Bisphenol A Rhetoric, Reporting, and Courting Etiquette
Her: Energetic, sparkly eyes, feisty, dedicated to good causes, tenacious, award-winning reporter, not afraid to color outside the lines, plastic interest for the past two years...Him: erudite with a charming accent, young at heart, versatile reporter, enjoys evening sunsets, long walks on the beach, gourmet food, lingering over cappuccino in the morning, handwritten notes...recent plastic interest. Both dedicated to a cause and a mutual interest -- plastic -- bisphenol A (BPA) to be precise. Could Acronym Required be matchmaker? Will amiable dialogue ensue between the two? Or are they doomed by circumstance to animosity?
I got home one day and was kicking back after work, reading mail, when I saw one a message from sender: xxxxxx@journalsentinel.com. It read in total:
"what do you guys know about trevor butterworth?"
a puzzle. a short puzzle.
A message that posed as direct, but was actually vague. Did they want Acronym Required to share some unpublished motherlode of information? Is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's research department strapped for time? Did the newspaper disable all the shift-keys in the computers to conserve resources, forcing people to write in all lower case?
We've been incidentally covering Butterworth's employer Statistical Assessment Service and Center (Stats.org's)** campaigns since 2000-2001. We couldn't have been writing about BPA industry astroturfing here at AR since 2005 without reading their stuff. We also read Butterworth's non-chemical industry journalism all the time -- he's good writer, prolific. But he's not a exactly a mystery, nor are industry tactics concerning BPA and other chemicals, there's A LOT written on these subjects. So why their question?1
Reaction and Rhetoric
Later that week, perplexing missive forgotten, I was enjoying a sunset, sipping a glass of Carnivale of Love Shiraz, when, perusing my newsfeed, I noticed that I'm not the only recipient of the Journal Sentinel's messages. In response to Stats.org's big report about bisphenol A toxicity being a media conceit, MJS sent Trevor Butterworth at Stats.org a whole series of pointed questions.
Acchhhh...I was hoping for a BPA summer vacation. You can read Stats.org 27,000 word defense of BPA, which we assume they got paid for -- perhaps by the word, or you can read this post, which is about 2,700 words and mentions their large document. (We're not paid per word.)
Here's the journalists' question #1 to Stats and Butterworth:
1. "According to IRS 990 forms, Stats.org received $100,000 in donations in 2007. That same year, the Sarah Scaife Foundation donated $100,000 to Stats.org. Is Stats.org's funding solely from the Sarah Scaife Foundation?"
We know what the paper wants. Like many before them, they think someone paid Butterworth/Stats.org to write the 27,000 word bisphenol A (BPA) article that criticized reporters in general, and Journal Sentinel's journalism in particular, since the Journal Sentinel did the award-winning BPA series.
In their first question, the JS reporters chose to focus on Stats.org funding rather than refute the article's BPA content (the chemical is safe, journalism is biased, etc). They're questioning financial information that probably comes from Stats.org or CMPA's 2007 IRS 990 disclosures, probably the latest year they had access to. Like their note to Acronym Required, the Journal Sentinel's questions were stunningly direct and a little unclear. The reporters' first question is in 3 parts. They ask about Stats.org's 2007 funding in parts 1 and 2, then skip to the present tense in part 3. This type of questioning works well for Stats.org, because they use such gaps to their rhetorical advantage, and rhetoric, not science, is their game.
Stats answered part 3 first: "Stats is not solely funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation". Then, probably to show how "transparent" they are, Stats shared some 2008 funding sources that the newspaper didn't ask about: ...$100,000 from the Stuart Family Foundation, $40,000 from Mr. Paul Mongerson, and $70,000 from the Endocrine Society's Hormone Foundation." Is that all of Stats 2008 sources? Who knows? But Stats.org got to write "Endocrine Society" while handily omitting any mention of 2009 funding, which I assume the paper is most interested in since they focus on it later.
In question 3 the Journal Sentinel asks:
3. "Did you receive funding from any other source while working on this story? In other words, were you contracted to do this? Or did the Scaife funds provide the monetary support you needed to complete your report?"
Here the ambiguity is in the "you". Acronym Required assumes MJS's "you" is the same "you" as in question 1 -- the 'you guys' of Stats and/or Butterworth -- whoever is producing the report saying BPA is safe. But the MJS reporters leave it ambiguous enough for Trevor Butterworth to respond with his own interpretation: "I received no funding from any other source other than Stats." The implied question from the Journal Sentinel was: Who paid Stats.org/Butterworth for the report? Butterworth answers with "I", as in I'm just a contract employee for Stats.org therefore don't really know anything about anything. Slick answer.
State of Play
Butterworth answers all the Journal's questions the same way, wordily, repeatably, with careful rhetorical choices, obfuscation, and utter cordiality.
Is there something to be learned here? Sure. Perhaps that one can storm at organizations like Stats with punches and kicks flying, as many people have, again and again. But verbal aikido is the game, Stats.org's raison d'etre, and the direct assault method has routinely landed others in a heap on the floor.
Mr. Butterworth says he wants to "promote dialogue". Does he mean he wants to continue to pretend there's no science showing BPA toxicity? I don't know. But to note, it's a little strange to say you're just out to "promote dialogue", after you've accused a good portion of the news media (Discover, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, USA Today, etc.), journalists in general, and the public who reads the news -- of sloppy, uninformed, biased thinking.
But Stats.org insists it's all in the name of non-partisan, neutral analysis. To prove it, they point out that they've written for "progressive outlets such as the Huffington Post, Salon, and Mother Jones."
Butterworth didn't mention it, but Wonkette, a blog that's not exactly a mule for the chemical industry, met Butterworth and called him charming. So should future would-be hostile reporters at outlets like the Milwaukee JS cozy up to their quarry a little before firing off such blunt questions? Would a friendlier approach help the public relations involved with getting toxic chemicals out of our babies mouths? (So to speak?) This is what the current administration advocates, more or less.
I'm not criticizing the Journal Sentinel's methods, per se -- it's not like they're wide-eyed naifs writing a blog. That said, Trevor Butterworth's not the huge enemy they'd like to make him...some major BPA kingpin. Yes, he criticized the paper's reports and misrepresents BPA science -- but he's doing a job. His wordy response comes after the danger of BPA and the significant lobbying efforts to obscure that danger for over 20 years have been widely revealed. So Butterworth's basically keeping himself off the troublesome unemployment reports at the behest of someone as a last ditch effort to persuade someone that BPA isn't a problem after consumers aware of the problem? I'm not sure he needs to be "revealed."
Acronym Required previously wrote about Stats in "Yotta-Yotta-Yottabytes: Content Makes Kings, Print Dies", and various other posts on BPA, like here and here. Stats, as we've described before, and as reported here by Sourcewatch, claims to be a "non-partisan" think tank, but they are funded by conservative sources and consistently produce reports that fly in the face of science.
So, of course partly tongue in cheek -- why not try to promote dialogue? Journalists say you're supposed to empathize with your subjects -- (Or is that just long-form journalism?) Anyway, we can gain empathy by scanning Trevor Butterworth's site. You can tell he's a nice guy. Look, at pictures. Really, you think I'm getting paid for this? GO LOOK. Read his stuff while your there. First picture (July 13) -- a sunset over an East Coast port. See, he likes sunsets. Bunny rabbits too, I'm sure. How can you not have empathy for someone who likes sunsets and bunny rabbits? Another picture -- an intimate table, a fancy coffee beverage. There's a book and some notes -- written in long hand! It's like the setting for a romantic, General Foods International Coffee commercial. Awwhhhh....
Third picture -- he stands on a beautiful beach, smiling at the camera. Now I'm actually not sure if he likes long walks on beaches or not, because although he is on the beach, the footprints seem to go around in circles. Potentially useful information though isn't it? Note the glasses tucked into the front of his shirt and the hoodie -- says sophisticated, young at heart. Do you think he likes being addressed in letters from the Milwaukee JS that paint him as a petty thief?
This may be an economic match made in heaven too. If the Journal reporters had gotten the Pulitzer, it would be worth $10,000/2 -- 5K. But Butterworth advertises that he has access to a giant sandy beach, with that view, the terrace, the ambiance, a boat maybe? Everyone needs to earn a living.
Butterworth and Stats.org thrive in a specific political, legal and historical milieu, seemingly untouchable with ordinary reporterly methods of inquiry, but operating in a free market. So friendly dialogue can now ensue....He says his site that his email is butterworthy@...
A Gentleman or a Scoundrel?
The tone of the Journal Sentinel's questions -- reproachful, chiding, incriminating - is outwardly unfriendly -- though perhaps not unexpected, given Stats.org's assault. But moreover -- did it work? If the journalists got what they wanted from their pointed questions, Stats.org is so far the only one talking about it. The paper hasn't said a word, while Stats.org posted the whole exchange on their site. Butterworth wrote a pleasant introductory explanation to readers:
"Given the extent of Stats criticism of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "Chemical Fallout" series on the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), and that the authors of the series have now contacted Stats to inquire about our motivation and funding for taking on this issue, we have decided that transparency and dialogue are best served by posting our responses to the paper's inquiries. Below is the full text of the responses sent to both reporters."
Not defensive mind you, just explaining their noble mission. Of course readers are left contemplating more than a few ironies, not only Butterworth's proposed quest for "dialogue", but also the illusion that "full text" of the responses means "full truth", or "honest answers".
In the 27,000-word article that Stats.org contracted to Butterworth, industry research takes a prominent place. Acronym Required has previously talked about BPA research and the stark differences between the results of industry research (BPA is safe) versus all the other research which shows risks. The writer criticizes journalists "who instinctively see a conflict of interest in industry-funded anything -- and who become even more suspicious when an industry funded study confirms that something is safe..." Butterworth says that it's easy for "journalism to fall into a formulaic response to a scientific controversy: independent research good; industry-funded research bad".
Acronym Required previously cautioned on reflexively vilifying industry research, but in this case, industry research in BPA has methodology problems that make its results very questionable.
Furthermore, if people have suspicions about industry vis a vis BPA, they are warranted. Acronym Required and others have long documented that chemical, plastics, and toy industries have for years funded misleading consumer advertising on bisphenol A, something that states are now also investigating. But Butterworth tells readers that, the "independent vs industry theme", is the "kind of rhetoric" that "has a distinct appeal for journalists".
Of course despite our opening in this post, we truly can see how such Butterworth rhetoric might reduce hardened Stats.org critics to blurting out non-sequiturs in all lower case.
When Size Doesn't Matter and other Truths
In addition to questions and answers, perhaps some results could gleaned from simple research into Stats.org's ample body of pre-existing work. The Journal Sentinel focused its uber-direct approach on Stats.org's funding, as many others do, but there are plenty of questions waiting to be asked of the decade-old canon.
For instance, look more closely at the statistics and science as presented by Stats.org. Just as they interpret questions for a predetermined rhetorical end, they redefine statistics methodology, and science methodology to suit their ends. In this case they insist that BPA data -- decades of it -- is flawed, and those who see safety concerns are misguided.
For example, Stats.org perverts the meaning of "statistics", using it to describe things like their own recent survey of selected toxicologists, which "found that only nine percent of toxicologists rated BPA as a high risk to health, compared to 26 percent who rated sunlight as a high risk and 29 percent who saw a high health risk in aflatoxin..." This reminds us of Trident Gum's "four out of five dentists" survey 30 years ago -- now familiar fodder for children's lessons.
For one more example, Butterworth asserts that only large size studies which can be funded by industry are valid. Not true. This idea was overturned by the National Toxicology Program in their 2008 report.
These are just two examples. Some of Stats.org's other parries could be easily averted, should the BPA "controversy" turn out not be in its final death throes -- quite likely. For instance Stats.org questions the credentials of frequently quoted Frederick Vom Saal, and in turn, the Journal Sentinel attacks the scientists Stats.org chooses to quote as possibly on someone's payroll. However reporters in the future could reach out to scientists beyond Vom Saal, to primary researchers on hundreds of studies that Stats.org criticizes or dismisses.
The "Rhetorical Advantage"
In indicting BPA journalism by the JS, Butterworth writes, "journalism is all about choosing what to report and who to talk to, and selective sourcing can make the innocent seem guilty and the guilty innocent." And that's something he does know about!
When Butterworth responds to the Journal Sentinel's flinty question about how long he has been interested in BPA, and "why" -- he sounds so innocent that angel halos practically hover over the sentences as he thoughtfully traces his survey back to 2006 of "peer-reviewed", "award-winning" reports, and "toxicologists surveyed" who rate BPA safer than some other things.
And we don't doubt Butterworth's account. But he also has spoken about his long-standing interest in how chemical companies defend their markets, a circumstance that adds texture and interest to his story. He told the publication Chemical Week in 2006 that 'the chemical industry has not been effective in promoting its side of the story', when it comes to "alleged health threats" and "educating the public", because "'the rhetorical advantage is always with the groups claiming to work in defense of the public'". As Chemical Week quoted Butterworth:
'"Companies need to develop a public information policy that is proactive in educating the public and tackling the claims of activist groups in real time. Most of the companies are like a deer in the headlights, and traditional PR is useless in dealing with these problems."'
So then we can't help but wonder for whom he speaks when Butterworth asserts now that the public holds an irrational mistrust of chemical company research, which he paints as ignorant superstition. Is he really speaking the name of science and statistics as he claims? Or are his recent reports simply a 'non-traditional PR' on behalf of chemical companies who are otherwise "deer in the headlights" faced with inconvenient science piling up in disturbing ways on BPA?
If people want to ingest plastic I've no qualms with that, free world and all that. If scientists consider the risks irrelevant, well than that's fine, plastic is handy. But if lobby groups are using rhetoric to keep safer products out of the competition, not only is that not good for our health, it's not good for business.
But by all means keep up the friendly dialogue. When Butterworth retires from this calling there are hundreds of others like him eager to take his place at the table overlooking a view of the sea for some non-traditional PR.
--------------
**There's actually a company called STATS which is a sports reporting company at stats.com. To avoid confusion, we'll therefore refer to the organization Butterworth contracts for as Stats.org.
1 A central theme at Acronym Required is to explore problems in science or policy or medicine that are not necessarily best solved by that forceful economic driver, efficiency. We also don't believe that investigative journalism is well served by cutting corners. Given those conditions, we could have easily ignored the question. (As well, we appreciate journalistic etiquette, and think that if simple etiquette is really that challenging one could easily get help -- Microsoft Word's letter template, for starters, has greeting examples.)
In our experience, people on and off-line; in corporate, government and non-profit sectors; students, retirees, and professionals alike -- respond to gentler information gathering. See see paragraph 6.
