and

a joint collaboration with

STUDY GUIDE FOR HIGH SCHOOLS

BY THE POYNTER INSTITUTE

The documentary flm Merchants of Doubt, produced by Participant Media and directed by Robert Kenner, examines the role of pundits, scientists, government, and media in shaping public policies and perceptions regarding climate change and other issues.

The Poynter Institute is a school dedicated to journalism and democracy. A healthy and free society requires an informed electorate. The purpose of this guide is to help citizens develop critical thinking skills that will allow them to sort through confusing messages and distinguish between truth, propaganda, and misinformation. Each section examines statements made in the flm and asks questions intended to trigger thoughtful discussions and debates. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE

Dear teachers and facilitators,

We developed this guide, in conjunction with the documentary Merchants of Doubt, to help you convene a conversation in a classroom or with a community group. While it is useful to have seen the movie, which was released in March of 2015, it is not necessary. There is enough context here to start a rich discussion even if no one has seen the flm.

This guide is designed to be fexible. You can go through the eight discus- sion points in order, or skip to the topics you fnd most compelling. It could be the foundation of a day-long workshop featuring panels of local experts, or you might use it over several classroom sessions. You could lead a large group through each discussion. Or divide people into small groups and ask them to tackle one section.

When you click on a screen grab from the movie, your computer’s browser will take you to a website with a related clip. Be sure to turn your sound on. You can also go directly to www.takepart.com/doubt/curriculum and see the clips there.

We don’t expect that everyone will agree during the discussions. Instead, we want participants to tap into their own experiences in order to develop news literacy skills, which are critical to consuming information in today’s crowded media environment and engaging in democracy.

Sincerely, The Poynter Institute STUDY GUIDE

DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DISCUSSION 1 1. In the 1950’s, the public relations frm WHAT’S UP YOUR SLEEVE? Hill and Knowlton created a document PART 1: THE PLAYBOOK that spelled out tactics designed to inten- tionally mislead the public and delay regulations and litigations that would Deceptive Tactics for Discrediting Science negatively impact the tobacco industry. Merchants of Doubt traces the history of the use of 2. The document, or playbook, advocated unethical tactics by pundits-for-hire, and reveals the the use of stall tactics, false statistics, impact they continue to have on vital issues of health fake science, misinformation, and and safety that are shaping the future. The story manipulative marketing to help tobacco divulges the stark reality that many of those talking companies and their allies veil the health about health and science in our media actually have hazards of smoking cigarettes. little to no interest in health or science. Instead, their goal is to blur the facts and bring public action to a grinding halt.

In the 1950s and 60s cigarette smoking was everywhere. Look at an old episode of I Love Lucy, sponsored by Philip Morris, and you see Lucy, Ricky and their friends lighting up almost anywhere. The contemporary series Mad Men, set in that time, shows doctors smoking in their offces as they examine patients and pregnant women smoking with abandon. It took more than 50 years to change those habits, a process that still continues. The flmmakers use the story of the tobacco industry’s history as a cautionary tale. It was there, according to historian and scholar Stanton Glantz, that the “playbook” for corporate doubting was born.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 3 STUDY GUIDE

WHAT’S UP YOUR SLEEVE? DISCUSS THE ANSWER THE PART 2: THE ILLUSIONIST FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

Magic as a Metaphor for Deception 1. A handful of scientists, none of whom are experts on climate, have obscured The dominant metaphor in the documentary is magic the truth on issues from tobacco smoke and illusion. The magician, Jamy Ian Swiss, emerges as to global warming. the moral narrator of the piece. He is not a scientist, journalist, or policy maker. He is, by defnition, an enter- 2. Think of and discuss a time when you tainer, who claims that once you see how an illusion felt “fooled” by a message from an ad, works, you will notice it every time. In essence, you will the news, or a politician. become “critically literate” when it comes to viewing MY EXPERTISE IS IN DECEPTION the work of magicians.

The metaphor of magic and illusion does not dominate 1. Evaluate the use of the illusionist the book upon which the documentary is made. The analogy in describing the political and book is illustrated with more science and flled with corporate deniers of global warming. footnotes. It is the job of the documentary flmmaker to Is it a fair comparison? create a work that is informative and visually arresting. 2. Does it make sense in terms of The writers of the documentary compare the illusionist the science? to the corporate and political forces who argue against the reality and science of global warming. 3. Are there places where the illusionist analogy falls apart?

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 4 STUDY GUIDE

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DISCUSSION 2 1. Do investigative journalists have a duty A CANDLE IN THE CRIB to debunk unscrupulous claims in the public interest?

During a time when cigarettes were being blamed for 2. What does the chemical industry say deadly fres, the tobacco industry used the fammability about fame retardants? What did the of furniture as a scapegoat. Flame retardant chemicals journalists fnd? were touted as a way to protect consumers and rapidly 3. What did the journalists uncover about became a standard component of household products. the founders of the group Citizens for THE TRUTH ABOUT The Chicago Tribune’s 2012 investigation into the Fire Safety? How did this group want to FLAME RETARDANTS fame retardant industry revealed that the companies be perceived by the public? that make these chemicals engaged in a sophisticated 4. In the video, there is a short clip of campaign to deceive the public, including lawmakers, Dr. David Heimbach testifying before about their safety and effectiveness. Journalists Patricia the California Senate about the safety Callahan, Sam Roe and Michael Hawthorne from The of fame retardants on behalf of the Tribune reported that the chemicals leach into our envi- Citizens for Fire Safety. Do you think ronment and our bodies, and on top of that, they don’t lawmakers knew who was behind Citi- even deter fres. zens for Fire Safety? Should they know? Watch this 5-minute video for a quick overview of the 5. Based on the actions and reporting investigation. Or read the entire six-part investigative strategies of Patricia Callahan, Sam Roe report, review source documents and watch additional and Michael Hawthorne what can you videos here. say about the importance of responsible Journalism is a discipline of verifcation. Reporters fnd investigative journalism in the public things out and check things out. Against that standard, interest? discuss the work of reporters Sam Roe and Patricia Callahan from The Chicago Tribune as they covered the issue of fame retardant furniture.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 5 STUDY GUIDE

DISCUSS THE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DISCUSSION 3 FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE 1. There is a very strong consensus among 1. How does the story of Dr. Stockmann climate scientists that global warm- compare and contrast with stories of Merchants of Doubt is certainly not the frst narrative ing exists and that it is accelerated by climate scientists Benjamin Santer, that involves the communication of what a previ- human activities. When responsible Michael Man, and Katharine Hayhoe ous Participant Media documentary described as “an scientists speak out, they not only have who receive threatening emails? inconvenient truth.” The idea of “killing the messenger” their work attacked, some are harassed 2. Why do you think many people tend bearing bad news goes back to ancient times. and receive death threats. to reject scientifc truths predicting In 1882 the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote 2. Scientists have clearly demonstrated future harm when such truths threaten a play titled An Enemy of the People. The protagonist that global warming, if it continues the status quo or call into question the is a man named Dr. Stockmann whose research leads unchecked, will do irreparable harm sustainability of certain economic and him to discover the waters of the town’s healing hot to the planet, to the survival of certain cultural habits and values? springs have been contaminated by a nearby tannery. species, and to human civilization. 3. Think of and discuss a time when People go to the springs for the healing waters not real- someone in authority – a teacher, a izing the water is poisoned. The doctor expects that parent – told you something impor- the news he delivers will turn him into the savior of his tant that you just didn’t want to city. Instead, the forces in the city, from the government believe. How did you react? to the newspaper to business interests turn Stockmann into “an enemy of the people.” Without the tannery, the economy of the town will be destroyed.

In this work of fction, the doctor perseveres against efforts to silence, ostracize, and punish him. But in the Merchants of Doubt, threats and slanderous allega- tions against responsible scientists cause real harm. In spite of an overwhelming consensus among their peers about the nature of climate change, scientists are called communists and threats to American democracy. Concerted efforts are made to undercut their work, to marginalize them, even to subject them and their fami- lies to harm.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 6 STUDY GUIDE

DISCUSS THE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DISCUSSION 4 FOLLOWING QUESTIONS 1. Based upon the science, as you under- SCIENCE ILLITERACY AND THE PUBLIC 1. It is up to educators, scientists, and stand it, which of these claims seems skilled journalists to create a picture least credible? of the world, to paraphrase Walter A 1988 documentary titled A Private Universe, reveals Lippman, upon which people can act. common misconceptions about the world and universe • Global warming is real, caused we inhabit – even among the well-educated. It turns 2. When critics or ideologues claim by the burning of fossil fuels, and out, according to the flm, that Ivy League grads were that evolution or global warm- potentially catastrophic. clueless when it came to answering basic astronomy ing is “just a theory,” they are using • The climate is warming, but it is a questions: Why are there phases of the moon? Why do the word “theory” in a common, natural process and not a result of we have seasons? What creates an eclipse of the sun? rather than a scientifc way. human activities. The makers of the documentary (Schneps and Sadler) 3. Scientists follow a disciplined show examples of effective high school science educa- • The climate is warming, and the method that helps reveal truths tion as pathways for learning about science. “greening” effect will be benefcial about the natural world — includ- for life on Earth. Do you know the answers to basic science questions ing the state of the environment. such as: What is the difference between a hypoth- • The climate is cooling. esis and a theory? What is an example of a paradigm 4. The scientifc method includes: shift, and what does it reveal about our understand- 2. How could scientifc literacy make the • forming hypotheses (educated ing of nature and the universe? What is the difference public less vulnerable to false claims, guesses about how things work) between weather and climate? Who was Heisenberg? misinformation, and political propaganda? • testing hypotheses in clinics or labs If you couldn’t answer these questions off the top of your head, you’re not alone. For many Americans, the • turning hypotheses, once tested, into best shot at a quick answer would be to the last one, theories to which you might get: “Walter White, the high school chemistry teacher turned drug lord in the television • publishing results in scientifc jour- series ‘Breaking Bad.’” nals, so that other scientists can test them

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 7 STUDY GUIDE

CONSIDER THESE TIPS WHEN DISCUSS THE VETTING SOURCES FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DISCUSSION 5

SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1. Does the source have the credentials to 1. It took a half-century to regulate cigarette speak as an expert in a particular feld? smoking and reveal its true dangers, but Many so-called experts came forward to argue against global warming is a more urgent prob- 2. Is the source transparent, that is, does the warnings of scientists and doctors about the dangers lem. Climate change is not reversible, its he or she explain any potential bias? of smoking. The public, hearing what appeared to be effects are global. authoritative voices of doubt, were often caught in 3. What “tribe,” if any, does the source 2. Scientists need to do a much better confusion. belong to? job at communicating with the public People who view information through the lens of 4. Does the source have “a dog in the and developing a rhetorical stance that “critical literacy” learn quickly that you cannot judge fght,” or are they (pick your word) matches the credibility of their scientifc the quality of information in any feld of endeavor neutral, objective, impartial, non-parti- fndings. without knowing the “source” of the information. san, disinterested (meaning that they 3. Citizens should develop a form of critical have no special interest). literacy that helps them “see through” 5. Does the source work for a company the false claims of propagandists and or organization that has some special ideologues. interest in the outcome?

6. Does the source have something to gain from a particular outcome?

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 8 STUDY GUIDE

TWO TRIBES OF SCIENTISTS DISCUSS THE AND THEIR CORE BELIEFS FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DISCUSSION 6 TRIBAL AFFILIATIONS Climate change scientists: This group 1. We are members of “tribes,” unwill- believes that Earth’s climate is getting ing to accept any truths, even scientifc warmer and that such warming will do truths, that oppose our values, habits, According to the flmmakers, what we know depends irreversible damage to the planet, to many and ways of seeing the world. in large measure on what “tribe” we belong to. If you species, to human kind, and to human don’t like the word “tribe,” you can substitute: group, culture. Moreover, a major cause of this 2. An objective observer may look at family, club, team, or school of thought. warming involves human activity, especially evidence one way, but partisans inter- pret evidence in a way that supports It’s easy to fnd examples of tribes with opposing a dependence upon fossil fuels, such as oil their existing world view. views: New York Yankee fans see things differently from and gas. This group advocates policies that Boston Red Sox fans and teenagers see things differ- include such measures as developing alter- native forms of energy and discouraging ently from their parents. ANSWER THE the use of fossil fuels through taxation. The flmmakers focus on two tribes of scientists. One FOLLOWING QUESTIONS involves a large group of reputable climate scientists. Free-market fundamentalists: This group The other involves a much smaller group, most of whom offers a variety of beliefs that stand in 1. What clubs or tribes do you belong to do not conduct their own climate research and are in opposition to those of the climate change that might infuence the way that you alliance with corporations, special interest groups and scientists. These beliefs include: view scientifc evidence? Make a list. political fgures. (A list might include: female, Asian, • The world’s climate is not warming. Buddhist, father, business owner, • It may be warming, but only as the result tennis player, smoker.) of a natural cycle that is not infuenced by 2. Looking at the two tribes described in human activities. this section, which one do you most • The warming may have some benefts. identify with?

• Regardless of what may be causing the 3. Which one is most persuasive to warming, dealing with it would result in you in terms of the evidence on economic catastrophe, over-regulation global warming? TRIBAL AFFILIATION by governments, and the loss of impor- tant liberties.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 9 STUDY GUIDE

EXAMPLES

DISCUSSION 7 1. The overwhelming majority of biologi- 2. In 2014 an Ebola outbreak in West Africa JOURNALISTS AND THE PROBLEM cal scientists subscribe to some version resulted in some American doctors and OF FALSE BALANCE of Charles Darwin’s theories of natural nurses becoming infected. Many people selection to explain the creation of life turned to the media to answer questions and the evolution of the human species. such as: How contagious is the virus? Although some trained scientists become journal- Doubters of evolution include many, but How do people get it? How should Ebola ists, most journalists have little knowledge of science. not all, religious believers, especially patients be treated? How should those Traditionally, they are more likely to have been interested those who accept the Bible as literal truth. who treat Ebola patients be treated? in the arts and humanities than college math and science. When it comes to the development of Should governments impose travel But they still have a job to do in the public interest. public school curricula, these ideas often restrictions or quarantines? Which parts They have to sort through technical information – often clash. Should students be exposed in of the debate are scientifc? Which ones on deadline – and make it clear to a general audience. school to alternative, faith-based theories are related to policy? Which ones are They depend on experts to explain things to them. of creation? And how should that debate strictly political? How does a journalist On contentious issues, they want to be fair. But that be framed by journalists: as an argument sort out these complicated questions virtue – fairness – often leads to a vice: false balance. among equally valid claims (a “they said” and issues? If journalists are not trained We say there are “two sides to every story,” but this is vs. “they said” debate), or as one in well enough or cautious enough in their often not true. Sometimes there are three sides — or which scientifc truth is recognized and coverage, signifcant harm can be done. ten. But not all of those are equal. One of a journal- other claims ignored or marginalized? Journalists must often turn to scientists ist’s responsibilities is to sort through these competing as subject matter experts who can help claims and to pay special attention to those that are provide key analysis. But scientists may, most accurate. as a tribe, be over-cautious or inhibited about engaging in the public debate. Sometimes journalists treat discussions of scientifc Their focus, they say, should be on the fndings as they would treat political debates. In a scientifc claims, not communicating political debate between two parties, journalists them to the general public. are likely to present arguments from each side in an evenhanded way. That may not be a helpful method in distinguishing responsible science from propaganda and misinformation.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 10 STUDY GUIDE

DISCUSS THE DISCUSSION 7 FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

1. Corporate interests fund think tanks, 4. Corporate interests can buy the testi- 1. How would you critique both the roles of scientists who create disinformation and promote mony of supposed scientifc experts, and journalists as public communicators? How would “contradictory experts.” Under the such as the doctor who testifed on you compare and contrast their missions? guise of fairness, journalists fall for this the death of babies in crib fres. 2. What kind of training might journalists need to do a strategy, creating a “false balance” better job covering global warming and its effects? in coverage in which scientists are 5. The media has enabled elements of the political right, backed by a few opposed by industry shills. 3. What kind of coverage might journalists extend to scientists from the Cold War, to use the climate science deniers? 2. Journalists should no longer cover it as a platform to distort, distract global warming as a balance between and subvert the scientifc fndings of 4. To what extent should scientists receive training to two competing sides. Global warm- climate scientists. better communicate on issues of public concern? ing should be covered as a scientifc fact, deniers should be investigated, 5. To what extent should scientists collaborate with and their biases and partisan interests journalists to help people understand the truths revealed. upon which public policy will be based?

3. A fair-minded observer will see that 6. Make a list of the sources of news you fnd most reli- “data trumps politics,” and that the able. What makes them trustworthy? most credible sources are doubt- ers who become believers when confronted with evidence, such as the conservative Republican from South Carolina, Bob Inglis.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 11 STUDY GUIDE

EXAMPLE ANSWER THE DISCUSSION 8 FOLLOWING QUESTIONS Climate scientists also make dire predic- 1. Given human skepticism, an unwill- WHY THE POPULATION BOMB BOMBED tions about what will happen to the planet. ingness to change, and past failures Documentaries such as An Inconvenient of prediction, what might scientists, Truth and Merchants of Doubt show that Many Baby Boomers remember the 1968 blockbuster journalists, and responsible policy a warmer planet will result in the destruc- The Population Bomb in which butterfy biologist makers do to persuade people that tion of species, the continued melting of Paul Ehrlich turned ecologist and prophet of doom. global warming and its effects are real? He predicted that the burgeoning human population glaciers and the polar ice caps, more cata- could lead only to mass starvation, disaster, and strophic weather events, and rising seas, 2. As a critically literate citizen, how can I war. Many of his predictions did not come to pass. which will lead to the fooding of coastal evaluate and act upon current scientif- He did not foresee how technology would improve cities across the globe. These are some of ic knowledge – along with predictions agriculture, increasing the supply of food even in the terrible consequences, say scientists based upon that knowledge? What developing countries. and environmentalists, of a human-made is the difference between a rational problem, an over-reliance, especially prediction and one that is exaggerated During the Y2K scare, at the turn of the millennium, in advanced industrial societies, on to accelerate change? people predicted that glitches in computer technol- fossil fuels. ogy might cause global disasters. Religious groups, 3. Think of a time earlier in your life such as millenarians, have made predictions about Considering this history, it is easy to see when you were told something the end of the world as we know it. At times, some how – to quote the cover of the book important was going to happen, and groups have even predicted the date and the hour Merchants of Doubt – “a handful of scien- it didn’t. How did you feel? How did of cataclysmic changes. Then, time passes, nothing tists obscured the truth on issues from you react? happens, and former believers become skeptical. tobacco smoke to global warming.” Forms of propaganda can easily be harnessed on However sound the science of global warming, and an endless number of issues – a rhetoric of however strong the consensus around it, there is doubt – that takes advantage of people’s always a rhetorical problem related to the communi- disinclination to believe the worst about cation of knowledge: How do you persuade a society themselves and their environment. to accept a theory of dire consequences? How do you then put into action both political and personal changes that make things safer, healthier, better? A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 12