design crowd.

The article was accompanied by a pro-science op-ed written in response to the much-publicized efforts of a youthful NASA PR guy who tried to force his non-intelligent ideologies on one of the more intelligent scientists working at the national space agency.

Separately, a Harvard-trained evolutionary biologist turned filmmaker recently screened his new documentary called “Flock of Dodos: The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus” that chronicles the foibles of the debate that’s taking place today — some four score after the Scopes Monkey Trial.

His conclusions: intelligent design is making greater strides because its supporters are “…energetic, likeable people who compensate for their shaky theory’s shortcomings through organization, personal appeal, and money.” They also are “…backed by media-savvy, well-financed organizations like the Discovery Institute that aren’t afraid to hire high-powered public relations firms to advance their cause.”

“Scientists, on the other hand, squander their factual edge through indifference and poor communication skills.” Ahhh. Where are the media trainers when we need them? Sure sounds like the Dems and Republicans.

PR public relations
politics intelligent design Flock of the Dodos