The interview of Eng Yang and Kao Kalia Yang was conducted very aggressively. The fact that Yang’s account was dismissed and criticized as purely “hearsay” contradicts their reason to come and talk about the matter as a whole.While the beginning of the podcast was executed well by introducing professionals and giving background information on the matter,  things got ugly once Krulwich began to interview Eng and Kao. Eng Yang felt very strongly about the Yellow Rain that was killing lives left and right, but the lack of interest made it impossible for him to do anything about it. He felt that Radiolab’s coverage was an opportunity to bring the news to more ears. However, his story was discredited and attacked for his lack of evidence. Rather than suggesting alternative possibilities, the host continues to attack his claims by bringing in scientific evidence, much of which could have been introduced in a more professional and respectful manner.

There was a comment that resonated with me in the Poynter article that stated, “Imagine if Krulwich sat down with a holocaust survivor and disputed their story. Obviously, it’s important to get the facts right (whether it was bees is an interesting question), but the Radiolab team didn’t understand the centrality of this story to the people they were interviewing.” I feel that while it is the job of Radiolab to get all the facts straight and rely on professionals, to discredit and dismiss your source is something else. To make an attack on Eng’s recalling of the events as mere “hearsay” was very unprofessional and could easily have been avoided. If they introduced the scientific disputes to Eng Yang from the start and asked what he thought about them, I feel as if they could have avoided the emotional chaos that took over.

I was very surprised after listening to the interview of Eng Yang and his niece Kao Kalia Yang.  Kao Yang’s emotion and crying was surprising because the podcast didn’t state that she experienced any of these events but she still feels great pain for her uncle and her people.  I did feel that one of the reporters, Krulwich went a little too far when asking Kao Yang questions about her uncle’s account.  It felt like he was attacking her and dismissing her uncle.  Krulwich even goes on to say “all this is hearsay.”

I thought the reporters’ actions of bringing experts in and giving them more credibility were justified because when making an accusation there must be solid evidence.  They explained that the scientists in Minnesota made a mistake and after testing the yellow spots again, no toxic chemicals were found.  You should trust the scientific analysis.  However, I don’t think the reporters were fair and balanced in their reporting.  Krulwich especially, was almost making it sound like Eng Yang was lying, or simply didn’t know what he was talking about.  Like the Huffington Post said, Radiolab should have given all the facts and let all the voices be heard, and let the listeners and public decide for themselves.

As journalists, there is a greater responsibility of getting to the truth than being sensitive to their sources.  But when you’re in a situation as traumatic as this, there is a level of respect that must be given.  Eng Yang and his people were attacked and killed.  He lived through those events and the horror and grief will stay with him forever.  When the reporters kept saying it was just bee poop, it invalidates Eng Yang’s experiences.  They were even saying oh those people were probably dying from starvation and being malnourished.  The end of the interview could have been handled differently.  When Eng Yang said “I don’t know whether it was from the bombs or the yellow rain, but my people were being poisoned,” the reporters could have stepped back and said wow maybe there were chemicals in the bombs being dropped.  The reporters should have been more empathic and respectful.

I believe that at the beginning the interview started out fairly well. We got a good description of the situation and the process of investigating the yellow rain. The interviewers went into great detail about where and how the leaves and twigs were tested for chemicals. When it came to Eng’s description of the event, they made it seem as though a child was telling a folktale. They seemed to brush off his account, especially because they never went into detail about Eng’s description of the yellow rain falling and people and animals falling ill simultaneously. Although that may have been untrue and the interviewers explanation of people being ill from other causes could definitely be true, they don’t make an effort to explain that as much as they made an effort to explain the research experts had done on the yellow rain. The reporters definitely had a responsibility to be sensitive to their sources. These were not people that were simply regurgitating facts. They were people that went through an extremely hard time and were trying to share what they knew. Whether or not this information was deemed inaccurate by experts should not make a difference in how Eng and his niece were treated. I think by going into the same detail as they did with the information the experts presented would have done angles story justice. Explaining every aspect thoroughly and making sure we knew why or why not the information was true and treating the two sources with the same respect as the experts would have made this podcast much more credible and respectable.

Robert Krulwich’s actions along with the rest of Radiolab were not justified in their treatment of Kao Kalia Yang and Eng Yang. The Yangs were not properly addressed. Instead they were known as the Hmong guy and his niece. Radiolab did not care to get their side of the story. They already knew they wanted to prove that the yellow rain was bee poop. Why bother to introduce the Yang’s if their points would be dismissed.

Krulwich was very rude when talking to them as well. Although Radiolab has to get both sides of the story, they have to be respectful. Krulwich was very quick to shut down anything Eng Yang said about the yellow rain being a chemical attack. He should have been respectful by asking more questions about why they thought the yellow rain was chemicals. This would have showed that Radiolab was considering the Eng’s point.

Radiolab was not fair and balanced in their reporting. They were quick to prove that the yellow rain was bird poop by bringing in two scientists who had evidence. Mr. Yang also had evidence because he lived during the event and saw people from his village die.

Radiolab’s so called coverage of Yellow Rain made me feel sympathetic towards Eng and Kao Yang. They were made to believe that they would have a platform where they could talk about the firsthand horrors experienced by Eng but was instead ridiculed and eventually even accused of heresy. I think Radiolab showed us what happens when journalists do not try to provide fair and balanced viewpoints.

We previously discussed ethics in journalism as well as journalistic ideals. It is clear that Radiolab were not sensitive to the Yangs and instead focused on the expert testimonies, providing a one sided view of the issue. I understand that journalists must ask difficult questions to get deep into the issues but there is a difference between asking tough questions and just plain out insensitive questions. No one wants to hear a boring interview without any tough questions. At the same time, I feel that Radiolab should have asked more questions with the intent to show more of the Yang’s experiences and the unique perspective he has to offer the listeners.

Based on the information that I read about as well as the podcast I listened to I strongly feel as though The Radiolab’s podcast seemed offensive and presented to it’s guests Kao Kalia Yang and Eng Yang . The interviewer began to sound as if he is trying to convince them that they were wrong and that they should believe the scientist. The actions of the interviewer were executed poorly. This was primarily due to the fact that he should have stated facts from both sides. At the same time the interviewer should of asked more questions to both sides of the party in order to gather further intel and information.

The interviewer stated that both  Eng Yang and Kao Kalia Yang were trying to control the conversation topic but based primarily on how I was interpreting the podcast I found it to be more likely that they want the whole story heard of what her uncle and his people suffered through. So lack of exposition by the interviewer led to only the presentation of one side to the story. Reporters did a poor job of getting to the “truth of the story”. It was a missed opportunity to report fair and balanced news. Reporters and interviewers also began to take sides and position themselves with the expert scientists. Instead they should have sided and gathered valuableintell from witnesses that were able to see the account of the yellow rain.  Interviewers ended up doing the complete opposite of what reporting is supposed to do. Each side of the story should be heard.

In terms of fair and balanced, these reporters did not do a good job of getting to the “truth of the story”. In the beginning, a reporter said that getting to the fact of the matter is tricky and is more complicated when you find out more. I would have thought that these reporters would stick to this sentiment. However, it seemed like the reporters only wanted to stick to one side of the story instead of listening to the other. They chose to side with the expert scientists instead of a witness that was able to see the account of the yellow rain for himself.  This is the complete opposite of what reporting is supposed to do. Each side of the story should be heard.

In its place, it seemed like the reporter was completely disregarding Eng Yang’s accounts. He repeatedly asked if Yang saw any planes or bees in the sky before the yellow rain fell. By doing this, and downgrading Yang’s story to “hearsay”, the reporter is discrediting one side of the story. This accusation of untruth went so far as to make Kalia Yang cry and leave the interview. This is never supposed to happen. A reporter shouldn’t be allowed to falsify a source’s information so much that a source feels like they are being attacked. On top of that, Krulwich had the nerve to say that Kalia was trying to “monopolize” the story. In fact, it was the other way around. Krulwich seemed to force the bee poop story while Yang tried to show that her uncle’s side to the story should be heard and listened to.

As a reporter, Krulwich should have had more sensitivity toward the topic of the Hmong people dying. He disregarded this fact to try to prove that the experts were right and that an eye witness wouldn’t know what he is talking about, even though Eng Yang was a documenter for the Thai government. The story should have been open to controversy, to finding out if the yellow rain was really chemical warfare or not. It could have turned into an open-ended conversation where people would decide for themselves based on both stories. Instead the chance for good reporting on a heavy issue was bypassed by the failure of the reporters to divulge in their source’s evidence.

The Radiolab’s podcast on the topic of Yellow Rain was nothing short of offensive to it’s guests Eng Yang and Kao Kalia Yang. They had personally witnessed, experienced, and lost many loved ones in the process of the Yellow Rain attacks. This alone should call for special care and attention to their feelings. However, the Radiolab seemed to have other plans, aimed at discovering the truth of what actually happened, which is still debated between the “experts” and “civilians”.

The Radiolab’s has a responsibility to report fair and balanced news, in this case it seems that they did not. Allowing their bias to guide the interview, the listeners and guests involved could see the mistreatment of their side of the story. It was seemingly viewed as the “wrong” side from the beginning. A picture was painted in a way the questioned what they actually saw and its relationship to what they experienced. They then carelessly attributed the original findings of chemicals in the Yellow Rain to be a mistake on the part of the lab. Later stating the an apology was in order for accusing Russia of chemical warfare, while no apology should be extended to those who fell victim to it. Tanya Jo Miller from the Huffington Post further points out the bias held by RadioLab in her article, stating: “Radiolab built the segment on the premise that what seems like truth at the time – people witnessing sickness due to yellow chemicals pouring from the sky – can actually be faulty. The sickness and yellow substance, the show posits, are in fact unrelated.”

No source should ever feel the need to end an interview early because they are being mistreated. News organizations have a responsibility to the people, and if these organizations are personally offending and upsetting the people, they are doing something wrong.

There are a few difficulties in analyzing the events that transpired during the RadioLab interview with the Yangs, and most of them could be (or could have been) eliminated by proper communication. 

There were two stories being presented during the podcast: the massacre of the Hmong people and the events that the led the US to manufacture chemical weaponry. The two are linked through the mysterious Yellow Rain, but the Rain’s relevance is actually negligible to the truth-value of either story. Whether or not chemical weapons were used by the Viet Cong or Laotian Communist militias (supplied by the Russians or not) is unimportant in the broader sense as it relates to the people of Laos and Cambodia, given the undeniable slaughtering of towns and villages across Southeast Asia. And whether or not chemical weapons were used by the Viet Cong or Laotian Communist militias (supplied by the Russians or not) is unimportant in the broader sense as it relates to the US developing chemical arsenal, given that the US was already synthesizing (and using) chemical weapons during the Cold War. Those are two parallel stories (both valid, both important) that were simultaneously conflated and compared during the podcast. The Yangs wanted the producers of the show to concede that one story was more important than the other, and the producers wanted the reverse. A simple conversation before the podcast would have revealed the inconsistency and probably would have changed the trajectory of the discussion.

But given that such a conversation did not occur, how could the producers have remedied the situation and still extracted the story they wanted to reach? The answer is that it would have been tricky, but not impossible. In journalism, language is so extremely important, and the way a journalist frames his or her questions can make the difference in a given story. If a linguistic psychologist or analytic philosopher or conceptual neurologist were on staff at RadioLab, they would have perhaps been better able to craft questions that would have subtly and stealthily evaded the emotional barriers that were blocking the truth. I do believe that had the producers been more deliberate and calculated (not necessarily more sensitive) in handling the Yangs, they would have been able to reveal the Yang’s position without offending or belittling them. In that sense, I think that the producers were not out of line, per se, in their journalistic pursuit when they left the Yangs bitter and in tears, but they were not tasteful, graceful, or clever enough to avoid such offense in the first place.

Though it wasn’t bad journalism, it certainly wasn’t good journalism either.

Written by Aaron Mayer