Wednesday, December 08, 2021

Where Truths Meet

[NOTE: This is an update of an essay I first published a year ago on December 10, 2020.]

"You're right from your side / I'm right from mine," Bob Dylan wrote in one of his more obscure songs. Similar sentiments from other artists capture the convoluted nature of mutual truth that we all seek in one way or another.

And this raises a particular dilemma for journalists as we attempt to cover corporate and civic affairs for the public. Thus our methodology. I should elaborate.

I remember an incident from our "Circle of Poison" investigation in the 1970s and 1980s. I was focused on the moral aspect of U.S. companies shipping banned pesticides to Third World countries, which exposed farmworkers and their families to health risks, and led to more pollution of the environment, which of course knows no borders.

At an international gathering of people concerned with this issue in Mexico, including many who worked at chemical companies, a representative of Dow Chemical approached me and said, "I understand your concern but what's wrong with helping a hungry world eat?"

His point was that even if the pesticides were considered too dangerous for us here in the U.S., food scarcity was such in poorer countries that such compromises made sense. After all, at least in the short term, pesticides boost food productivity.

His comment got me thinking and we started investigating what crops the hazardous pesticides were being applied to. That research led to a breakthrough in our analysis, as almost all of the crops sprayed in Third World countries did not go to local people but were "export crops" destined to end up right back here in the U.S. with you and me.

This completed the "circle" in our analysis and guaranteed the book would cause more waves than it would have had we solely focused on the impacts overseas.

Thus did an industry representative help us complete a major piece of our investigation. My guess is that he didn't know himself what the pesticides were sued for; he just assumed they were part of an effort to boost local food production.

This example is why we always counsel students and young journalists to probe all sides of the issues they investigate. Environmentalists and worker safety activists may have one perspective; manufacturers and farmers may have another; regulatory agencies may reflect yet another point of view.

In the interest of achieving the highest quotient of truth possible, journalists have to consider whether everybody might be right at the same time. In my example, the guy from Dow was right -- there’s nothing wrong with helping hungry people get food. The environmentalists are right -- pesticides harm the environment. And the regulators that push for more sustainable methods of agricultural production are right about what's best for the long term.

Maybe that is one of the keys to good journalism, or an honest inquiry of any type. Maybe we should always be searching for the ways everybody can be right in one way or another. Maybe then we will get to the Venn diagram of the matter.

Of course, inevitably, this approach has its limits. We have to make choices. Some things we do because they are the right thing to do. 

Morality has to trump the profit motive when it comes to sustaining life on earth.

WEDNESDAY’S HEADLINES:

WEDNESDAY’s LYRICS:

It's a restless hungry feeling
That don't mean no one no good
When ev'rything I'm a-sayin'
You can say it just as good
You're right from your side
I'm right from mine
We're both just one too many mornings
An' a thousand miles behind

-- Bob Dylan (One Too Many Mornings)

No comments: