and

a joint collaboration with

STUDY GUIDE FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

BY THE POYNTER INSTITUTE

The documentary filmMerchants 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 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 film 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 film.

This guide is designed to be flexible. You can go through the nine discus- sion points in order, or skip to the topics you find 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 firm 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 offices 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 filmmakers 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. Taking a cue from the playbook, power- ful individuals and corporate interests The dominant metaphor in the documentary is magic create a “Twilight Zone” effect, that is, and illusion. The magician, Jamy Ian Swiss, emerges as an “alternate universe,” where nonscien- the moral narrator of the piece. He is not a scientist, tific reports “mirror” in appearance and journalist, or policy maker. He is, by definition, an enter- structure scientific ones. tainer, who claims that once you see how an illusion works, you will notice it every time. In essence, you will 2. A handful of scientists, none of whom become “critically literate” when it comes to viewing are experts on climate, have obscured MY EXPERTISE IS IN DECEPTION the work of magicians. the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. 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 3. Think of and discuss a time when you analogy in describing the political and book is illustrated with more science and filled with felt “fooled” by a message from an ad, corporate deniers of global warming. footnotes. It is the job of the documentary filmmaker to the news, or a politician. 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 fires, the tobacco industry used the flammability about flame retardants? What did the of furniture as a scapegoat. Flame retardant chemicals journalists find? 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 flame 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 flame 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 fires. 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 verification. Reporters find 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 flame retardant furniture.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 5 STUDY GUIDE

DISCUSS THE ANSWER THE DISCUSSION 3 FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FOLLOWING QUESTIONS Warning: This clip contains profanity. ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE 1. How does the story of Dr. Stockmann compare and contrast with stories of Merchants of Doubt is certainly not the first narrative climate scientists Benjamin Santer, that involves the communication of what a previ- Michael Man, and Katharine Hayhoe ous Participant Media documentary described as “an who receive threatening emails? inconvenient truth.” The idea of “killing the messenger” 2. Why do you think many people tend bearing bad news goes back to ancient times. to reject scientific truths predicting In 1882 the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote future harm when such truths threaten a play titled An Enemy of the People. The protagonist HATE MAIL the status quo or call into question the is a man named Dr. Stockmann whose research leads sustainability of certain economic and cultural habits and values? him to discover the waters of the town’s healing hot 1. There is a very strong consensus among springs have been contaminated by a nearby tannery. climate scientists that global warm- 3. Think of and discuss a time when People go to the springs for the healing waters not real- ing exists and that it is accelerated by someone in authority – a teacher, a izing the water is poisoned. The doctor expects that human activities. When responsible parent – told you something impor- the news he delivers will turn him into the savior of his scientists speak out, they not only have tant that you just didn’t want to city. Instead, the forces in the city, from the government their work attacked, some are harassed believe. How did you react? to the newspaper to business interests turn Stockmann and receive death threats. into “an enemy of the people.” Without the tannery, the economy of the town will be destroyed. 2. Scientists have clearly demonstrated that global warming, if it continues In this work of fiction, the doctor perseveres against unchecked, will do irreparable harm efforts to silence, ostracize, and punish him. But in the to the planet, to the survival of certain Merchants of Doubt , threats and slanderous allega- species, and to human civilization. tions against responsible scientists cause real harm. In spite of an overwhelming consensus among their 3. The environmental movement is like a peers about the nature of climate change, scientists are watermelon — green on the outside, called communists and threats to American democracy. red on the inside: climate scientists are Concerted efforts are made to undercut their work, to communists and socialists in disguise, marginalize them, even to subject them and their fami- abusing science to change policies and lies to harm. societies to their liking.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 6 STUDY GUIDE

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

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 7 STUDY GUIDE

READ THESE TIPS FOR USE THE TIPS TO VET EACH VETTING SOURCES DISCUSSION 5 OF THE FILM’S SOURCES SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1. Does the source have the credentials to • James Hansen, director of the speak as an expert in a particular field? Goddard Institute for Space Stud- ies, who testified before Congress in Many so-called experts came forward to argue against 2. Is the source transparent, that is, does 1988 about the scientific evidence the warnings of scientists and doctors about the dangers he or she explain any potential bias? of the greenhouse effect. of smoking. The public, hearing what appeared to be authoritative voices of doubt, were often caught in 3. What “tribe,” if any, does the source • Dr. Fred Singer, government scientist, confusion. belong to? anti-Communist, critic of EPA, doubter of various aspects of global warming. People who view information through the lens of 4. Does the source have “a dog in the “critical literacy” learn quickly that you cannot judge fight,” or are they (pick your word) • Marc Morano, author of op-ed pieces, the quality of information in any field of endeavor neutral, objective, impartial, non-parti- television commentator, self-described without knowing the “source” of the information. san, disinterested (meaning that they “environmental journalist,” attacker have no special interest). of scientists who promote idea of 5. Does the source work for a company or global warming. organization that has some special inter- • Benjamin Santer, climate change DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS est in the outcome? researcher at Program for Climate 6. Does the source have something to gain Model Diagnosis, Lawrence Livermore 1. It took a half-century to regulate cigarette smoking from a particular outcome? National Laboratory. and reveal its true dangers, but global warming is a • Bob Inglis, former member of U.S. more urgent problem. Climate change is not revers- Congress, Republican, South Carolina, ible, its effects are global. persuaded by the science and personal 2. Scientists need to do a much better job at commu- experience of global warming and nicating with the public and developing a rhetorical its effects. stance that matches the credibility of their scientific • , professor of history findings. and science studies. Coauthor of book 3. Citizens should develop a form of critical literacy Merchants of Doubt. that helps them “see through” the false claims of propagandists and ideologues.

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 scientific warmer and that such warming will do truths, that oppose our values, habits, In philosophy there is a big word: epistemology. In irreversible damage to the planet, to many and ways of seeing the world. plain English, it refers to the study of how people know species, to human kind, and to human things. According to the filmmakers, what we know culture. Moreover, a major cause of this 2. An objective observer may look at depends in large measure on what “tribe” we belong warming involves human activity, especially evidence one way, but partisans inter- to. If you don’t like the word “tribe,” you can substitute: a dependence upon fossil fuels, such as oil pret evidence in a way that supports group, family, club, team, or school of thought. and gas. This group advocates policies that their existing world view. It’s easy to find examples of tribes with opposing include such measures as developing alter- native forms of energy and discouraging views: New York Yankee fans see things differently from ANSWER THE the use of fossil fuels through taxation. Boston Red Sox fans and teenagers see things differ- FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ently from their parents. Free-market fundamentalists: This group The filmmakers focus on two tribes of scientists. One offers a variety of beliefs that stand in 1. What clubs or tribes do you belong to involves a large group of reputable climate scientists. opposition to those of the climate change that might influence the way that you The other involves a much smaller group, most of whom scientists. These beliefs include: view scientific evidence? Make a list. do not conduct their own climate research and are in (A list might include: female, Asian, • The world’s climate is not warming. alliance with corporations, special interest groups and Buddhist, father, business owner, political figures. • It may be warming, but only as the result tennis player, smoker.) of a natural cycle that is not influenced by 2. Looking at the two tribes described in human activities. this section, which one do you most • The warming may have some benefits. 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? by governments, and the loss of impor- tant liberties. TRIBAL AFFILIATION

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 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 scientific? 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 journallists 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 scientific truth is recognized and coverage, significant 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 scientific Their focus, they say, should be on the findings as they would treat political debates. In a scientific 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 scientific experts, and journalists as public communicators? How would “contradictory experts.” Under the such as the doctor who testified on you compare and contrast their missions? guise of fairness, journalists fall for this the death of babies in crib fires. 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 , 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 scientific findings 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 scientific 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 find 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 butterfly 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? 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 flooding 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 Merchants of Doubt groups have even predicted the date and the hour – “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 Poynter Institute joint collaboration 12 STUDY GUIDE

DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DISCUSSION 9 1. Global warming deniers: 3. There are steps humans can take – TECHNO-REALISM AND based upon treaties among nations • are primarily concerned about the THE PRICE OF GAS – that can help limit the problem. implications of climate science, These would include the development including the role of government of alternative energy technologies, Some people might be called Technophobes. While and the need for government regu- conservation methods, and the taxa- they use technology in their daily lives, they tend to lation. tion of certain energy sources to fear the consequences of technological change. On discourage their use. the other end of the spectrum are the Technophiles. • view such regulation as a threat to They tend to be early adopters of new technologies, democracy, individual freedom, and and they imagine that all problems, including global free enterprise. warming, might be solved by future technologies, • have countered rational evidence not yet developed or even imagined. with political slogans and appeals to the passions and fears of the Neil Postman, the influential social critic, espoused general public. a form of Techno-realism. He believed that new technologies could indeed offer many benefits to • see the science as a threat to their human kind – and to the environment. These bene- way of life, that “the science needs A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW fits should be embraced and shared. But those same to be wrong, or else I need to technologies could come with collateral damage, change.” including unforeseen consequences that destroy things we cherish, such as clean air and water. 2. The effects of climate change are likely to be so dramatic and negative that Societies need reliable scientific evidence − not they will REQUIRE more government misinformation from global warming deniers − to regulation to deal with them. Short make good policy decisions, balance the benefits term obfuscation and resistance by of technology with potential negative effects, and deniers will ultimately frustrate their establish regulations. desire for less government regulations.

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 13 STUDY GUIDE

DISCUSSION 9 ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

1. What sacrifices should responsible citizens be willing to make on behalf of the planet and future generations?

2. What role should governments play in dealing with the effects of global warming?

3. Should energy consumption be regulated globally, even in developing countries with large populations? How could regulation be achieved in a way that allows developing countries to continue to develop?

4. Should forms of taxation be used to discourage the use of fossil fuels? What would you tax?

5. Do you agree that if gas is more expensive, people will drive less, use mass transportation more and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles? What price would you be willing to pay for a gallon of gas?

6. What new cleaner technologies can be imagined and encouraged?

A Poynter Institute joint collaboration 14