Why Does The Missouri School of Journalism Sponsor a Scam Like Biotech University?
Wouldn’t it be cool to spend 10 hours in one weekend learning about biotechnology? Not really!
But wouldn’t it be even worse to spend 10 hours being brainwashed about soybean biotechnology? If we learned one thing from Biotech University, the answer is a resounding YES!
Biotech University is a 10-hour long biotechnology conference sponsored by the Missouri School of Journalism and the National Center for Soybean Biotechnology, an advocacy group that promotes the use of biotechnology in growing soybeans. Over the course of two days, attendees spend 10 hours learning about biotechnology through a series of seminars and speakers. Nine of those hours are about how great biotechnology is, and one (!) hour discusses in vague terms how “some” might not like biotechnology.
Biotechnology is a field of research that studies the use of living organisms or other biological systems in the manufacture of products for environmental/agricultural management. But Biotech University says nothing about that in its promotional literature or on its website.
Before they changed the website, it used to say what you could win if you attend this brainwashing biotech conference in huge letters: “WIN A TRIP OVERSEAS! REPORTING CONTEST.” And the website talked quite a bit about last year’s winner, Charlotte Bellis, who went to China for a biotechnology conference. Coooooooollll!!!
(Disclosure: your humble Editor-in-Chief and Social Media Editor attended this 10-hour conference last year, along with about a dozen others. However, neither of us entered the reporting contest because we were convinced from the beginning it was a scam.)
But here’s what Biotech University doesn’t tell you about Charlotte’s prize-winning entry: It was an extremely biotech-friendly piece designed to make soybean biotechnology look really good. This is the video she submitted for the reporting contest, which constituted the bulk of her multimedia entry. Watch:
It’s four minutes of her promoting soybean biotechnology.
You wouldn’t know it from this piece of advertising broadcast journalism, but biotechnology is a controversial area of research. That’s because private companies such as Monsanto change the genetics of plant seeds just enough so they can patent life. And some of the results have been horrifying for the environment and farmers.
Charlotte’s video report briefly mentioned the controversy about biotechnology by saying, “For some, it’s questionable.” She interviewed a consumer at the Columbia Farmer’s Market who vaguely said organic “is better for everyone.” Charlotte then talked to an old organic farmer who talked about being the youngest person in his family to still be working the farm. That was it.
She relied on the testimony of two non-experts who said vague and unremarkable things about organic food for 30 seconds to add “balance” to this story. But let’s pay attention to the sources she used for the piece to support her thesis that soybean biotechnology is good.
The first was a man named Kelly Forck, who was identified in the video report only as a soybean farmer. She left out the fact that not only was Forck the former president of the Missouri Soybean Association, but he was also one of the speakers at Biotech University. She was no intrepid reporter who went to find how the average farmer is impacted by biotechnology; she spoke to a de facto biotechnology spokesman.
Charlotte also interviewed a soybean biotechnology researcher, Dr. Henry Nguyen. He’s an expert, yes, but he was also a speaker at Biotech University. Conflict of interest much?
We wanted to know what Charlotte thought about all this, so we gave her a call. That’s not an easy feat because she is now a TV reporter in New Zealand. We were hoping she would make it easy on us and admit to making a very biotech-friendly piece to help win the contest. That didn’t happen. She said she doesn’t really have an opinion about biotechnology, but that her story was a “neutral” take on the subject.
Charlotte admitted that the National Center for Soybean Biotechnology certainly had a motive in sponsoring the conference and reporting contest, and it did nothing to hide its opinion, but that didn’t skew her reporting to be more biotech-friendly. She said that unlike some green-eared journalists, she used the conference as a jumping-off point in her reporting, not as a substitute for going out there to get both sides. That’s an interesting point for her to make, considering that we can trace her two most important sources and much of the information she used directly to Biotech University.
In our conversation, Charlotte also noted that the story was judged in the reporting contest by three real journalists: Terry Ganey, former projects editor at the Columbia Tribune; Serena Carpenter, assistant professor of journalism at Arizona State University; and Tom Steever of the Brownfield Network.
She’s right! Three independent journalists looked this thing over and decided it was a good piece of journalism. We spoke to several people who were at Biotech University last year. Only a dozen people attended and were eligible for the reporting contest. None of the people we spoke to submitted entries to the contest, so Charlotte could have won mostly due to a lack of competition. At least two other attendees submitted entries, though, as they came in second and third places. But if that’s the case, should we really be announcing the winner of an illegitimate reporting contest on the Missouri School of Journalism’s site?
We got in touch with Serena Carpenter, the assistant journalism professor at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication and one of the reporting contest’s judges. By email, she told us, “Some (not all) of the applicants did sound like they were promoting biotechnology. However, it is to be expected that immersion in such a program will likely influence their articles and video pieces. Inexperienced communicators need to learn to be critical and verify information.”
She did defend the conference, saying, “I applaud this organization for working to ensure that accurate information is shared with the public. This experience is a great opportunity for students.”
Broadcast senior Theo Keith also attended Biotech University, and his reaction represents the majority opinion I heard from other Biotech University attendees. In a blog post after the event, he wrote, “”What I can’t say is that I got both sides of the story. While I expected a one-sided presentation from a soybean board firmly behind biotech, my fellow reporters and I felt disgusted by the whole thing. Personally, I support new innovations that improve society. I don’t support having a view crammed into my head without questioning. The event was too structured, making it painfully clear how one-sided it was.”
Both Forck and Nguyen were speakers at this year’s Biotech University as well, held on Oct. 15-16. We wonder if the winner of this year’s reporting contest was as dependent on biotechnology-friendly sources as Charlotte was. The winners from this year’s Biotech University were just announced, so we’ll take a look at their entries and publish a follow-up.
If you were at Biotech University this year and have some thoughts about it, shoot us an email at Tips@JSchoolBuzz.com.
Follow J-School Buzz on Twitter and Like us on Facebook
I agree with your lede. It wouldn’t be cool to spend 10 hours learning about biotechnology if you weren’t interested in reporting about science or broadening your skill set to be able to deal with terms and issues that are becoming increasingly prevalent. I am confused how such a journalism student could exist at Mizzou. It seems like everyone would seek out each advantage they can.
Most, if not all, of the people I interview have an agenda or bias, and that’s ok. It’s our job as journalists to glean the truth, and to learn from them. If we only talked to people without a bias in the course of reporting we would never have to pick up the phone because there would be no one to call.
We also all have biases as journalists. As an agricultural journalism major focusing in food and wine, I’m aware that I have a bias. It’s hard to write about food if there isn’t any for people to eat. With population rising, agriculture works to keep up with demand, but biotech could push that production even higher.
I attended Biotech University in 2010 and didn’t feel brainwashed. Maybe if I took everything I heard for truth then I would have been. I was actually surprised that the program presented any alternative views as Biotech University makes it clear that it is sponsored by the United Soybean Board. The National Center for Soybean Biotechnology is an important research facility that we are lucky enough to have on campus while the USB is a check-off program that funds research and market development. The National Center for Soybean Biotechnology is working to improve soybeans, which is exactly the type of research that should be done on the campus of a land-grand university like MU. With land grand status comes a charge to bring scientific, mainly agricultural, research back to the people of Missouri and it’s a commitment that our University has been fulfilling for more than a hundred years.
I learned a great deal from experts in the field like Dr. Roger Beachy, who was appointed director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture by President Obama. I’m willing to call Dr. Beachy’s opinions about biotechnology a little more serious than an article in Vanity Fair that you refer to as an example of the dangers of biotechnology. I’m also unsure how talking to Dr. Henry Nguyen is a conflict of interest. He’s a professor of plant sciences who obviously cares about educating people about his research as evidenced by his attendance at Biotech University.
Comparing my experience with Theo who blogged about the 2009 program may not be exactly fair as they were different programs, but I’d be shocked if the program went through a major transformation.
I’m surprised to hear you say that his reaction was the majority opinion though. I know you didn’t ask me, or the people I was sitting near. Maybe we looked too engaged or serious to be interviewed for your gossip site.
I left biotechnology excited about the knowledge I gained. I knew that it came from a biased source, but usually good information does.
I talked to three different people who attended Biotech University 2009 for this interview, on top of drawing from my own experiences at the conference. That represented a quarter of the attendees at the conference, and so it was fair to say many of the people at Biotech U 2009 felt it was a one-sided brainwashing. Maybe Biotech U 2010 was different, but I have spoken to several people who attended it, and my reporting so far seems to indicate it had many of the same problems as 2009.
I am curious as to why you refer to JSB as a “gossip site.” What content on this site qualifies as gossip? How do *you* define gossip? Because the correct definition is “idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others,” (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gossip ) and our content is aggressively reported and fact-checked. If you see content that is not, please let me know so we can correct that error.
I agree with your lede. It wouldn’t be cool to spend 10 hours learning about biotechnology if you weren’t interested in reporting about science or broadening your skill set to be able to deal with terms and issues that are becoming increasingly prevalent. I am confused how such a journalism student could exist at Mizzou. It seems like everyone would seek out each advantage they can.
Most, if not all, of the people I interview have an agenda or bias, and that’s ok. It’s our job as journalists to glean the truth, and to learn from them. If we only talked to people without a bias in the course of reporting we would never have to pick up the phone because there would be no one to call.
We also all have biases as journalists. As an agricultural journalism major focusing in food and wine, I’m aware that I have a bias. It’s hard to write about food if there isn’t any for people to eat. With population rising, agriculture works to keep up with demand, but biotech could push that production even higher.
I attended Biotech University in 2010 and didn’t feel brainwashed. Maybe if I took everything I heard for truth then I would have been. I was actually surprised that the program presented any alternative views as Biotech University makes it clear that it is sponsored by the United Soybean Board. The National Center for Soybean Biotechnology is an important research facility that we are lucky enough to have on campus while the USB is a check-off program that funds research and market development. The National Center for Soybean Biotechnology is working to improve soybeans, which is exactly the type of research that should be done on the campus of a land-grand university like MU. With land grand status comes a charge to bring scientific, mainly agricultural, research back to the people of Missouri and it’s a commitment that our University has been fulfilling for more than a hundred years.
I learned a great deal from experts in the field like Dr. Roger Beachy, who was appointed director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture by President Obama. I’m willing to call Dr. Beachy’s opinions about biotechnology a little more serious than an article in Vanity Fair that you refer to as an example of the dangers of biotechnology. I’m also unsure how talking to Dr. Henry Nguyen is a conflict of interest. He’s a professor of plant sciences who obviously cares about educating people about his research as evidenced by his attendance at Biotech University.
Comparing my experience with Theo who blogged about the 2009 program may not be exactly fair as they were different programs, but I’d be shocked if the program went through a major transformation.
I’m surprised to hear you say that his reaction was the majority opinion though. I know you didn’t ask me, or the people I was sitting near. Maybe we looked too engaged or serious to be interviewed for your gossip site.
I left biotechnology excited about the knowledge I gained. I knew that it came from a biased source, but usually good information does.
I was the judge quoted in this story. I saw that this story came across my Google alerts. I would have liked to address the angle presented by David in his post. I was under the impression he was doing an events story. You should request the judging form provided to us by Biotech, and I surprised that they were not willing to talk to you. For the transparency purposes, here is my interview with David:
Hello Serena,
My name is David Teeghman, and I am Missouri School of Journalism student you spoke with this afternoon. I only just left my last meeting moments ago, and I didn’t want to call you this late at night, so I’m settling for an email. I’m sorry I couldn’t make our earlier interview time work, but I am free all tomorrow morning if you have some time to discuss the Biotech University reporting contest.
Thanks again for your help,
David
HI DAVID. MY ANSWERS ARE IN CAPS.
We can just do an email interview, if that’s okay with you. Here are the questions I was going to ask you over the phone:
How did you get involved with the Biotech University reporting contest?
I WAS ASKED TO JUDGE BY STEVE V. HE MAY HAVE FOUND ME ON GOOGLE. I DON’T KNOW. I AM OFTEN ASKED TO PARTICIPATE BASED ON MY ONLINE PRESENCE.
What’s the criteria you use to judge reporting contest submissions?
I DO NOT RECALL BECAUSE I JUDGED FOR THIS CONTEST ONE YEAR AGO. I DID NOT KEEP MY EVALUATIONS.
I believe you were a judge last year, do you remember anything about Charlotte Bellis’s winning entry that put her entry above the rest?
NO, I DO NOT RECALL BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A YEAR.
Did Biotech University ever ask you or the other judges to grade submissions based on how friendly to biotechnology the submissions are?
NO, I WAS FREE TO BE CRITICAL OF THEIR REPORTING, RESEARCH, AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS.
Is objectivity an important part of the reporting contest?
I DO NOT RECALL. HOW DO YOU DEFINE OBJECTIVITY? THERE ARE MANY DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES THAT ONE CAN CLASSIFY AS REPORTING THAT FOLLOWS THE OBJECTIVITY PRINCIPLE.
I DO REMEMBER EVALUATING TO WHAT EXTENT THAT THE CONTESTANTS FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE AND TO WHAT EXTENT JARGON WAS PRESENT. AND SOME (NOT ALL) OF THE APPLICANTS DID SOUND LIKE THEY WERE PROMOTING BIOTECHNOLOGY. HOWEVER, IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT IMMERSION IN SUCH A PROGRAM WILL LIKELY INFLUENCE THEIR ARTICLES AND VIDEO PIECES. INEXPERIENCED COMMUNICATORS NEED TO LEARN TO BE CRITICAL AND VERIFY INFORMATION. I HAVE WORKED IN AG COMMUNICATIONS. I HAVE FOUND MOST SCIENTISTS SIMPLY WANT TO ENSURE THAT JOURNALISTS UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AND TECHNOLOGY. AND I APPLAUD THIS ORGANIZATION FOR WORKING TO ENSURE THAT ACCURATE INFORMATION IS SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC. THIS EXPERIENCE IS GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS.
That’s all my questions, but if you want to add anything else that I didn’t ask that you believe would inform my reporting, please add that as well.
Thank you so much for your help!
Davids
This is why I love email interviews. Thank you so much for posting our interview, Dr. Carpenter. Transparency FTW!
I was the judge quoted in this story. I saw that this story came across my Google alerts. I would have liked to address the angle presented by David in his post. I was under the impression he was doing an events story. You should request the judging form provided to us by Biotech, and I surprised that they were not willing to talk to you. For the transparency purposes, here is my interview with David:
Hello Serena,
My name is David Teeghman, and I am Missouri School of Journalism student you spoke with this afternoon. I only just left my last meeting moments ago, and I didn’t want to call you this late at night, so I’m settling for an email. I’m sorry I couldn’t make our earlier interview time work, but I am free all tomorrow morning if you have some time to discuss the Biotech University reporting contest.
Thanks again for your help,
David
HI DAVID. MY ANSWERS ARE IN CAPS.
We can just do an email interview, if that’s okay with you. Here are the questions I was going to ask you over the phone:
How did you get involved with the Biotech University reporting contest?
I WAS ASKED TO JUDGE BY STEVE V. HE MAY HAVE FOUND ME ON GOOGLE. I DON’T KNOW. I AM OFTEN ASKED TO PARTICIPATE BASED ON MY ONLINE PRESENCE.
What’s the criteria you use to judge reporting contest submissions?
I DO NOT RECALL BECAUSE I JUDGED FOR THIS CONTEST ONE YEAR AGO. I DID NOT KEEP MY EVALUATIONS.
I believe you were a judge last year, do you remember anything about Charlotte Bellis’s winning entry that put her entry above the rest?
NO, I DO NOT RECALL BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A YEAR.
Did Biotech University ever ask you or the other judges to grade submissions based on how friendly to biotechnology the submissions are?
NO, I WAS FREE TO BE CRITICAL OF THEIR REPORTING, RESEARCH, AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS.
Is objectivity an important part of the reporting contest?
I DO NOT RECALL. HOW DO YOU DEFINE OBJECTIVITY? THERE ARE MANY DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES THAT ONE CAN CLASSIFY AS REPORTING THAT FOLLOWS THE OBJECTIVITY PRINCIPLE.
I DO REMEMBER EVALUATING TO WHAT EXTENT THAT THE CONTESTANTS FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE AND TO WHAT EXTENT JARGON WAS PRESENT. AND SOME (NOT ALL) OF THE APPLICANTS DID SOUND LIKE THEY WERE PROMOTING BIOTECHNOLOGY. HOWEVER, IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT IMMERSION IN SUCH A PROGRAM WILL LIKELY INFLUENCE THEIR ARTICLES AND VIDEO PIECES. INEXPERIENCED COMMUNICATORS NEED TO LEARN TO BE CRITICAL AND VERIFY INFORMATION. I HAVE WORKED IN AG COMMUNICATIONS. I HAVE FOUND MOST SCIENTISTS SIMPLY WANT TO ENSURE THAT JOURNALISTS UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AND TECHNOLOGY. AND I APPLAUD THIS ORGANIZATION FOR WORKING TO ENSURE THAT ACCURATE INFORMATION IS SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC. THIS EXPERIENCE IS GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS.
That’s all my questions, but if you want to add anything else that I didn’t ask that you believe would inform my reporting, please add that as well.
Thank you so much for your help!
Davids
Hello, Neat post. There’s a problem with your website in web explorer, would test this… IE still is the marketplace leader and a huge part of other people will pass over your excellent writing due to this problem.