i just came back from lunch with hydro, an occasional participant in the comments of this site. hydro works for a local environmental group and he deals mostly with air pollution issues. hydro occasionally is interviewed by the media about those issues. he told me a story today that really illuminated how the press works.
today hydro was contacted a reporter from the local news station who wanted to interview him about the high gas prices. as they went over the pre-interview interview, it became pretty clear to hydro that the reporter wanted hydro, as a local representative of the environmental movement, to say that high gas prices were “good” because it would get people to consume less oil. instead, hydro said that gas prices were high, but consumers can do something about it by buying more fuel efficient vehicles. while the two statements are close, hydro’s did not include any normative statement but was rather prescriptive (i.e. he didn’t say whether the gas prices are good or bad, only what people could do about it)
the reporter didn’t like that. she pressed him to call high gas prices “good” but hydro wouldn’t do it. he stuck to his guns until the reporter told him to think about it and she would call him back later in the day.
once he was off the phone hydro and other members of his organization drafted a statement of their official position on the issue. the statement included no conclusive answer whether the current price at the pump was bad or good, but again, focused instead on what the public could do because gas prices were high.
hydro gave the reporter the statement and she informed him that they would not be interviewing any representative of his organization about the story. presumably she will try to find someone who gives the answers that fit better with the line they wanted in their report (i.e. that environmentalists want to make everyone pay more to fill their tank) instead of reporting what the environmentalists themselves have to say.
