RE: librarians as advocates for common sense environmental information

[Jim Cooper <james.cooper@socma.com>]

Interesting case.  Unfortunately, I think many folks will view
filtration at libraries as a form of censorship.  You're right,
though, there is a need for education about potential bias.  Some
key points could be developed regarding what to look for and how
to deal with the information.  Even in cases of bias, however, 
there can still be useful information.  Often, it is useful to
compile a small list of interests and compare information from
two or three groups.  One of the popular buzzwords in Washington
these days is "stakeholder."  For environmental issues, the 
stakeholders usually fall into several broad categories:

1. Government- It's a good idea to distinguish between Federal, 
               State and Local because of different laws and 
               concerns.  There have been examples of bias 
               presented during several of this group's discussions.
               Not all of the biases are in favor of business,
               however, there are many powerful lobbying groups in
               Washington.

2. Non-profit 
   Advocacy Groups- Also called Non-Governmental Organizations,or
                    NGOs.  Usually advocate on behalf of the environment,
                    animals, workers, children, etc.  Keep in mind
                    that many of these groups are lobbying organizations
                    with multimillion dollar budgets.  As with all
                    effective lobbying groups, NGOs will present their
                    side of an argument.

3. Industry- Often, industry is reprented through trade associations,
             which are non-profit organizations involved in the same
             types of activities as other non-profit groups, except
             the members they represent are for-profit businesses.
             Economic factors are usually given higher weight in 
             arguments presented by industry.

4. Academics- One usually does not associate academic experts with
              bias.  Unfortunately, there are some researchers who
              worry as much about funding as they do about objective
              science.  This certainly is not the majority, but it
              is a large enough percentage that the potential for
              bias should not be ignored. 

5. Physicians- Like other interests, doctors are also represented 
               by their own lobbying groups, such as the American
               Medical Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility,
               etc.  It is a good idea to separate the scientific
               approaches used by physicians from those used by 
               other scientists.  These approaches are very different
               and often contradict one another.

6. Lawyers- The main thing to distinguish here is that lawyers are
            often employed by the above-mentioned groups.  However,
            there are lobbying groups that represent lawyers, such
            as the American Bar Association, trial lawyers association,
            etc., that can introduce bias through monetary and other
            interests.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: It's up to folks like you and
me to help others learn to look at different angles of the same
story.  The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.  If you
read a story in one newspaper or magazine, as an experiment, try
reading a story covering the same subject in a different media
source.  What, or who are the sources the author uses?  Are the
sources balanced?  Do other publications use different sources?
Is there an "angle" to the story?  Who's covering the story?  Is
the author or writer an activist?  These are just a few questions
one can ask when reading about controversial issues.