How would the New York Times report a claim by numerous independent scientists that an influential corporation had repeatedly committed research fraud? When the corporation is a liberal research and lobbying group that Ralph Nader co-founded, the answer is that the paper would ignore the report of fraud, frequently cite the group as an expert in research and ethics, and occasionally perform joint research projects with it.
The organization in question is the New York Public Interest Research Group(NYPIRG), one of a fleet of state-based PIRGs. Unsurprisingly in light of its origins, the group promotes liberal positions. It is also the Times‘ favorite source on a variety of issues, as evidenced by how the paper portrays the organization and by its degree of reliance on it. To illustrate: the Times has cited the group (or its mass transit lobbying arm, the Straphangers Campaign) with stunning frequency over the last decade, once every four or five days. the Times routinely reports on the group’s research studies and occasionally notes that it has helped the paper in researching issues (e.g., in this article and this editorial). Further, the lobbying group is the paper’s “go to” expert on ethics in New York State and City government.
A detailed look at the group’s history, however, would make the Times‘ faith in it impossible to justify. In 1997, 58 scientists at the City University of New York, after examining evidence that I discovered, signed a statement citing the group for committing research misconduct. A press release by two science departments at Brooklyn College identified fabricated conclusions and falsified data as the more serious violations found among five of the organization’s studies. The release also noted that the group had engaged in a dishonest cover-up. (See these articles for a more detailed description of the fraud, and for references to my publications about it: article-1, article-2.)
Although the integrity of NYPIRG research had been questioned before (in Road and Track in February 1988 and in an unpublished article that the College Board distributed to the press in the same year), the scientists’ statement is particularly noteworthy: an advocacy group has never before or since been cited for research misconduct, the ultimate breach of research ethics, much less in a statement released by dozens of academic scientists — a group with no political or ideological affiliation in common (and thus no obvious motive to falsely charge the lobbying group).
The editors of the prestigious international journal Science recognized the importance of the story and reported it in a prominent news article (summarized here), and the New York Post published both an article and an editorial on the subject (in April 1997). In contrast, the Times has never mentioned the scientists’ critique, even in cases when the agencies targeted by the lobbying group’s studies have questioned the validity or honesty of its findings (e.g., in these articles: article-3, article-4).
And there is no question that the Times‘ silence on this represents willful blindness. I tried to get reporters to examine the evidence for NYPIRG’s fraud when the scientists’ press release was issued in 1997, and I raised the issue again in e-mails to the paper’s ombudsman both in 2004 and six weeks ago. My efforts were to no avail.
It is impossible to believe that the Times would ignore a credible charge of past fraud if it were directed at an industry, government agency, or politician. Indeed, the stark contrast between NYPIRG’s reputation as an expert in research and ethics and the scientists’ view that the group falsified research and breached ethical standards should pique the interest of any disinterested journalist. The case for the paper’s bias in this instance could not be clearer. The reason that dozens of scientists charged the lobbying group with fraud is that the documentary evidence they examined proves the group committed fraud. That the Times chooses to ignore those same documents can only be the result of the paper’s willful blindness to the malfeasance of an ally and its reluctance to admit a mistake.
The Times often characterizes Fox News as a shill for its political allies. But the example I present here shows that the paper’s behavior is worse than what it alleges of others: the Times not only shills for a political ally, but in doing so it ignores its ally’s malfeasance. And then it has the gall to present the perpetrator of fraud as an authority on ethics. More importantly, the public is ill served when an influential newspaper routinely amplifies the views of a group that has a history of distorting public policy with dishonest research.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.