9
Monsanto pulls public radio into its greenwash
American Public Media has been getting flogged recently by some of its listeners, the environmental website Grist, and others online for accepting underwriting from Monsanto, and for publicizing the agribusiness giant's Produce More, Conserve More campaign in underwriting announcements. Count me among the critics who believe that those announcements, broadcast on stations that carry Marketplace, lend public radio's credibility to a marketing campaign that is misleading, inaccurate and a prime form of greenwashing.
Here's the language:
"Marketplace is supported by Monsanto, committed to sustainable agriculture, creating hybrid and biotech seeds designed to increase crop yield and conserve natural resources. Learn more at ProduceMoreConserveMore.com."
On the details of Monsanto's message, I'll let the food-policy experts parse the nuances of genetically modified (GM) crop issues, starvation, billion-dollar profits, handcuffing and spying on Canadian farmers, and so on.
What I want to address is public radio underwriting itself. There happen to be these niggling FCC rules that govern how underwriters are represented in sponsorship ads and acknowledgments.
The rules prohibit commercial advertising, but they do allow an "underwriter announcement." Such an announcement is not supposed to promote the company, products or services of a donor. Noncommercial broadcasters are allowed and expected to use "good faith judgment" in discerning whether their underwriters are providing funding solely for the purpose of promoting a product or company. There is no guidance on whether misleading or deceptive underwriting announcements that qualify as greenwash are prohibited.
So pile up your lawyers on either side to argue the finer points of commercial advertisement versus "underwriter announcement."
Minnesota Public Radio (American Public Media's regional subsidiary) describes its listeners, in its sponsorship link, as a "highly educated, affluent, well-traveled and culturally discriminating audience." This could be seen as a come-hither for commercial advertising.
I would posit it's difficult to find an underwriter announcement that hasn't been touched by the typing fingers of corporate marketers. They are champing at the bit to promote their products or companies while still complying with the FCC rules.
Did Monsanto succeed? Judge for yourself. But I look forward to the day when innovative, sustainable companies make enough money that they, too, can underwrite APM and its affiliates using FCC-permissible underwriting announcements.
To be clear: I don't think APM is greenwashing. In a cash-strapped world, organizations are forced to accept money from companies with questionable ethics. And if the underwriting guidelines don't have an ethics or sustainability focus incorporated into them, then the only constraining factor is the commercial-promotion angle.
People feel very affectionate toward public radio because it's one of the last places where you sense there is any balance, integrity or intelligence in investigative reporting. It's possible that Monsanto is foolish enough to think that its underwriting status vis-a-vis APM/MPR can actually buff up its image. But it seems ludicrous to me.
It seems Monsanto is seeking/in dire need of dignfing behavior consultants ...to match their newly advertised goals with a responsible reality. In the meantime an objective observer/listener would integritably have to recognize that APM, NPR, etc., is/are also in the same situation. Tragically, yet '"hope'" -fully,; - The more acurrate {[market-reality reflecting/representative message]} in the recent monsanto bit ----is mearly the latest demonstraition of the short-commings in the more long-trend downturn in QUALITY of NPR/ etc., short comings. We will secure these Bio- experiments/to proper lab bio-spheres. In so much as commercailly viable, limit only to fuel sorces, strictly contained. Full-circle containment. W/same emphasis on other hazardous wastes/ bi-products. These materials will be secured. Rather than propogated irresponsibly, w/out concern for the new day we all face. Long-term altercation effects will not be tolerated.
What were Your'All consumption chioces today???
That is the only relevant conclusion to this blog.
Did any of the commenters read the column? Proclaiming "shame on you" for misleading underwriting on a piece actually decrying the fact that the spot is misleading, and how its sad they had to accept the money from such a company since public radio donor dollars are becoming more scarce. Why don't we just tear down all those who do good in society when they maybe have to make a judgment-call like that? Do you take the cash to survive and keep going, or do you fail and fold-up with your principles in-tact, but no platform to communicate vital information? Let's wait and see how many of us compromise our personal values to survive when things get tougher. And they will get much, much tougher before things get better. Public radio will be the least of your worries.
Monsanto is very good at buying influence and PR wherever it can.
But this company is no friend of the farmer or the consumer.
It sends spies out into farmers' backyards to enforce its seed saving prohibition.
Yet try to take pictures of Monsanto's headquarters from a public sidewalk and see what happens.
Check out the "Seeds of Domination" videos at www.competitivemarkets.com
They are definetly worth seeing and show just what kind of company Monsanto is.
Last, what a shame Monsanto has gotten to "public" radio when everything it does is to monopolize.
Another example of this kind of infiltration is Monsanto's appointment of the president of South Dakota State University to the Monsanto board. Very, very sad when public institutions are infiltrated by monopolistic organizations like Monsanto.
Of course Monsanto is "no friend" to the farmer. Just read this. Monsanto is not helping the farmer at all here.
Dear Marketplace/American Public Media,
I am a loyal listener to many American Public Media programs including Marketplace and because Marketplace is broadcast on many NPR stations, I have grown to expect them to uphold the same high standards of balanced and well researched reporting to which I hold NPR. Therefore, I would expect APM to do the same research on the companies that sponsor them and that they, in turn, promote. I understand that programs need funding, but I would expect APM to advertise for companies with integrity who produce sound products. That is why I was so disappointed when I heard a misleading ad for Monsanto during your podcast as well as when I was listening on KNOW in Minnesota. I think it is unjust of you to run this deceptive advertisement not only because it contains false information, but also because it tarnishes the good name of NPR because it is run on their stations.
The ad in question stated that Monsanto was a leader in environmentalism and took care of farmers, when in reality Monsanto has been one of the most irresponsible coporations to the environment. The EPA has cited Monsanto as being responsible for the contamination of over 56 sites in the United States and involved with countless lawsuits involving workers who were harmed by Monsanto chemicals. In addition to this, the genetically engineer seeds developed by Monsanto are ruining small farming communities and the environment. These seeds are patent protected which makes it illegal for farmers to use the seeds they yield from their crops for replanting. The truly unbelievable part is that Monsanto can sue any farmer for saving seeds due to the possibility that a GE seed from a Monsanto field has blown into the farmers field, taken root, and has been harvested.
The GE seed is itself harmful to the environment because it resists the pesticide, Roundup. This has caused a significant increase in the amount of pesticides being sprayed on our crops according to the USDA. According to your own reports on Marketplace, the European Union has only approved one GE Monsanto crop stating that the others are an Environmental Heath Risk. I find it quite contradictory that APM then allows and accepts a sponsor that falsely states in its advertising that Monsanto is an environmentally progressive company.
These are just two examples of hundreds of terrible injustices executed by the Monsanto Corporation and I am not the only listener that has recognized this issue. The Organic Consumer Association has an article on their website entitled, "Monsanto Targets NPR to Spread False Biotech Message." I would expect the progressive, honest, and hardworking people at APM to have taken the time to properly research sponsors before spouting off inaccurate claims in their favor. People trust APM and NPR as a "reliable source for news and information" and it disappoints me beyond measure to discover that APM would allow such blatantly false claims to be made on its airwaves just to make a few dollars. Advertising for Monsanto is a cause for conflict and it would appear that this could cause bias in reporting favoring the company.
As a member of public radio and a subscriber to many APM podcasts, I would hope that APM would drop Monsanto as a sponsor.
I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I am writing to you only because of the extreme respect that I hold for APM and my belief that they take into account and values the opinions of their listeners.
Loyal Listener,
Krissa Henderson
272 Lafayette Ave #3
Brooklyn, NY 11238
T: 612.702.9280
E: Krissaann@gmail.com
Hi Stephen,
Here's a link to a discussion about the question of sponsorship and reporting: <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/16/comment-underw.... Please do participate, and know that we are listening.
Regards,
Joellen Easton
Public Insight Journalism/Sustainability Desk
