>From: FAIR-L <FAIR-L at FAIR.ORG>
>Reply-To: fair-l-request at LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>To: FAIR-L at LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>Subject: [FAIR-L] ACTION ALERT: For ABC's Stossel, Workers'
>Safety Is Regulatory Ex cess
>Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:43:47 -0500
>
>
>ce FAIR-L
>ce Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
>ce Media analysis, critiques and news reports
>
>
>
>
>ACTION ALERT:
>For ABC's John Stossel, Workers' Safety Is Regulatory Excess
>
>February 4, 2000
>
>On January 4th, the Washington Post broke a story that soon appeared in
>countless media outlets: The Occupational Safety & Health Administration
>(OSHA) had released a letter in mid-November outlining some guidelines for
>an employer concerned with providing a safe workplace for employees working
>at home. Labor Secretary Alexis Herman decided to withdraw the letter on
>January 5, citing "widespread confusion" about what it actually meant.
>
>One reporter who went further than most in confusing the issue was ABC's
>John Stossel. An unabashed proponent of "free market" ideology and critic
>of
>government regulation, Stossel jumped at the chance on 20/20's January 21
>broadcast to mock the idea of "government safety rules" that provide for a
>safe working environment.
>
>OSHA issued the guidelines in response to a Texas company's inquiry about
>their obligations regarding employees working from home. But Stossel's
>report gives viewers the impression that OSHA simply decided to expand its
>reach, calling the guidelines "new rules" when in fact they were actually
>an
>explanation of how the "old" rules applied to at-home work. As the
>Washington Post correctly reported (1/4/00), "The advisory is not a
>proposed
>rule, but rather a declaration of existing policy the agency deems already
>to be in effect."
>
>The ABC broadcast opens with a joke: "Remember those knock-knock jokes?
>Well, guess who's there? It's 'Big Brother.' That is, the government,
>trying to protect us in our own homes." While that implies that regulators
>could come to your door some time soon, the guidelines make abundantly
>clear
>that no such plans exist.
>
>Stossel's fundamental understanding of the issue is called into question
>when he claims that he could "sue ABC" if, for example, he tripped "on the
>stuff the kids leave on the stairs." Under no circumstances could he sue
>his
>employer for OSHA violations, and the safety rules apply to a home worksite
>(not the entire home) or to dangerous work-related conditions that an
>employer should have reasonably known about. Toys left on the stairs would
>not likely fall into either category.
>
>Stossel also twists words to make his point. For example, OSHA's Charles
>Jeffress told Stossel: "Since OSHA was created 27 years ago, workplace
>fatalities have been cut in half." Stossel's response is to state: "The
>regulators can cite specific successes, but look at the record." Clearly,
>Jeffress was citing OSHA's overall record-not specific successes. Stossel
>then goes on to name a few anecdotal cases of OSHA's malfeasance, using the
>precise tactic he accused Jeffress of using.
>
>Stossel's obvious slant is revealed in the charge he puts to an OSHA
>consultant: "Your critics say you're a bunch of clueless busybodies trying
>to micromanage everybody's life."
>
>It's unclear who these critics might be-other than John Stossel, or the
>business lobbying groups that have mounted a campaign to defeat OSHA's new
>proposed standards on ergonomics. Much of Stossel's report is really an
>attack on these proposals, which are entirely unrelated to the
>work-at-home
>controversy. Stossel says OSHA's proposal "is real complicated. This is 300
>pages of fine print." In fact, the guidelines are 10 and a half pages long,
>with 290 pages of supplemental material.
>
>Stossel refers to ergonomics as "a new and uncertain science." But
>ergonomics has existed for at least seventy years, as employers have tried
>to maximize output and increase productivity in the work force. (Other
>experts trace the history of ergonomics back to the 1700s.) And a report
>by
>the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that in workplaces where
>stresses
>on the upper body, neck and back were more common, "the positive
>relationship between the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders and the
>conduct of work is clear." (New York Times, 10/2/98)
>
>Stossel invites a consultant into his own home office, giving the
>impression
>that other workers might soon have to do the same thing, since "OSHA may
>soon require my home office to meet its exacting standards." But OSHA
>standards are requirements for employers, not employees. While Stossel's
>stunt might make for good television, it is not indicative of what might
>happen in the real world.
>
>More importantly, a report like Stossel's ignores the reality of OSHA. The
>agency is notoriously understaffed; inspections have fallen by over 30
>percent in the mid-'90s, and home inspections number around 10 per year (In
>These Times, 2/21/00). Such inspections have involved, not toys on stairs,
>but clear violations of law, such as home workers using molten lead or
>dangerous adhesives without proper safety precautions.
>
>In the end, Stossel takes a news report from another media outlet and
>twists
>it beyond recognition into an attack on the idea that a safe working
>environment should be government's business. It's an exercise in bad
>faith-and bad journalism.
>
>
>ACTION: Contact ABC and John Stossel to share your concerns about the
>biased
>"Give Me A Break" segment that aired on January 21. Stossel's disregard
>for
>the facts, as well as his shoddy presentation of OSHA's ergonomics
>proposal,
>shows that basic standards of journalism are secondary in his reporting.
>
>Contact:
>ABC News
>47 W. 66th Street
>New York, NY 10023
>
>Phone: 212-456-7777 (ABC News general number)
>Fax: 212-456-4297
>
>E-mail: mailto:netaudr at abc.com (ABC News)
> mailto:stossel at abc.com (John Stossel)
>
>
>
>ce ----------
>
>
>Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to
>everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
>documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the
>'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.
>
>Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
>responses, to us at: fair at fair.org .
>
>Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
>where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
>out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.
>
>Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.
>
>You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
>http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html
>Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
>command to LISTSERV at AMERICAN.EDU.
>
>The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about
>spammers.
>
>
>You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L"
>command to LISTSERV at AMERICAN.EDU.
>
>Please support FAIR by becoming a member.
>You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA!
>Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to
>5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information
>on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to:
>
>ce FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service
>ce P.O. Box 170
>ce Congers, NY 10920-9930
>
>
>ce FAIR
>ce (212) 633-6700
>ce http://www.fair.org/
>ce E-mail: fair at fair.org
>
>list administrators: FAIR-L-request at american.edu
>
>
>
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com