Killing trees for Jesus?
Posted July 19, 2006
Think the American media is gullible sometimes -- especially when they're writing about evangelicals? Here's exhibit #1.
A couple of years ago, a Seattle on-line environmental publication made up a story about a former Reagan cabinet member. Grist Magazine claimed that former Interior Secretary James Watt had "told the U.S. Congress (in 1981) that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. 'God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,' Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired."
A shocking story if true. But it never happened. When I read the fake quote, my nonsense detector was immediately activated. I had followed Watt closely in the early 80s (he was a member of my religious denomination) and I knew he had made plenty of controversial statements. But not that one. So I checked on-line and quickly discovered that the quote had never appeared in the New York Times or the Washington Post or any of a thousand other dailies at any time during the Reagan administration.
Pure fiction. But just to be sure, I called Secretary Watt himself, who insisted the story was phony and said congressional transcripts could prove it. Despite that, he told me he'd never be able to snuff the lie completely out. He was right.
Unfortunately, several writers had read the tall tale and re-published it. Some said the anecdote had come from Grist Magazine. Others simply stole it without attribution. A few took the story and embellished it, adding additional untruths.
The Capitol Hill urban legend ended up being cited in major papers across the country, including the Washington Post, the Miami Herald and the Indianapolis Star.
It's bad enough that congressional testimony was invented. But the lie was also used to scapegoat tens of millions of Americans who, like Watt, are evangelicals.
In a speech that was published in papers across the country, public broadcaster/Democratic activist Bill Moyers repeated the anecdote and then described how shocked Washington had been in the 1980s by the imaginary testimony. "Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate."
The fake Watt Capitol Hill testimony spawned headlines such as "Some Want Apocalypse Now." The story eventually crossed the border to Canada.
But the myth began to crumble in February 2005 after journalists, bloggers, and skeptical readers began demanding answers. Grist, the publication that first made up the imaginary Capitol Hill testimony, admitted that Watt had never made the outrageous statement on Capitol Hill, but held out the possibility that he might have said it at some other time in some other place -- exactly where was never explained. The Washington Post admitted there was nothing in the historical record supporting the anecdote. Moyers sent a (sort of) apology.
End of story right? Wrong. Even after the story was debunked, it continues to pop up. It has now spread to newspapers in England and Australia. Another Canadian publication picked it up earlier this year.
Meanwhile Glenn Scherer, the author of the Grist Magazine article has apologized for the error that unleashed the controversy. In a posting on Grist's website, insists that his article, titled "The Godly Must Be Crazy" was "clearly not an attack on Christians or Christianity."
COMMENTS:
AUTHOR: Caleb Powers
EMAIL: rltreadway@aol.com
DATE: 07/19/2006 03:37:01 PM
Well, you got me. I admit that I believed the quote, probably helped spread it, and did own a "Watt's the Problem" campaign button in 1982. I always thought the quote was real, though in the form I always heard it, it had some sort of date on it, something like, "Christ may return before this administration is over," or something like that.
Watt was so crazy and anti-environmentalist that my opinion of him has only been lessened by the revelation that he didn't say this.
If he wasn't basing his slash and burn brand of econo-anti-environmentalism on some wacked out religious view, then I guess he really was just a greedy tool of the timber industry. When you take away religious fanatacism, it just leaves greed and a lack of understanding of the way nature operates, things you hate to see in a secretary of the interior.
AUTHOR: Scott Elliott
EMAIL: selliott@daytondailynews.com
URL: http://www.daytondailynews.com/getonthebus
DATE: 07/19/2006 06:15:47 PM
Frank modestly fails to mention that his own research on this issue played a major role in prompting the Moyers mea culpa.
AUTHOR: Greg McClellan
URL: http://profile.typekey.com/Gregmcclellan/
DATE: 07/24/2006 01:15:57 PM
I have often wondered over the years how Bill Moyers has maintained this credible reputation. Watt certainly said plenty of controversial things while he was Secretary of the Interior, and I recall many. This is the first time I was aware of this one and how well Moyers remembered the reaction of Washington to the non-statement.