EXPOSÃ?â?°: In the program "Science Fiction," you discuss your observations about the role of politics and money within the press, particularly in Washington, D.C. As a journalist, how do you avoid getting wrapped up in the politics and remain true to your profession?
THACKER: I think that the way to try and avoid the politics is to focus first on the science. Listen to the experts actually doing the research and ask them what is true and false. Scientists as a group are very skeptical and usually quite conservative in their comments. They tend to get irritated if activists on either side skew the science.
After I've gotten a general sense of the science, then I start to look at what is coming out in the media and how people in the general public see a particular topic. When there's a disconnect, I then look to see why the message I'm getting from scientists is not the same.
Sometimes, this disconnect is created by a targeted campaign by corporations to undermine the science and protect their products.
EXPOSÃ?â?°: We see in the program the power of institutions to undermine science and create public confusion around research in hot button issues like tobacco and global warming. Is it possible for the public to get un-manipulated information?
I think the best remedy for this situation is investigative journalism. But that is costly and time consuming. I think the internet can also be a good remedy. There are a number of good internet sites that track corporate sponsored pundits, such as sourcewatch.org. But always try and check up on any source you use.
EXPOSÃ?â?°: EXPOSÃ?â?° pays tribute to your profession by presenting the reporter's point of view on stories that made a major impact on society. Do you recall the moment you realized that journalism was your calling? What other careers, if any, did you consider?
I can't say that I ever planned on being a journalist. I had always wanted to be a veterinarian. When I got to college, I wanted to be E.O. Wilson and do population biology. But my math skills are only average, at best. About two years out of college, I realized that I was not going to grad school so I decided to become a science reporter. So I just sort of fell into this profession. I guess it's not much different from being a professor at a small college, only I don't have to deal with students complaining about their grades.
EXPOSÃ?â?°: For you, what's the most important characteristic of a good investigative journalist?
I think you have to be skeptical. And it's an enormous amount of work. This is really difficult journalism. You spend hours and hours alone going through documents and running down dead ends. And nobody is there cheering you along. You just do it on your own.
You sometimes get a hunch that something is just not sitting right; it just smells wrong. But proving that takes so much effort. The payoff is that the stories have a long shelf life.
++++++++++++++
Paul Thacker covered science and policy for two years at Environmental Science & Technology, a leading peer-reviewed journal for environmental science. Prior to that, he spent five years as a freelance journalist and has written for a number of outlets including Science, JAMA, The New Republic, and Salon. For his ES&T articles exposing industry front groups and product defense strategies, Thacker won second place in the online journalism award given by the Society of Environmental Journalists. The article he wrote for Salon in September 2006 helped kick off a Congressional inquiry into alleged White House suppression of climate change science. (Update: In May 2007, Thacker joined Sen. Charles Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff as an investigator for the Finance Committee's investigative and oversight projects.)
