Karen Himle, vice president for university relations at the University of Minnesota, has canceled the October 3 premiere of Troubled Waters, a documentary about the Mississippi River that looks at pollution from farm chemicals and other sources, the Star Tribune reported. The film was produced under contract with the university’s Bell Museum of Natural History. Daniel Wolter, the university’s news-service director, told the Star Tribune that, after previewing the documentary, university officials and faculty members had questioned whether it was “factually accurate, objective, and balanced in its presentation.” He said the premiere was being delayed “for proper scientific and institutional review.” But Brian DeVore, a spokesman for a nonprofit sustainable-agriculture group, Land Stewardship Project, asked why the university’s public-relations arm was making decisions about scientific information. “It’s pretty troubling,” he said.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
9 Responses to U. of Minnesota Halts Showing of Mississippi River Documentary
washingtonwarrior - September 17, 2010 at 3:29 pm
It doesn’t need to be objective or balanced if it’s factually accurate, correct?
shultqui - September 17, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Sounds like politics as usual.
bstevens - September 17, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Journalism! Tsk tsk.
jgallagher - September 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm
washingtonwarrior – that’s not completely true.For example, a person can be convicted of a crime and then have an appeals court overturn the conviction, finding the person not guilty.It would be factually accurate then, to report that person was convicted, but it would be biased and not objective to not include in the report the later acquital.
buzzer - September 17, 2010 at 4:05 pm
For one we have “Mississippi” in a troubling story and it has nothing to do with the Great State of Mississippi!!!!
thais - September 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Buzzer,It does have something to do with my home State of Mississippi. Remember that the Mississippi River forms a large portion of the western border of the state. I am sure most of our residents are careful of what they put into that river, but then there are some who probably do not. I would like to know what comes from the north to the south and also what is our own role in protecting and perhaps polluting the river that gives our state its name. Let us see the film and make up our minds.Michael
22228715 - September 17, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Well, if the folks who put a hold on the film were thinking that would limit its impact and reach, I’m guessing that showing up in the Chroncle pretty much trashed that plan.
archman - September 20, 2010 at 9:16 am
I will presume that there is something in the film that portrays Minnesota in a poor light. I am guessing that it has something to do with farm runoff. I will expect that the faculty at UM that objected to the film were scientists with expertise in the topic. More news on this (specific details) is needed.
history_grrrl - September 20, 2010 at 11:28 am
I’m guessing that the film portrays agribusiness in a bad light and that the UM’s PR folks are concerned about alienating potential donors and/or suppliers of research dollars to the university. This may be similar to what happened when the University of Manitoba banned the showing of a documentary about biotechnology and agriculture: http://www.seedsofchangefilm.org/ But I haven’t read the article and so should not jump to the conclusions. In fact I hope I’m wrong.