The convergence of media in the Amazon

Fermenting beneath the harsh rays of the equatorial sunlight, pools of black sludge created from years of harmful environmental practices by oil companies dart the Ecuadorian landscapes. Such a disastrous use of the American landscape would warrant an immediate investigation and legal action--not to mention hours of press coverage. However, years of preliminary court proceedings have finally earned the people of Ecuador a day in court. Riddled with all the elements of a John Grisham novel, the story of the Ecuadorian people and their struggle for damages took a foray into another highly-debated issue due to a public relations effort initiated by Chevron: the role of the press and the convergence of media.

A “60 Minutes” investigative report that cast light on the oil company’s practices and the travails of the Ecuadorian people gathered criticism even before its May 3 airing on CBS. Reported by Scott Pelley, the “60 Minutes” story is a strong representation of the Murrow Standard despite an overemphasis on promoting the human interest aspect of the story rather than delving into the stacks of scientific and legal documents. Edward R. Murrow never withdrew from utilizing pathos in his work. “Harvest of Shame” places the audience into the lives of migrant workers, forcing even the most cynical person to empathize with the subject. Pelley employs a similar method to convey the cost of corporate malfeasance and the conflict besetting the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Masquerading around as news, the Chevron public relations piece, which was posted on the internet three weeks before the “60 Minutes” report aired, systematically smears members of the opposition. One at a time, Chevron attempts to discredit each of the plaintiffs’ lawyers by essentially calling them ambulance chasers and “New York litigants”--code words for elitists. Not since the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company orchestrated a similar campaign to discredit Jeffrey Wigand, a former employee and corporate whistleblower, has a corporation utilized the media so effectively to promote their side of the story. Interestingly enough, “60 Minutes” was the investigative body behind both stories.

The oil’s company’s rebuttal is obviously biased, but the rhetoric saturating the production is found in the “60 Minutes” piece as well. Waste is referred to as “production water” and when Pelley mentioned Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa, he framed the conflict in a capitalism vs. socialism construct. Describing the issue this way coerces the audience to view the president’s motives through an unsympathetic prism rather than judge the merit of his position. In addition, Pelley failed to interview a key voice for the litigants: Richard Cabrera. I’m not sure if Cabrera was merely unable to comment or if his interview was cut to help support one side of the story, but either reason leaves many question to be answered.

The differences between the “60 Minutes” report and Chevron’s public relations campaign highlight the dichotomy between the old journalism paradigm promoted by Edward R. Murrow and the new standards of journalism where lines are blurred, events are distorted and the truth is suspect.