Most of you have probably come across Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff in your travels around the interwebs. If you haven't seen or heard of it, it is a 20-minute, illustrated video that looks at the other angles of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff highlights the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues. But despite its focus on societal "wrongs", the general tone of the film is one of hope for a more sustainable and just world.
Well, now that over 7 million people have seen the video, it has finally come up on the radar screens of those cutting-edge trendspotters Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, mostly thanks to a lawyer at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who has taken particular offense to the movie and come out with his very own multi-part video rebuttal. The folks at Media Matters grabbed the audio/video of Beck and Dobbs to show how even well-intended educational videos are being called out as left-wing propaganda by who else but the right-wing propagandists Beck and Dobbs.
Here is the Beck excerpt from his radio show. Note how Beck latches on to two things: First, the idea that Leonard could have used a tank to symbolize the government (as had been suggested to her), even though she didn't use a tank (she used a person), and; second, the idea that the government's role is to take care of its citizens. Check it out:
Before Beck blows another gasket about the role of government, let me quote from the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now let me pick out four key action verbs from that stanza and define them for Mr. Beck from the dictionary built into my Mac:
Ensure: make certain that (something) shall occur or be the case.
Provide: make available for use.
Promote: further the progress of something (a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
Secure: fix or attach something firmly so that it cannot be moved or lost; protect against threats; make safe.
If one reads those words in the Constitution literally (which I have a feeling Beck likes to do), it sounds like the purpose of the government is—at least on some level—to take care of its citizens.
The easily flabbergasted Lou Dobbs, on the other hand, was just as you would expect: flabbergasted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX9AAXA85pU
I will concede that there are some claims made in the Story of Stuff that are a little over-simplified, but depending on who the target audience is, simplification is sometimes the best way to teach complex concepts like democratic theory, triangular trade, historical materialism and global market regulatory structures. Wouldn't you say?
Follow Tim Hurst on twitter
Follow Timothy B. Hurst on Twitter: 
It’s getting to the point where I think Glenn Beck & Lou Dobbs are just flat out evil.
They are really “poisoning the well” and making it more difficult for our country to progress as it obviously needs to.
Making sarcastic sounds while a clip is playing is NOT the same thing as refuting its points. Not liking it is not the same thing as proving that it’s wrong.
I think Beck thinks that if we sent all of our tanks overseas to crush brown people we might be able to keep them from running us over.
I was on Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck. The Story of Stuff is factually inaccurate. Period.
I saw Lou Dobbs last night. The argument that was being made was that the video shouldn’t be in schools because there are some “facts” that are exaggerated. She states in the video that 50% of our tax dollars are going towards funding the war; the actual percentage is 20%. If anything, for that reason alone it shouldn’t be in schools. Most students (even college freshmen) don’t understand how to measure facts–they don’t understand the importance of digging into these things on their own; instead they just take everything at face value, and form opinions based on what others are showing them–particularly teachers (authoritative figures). For that same reason, though, I don’t think Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck should be shown in schools unless it’s to make a point of how media can affect and influence our opinions…;) We won’t progress as a nation unless all of us become fully informed on the issues–those discussed in “The Story of Stuff” are huge–and being misinformed is an extremely dangerous thing when are wanting to “tackle” these issues.
I think the basic underlying message of The Story of Stuff (that Americans consume too much stuff) is a good one…but the government is NOT supposed to take care of us Annie.
The left is basically a media network with a long term plan to propagandize their agenda. This is why they love lowly educated voters.
Lou, Don’t use big words you don’t understand, Please?
Hi “Me”,
Regarding the tax money spent on war, I think she’s referring to this kind of more comprehensive analysis of the government budget:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
So much for the misinformation there.
Any other problems with the video?
The story of stuff is packed full to bursting of so many lies that it would take a feature length film to debunk them all.
Suffice it to say, idiots like Annie Leonard only have JOBS spreading lies and misinformation, because they are funded by foundations and donors who got very very rich selling tons and TONS of STUFF. (Well, that’s not entirely true, I noticed many of her “business” partners are funded by taxpayers — using government (the tanks in her film) to forcibly steal money from hard working people who made their money by making, transporting, designing, marketing, and otherwise working in a worldwide economy that only exists because people want stuff to make their lives better and easier.
Stephen Colbert touched on the idiocy that Annie represents. It is absolutely true that when people buy less stuff, the world experiences recession, depression, unemployment, hunger starvation and suffering. Annie conveniently evaded the question.
People only have jobs, and people are only able to put food on the table because they provide goods and services that other people want.
Hundreds of millions of people around the world have been lifted out of abject poverty because of “big, bad, evil” CONSUMERISM! And the less we consume, the less people will be employed, the less people will eat, the less people will have homes, medicine, clothing, and life’s essentials.
Moreover, it is only the big, bad RICH nations of the world, that have enough wealth to AFFORD to support bleeding heart misinformed activists like Annie to worry about the environment. And it is only RICH countries that can afford environmentally friendly policy and practices.
It is CONSUMERISM, CAPITALISM and WEALTH that make environmentalism possible in the first place. The third world is too busy trying to EAT to worry about how they are treating their air and water.
It is CONSEMERISM, CAPITALISM and WEALTH that are responsible for the techonologies to grow more food on less land, to clean the air, to clean the water, to invent cleaner technologies. The air, water and earth are CLEANER than they were 100 years ago, not dirtier, and we are getting cleaner all the time.
NONE of which we could even afford to do if it weren’t for consumerism.
And lastly, Annie’s FEAR-mongering about the environment is nothing but shameful lies, misleading and misinformation. She says that we only have 4% of our ORIGINAL forests, but doesn’t mention that those original forests are protected or that the total amount of forest we have now is MORE than we had 100 years ago. Someone should inform Annie that Trees are a RENEWABLE resource. We can plant as many as we want! And her claim that we are using up all the water? Atrocious lies! As is the idea that we are running out of resources. More lies. Not only are we producing more, and finding more, but CONSUMERISM gives us the wealth necessary to invent new ways of doing things.
It is also CONSUMERISM, CAPITALISM and WEALTH that lowers the birth rate around the world. Rich countries like those in the west, have low birth rates, the world population growth comes from poorer countries where people have big families to take care of them in their old age.
If we followed the radical, and ignorant advice of people like Annie, hundreds of millions of people around the world would be thrust back into poverty, hunger and suffering, and the air, earth and water would get DIRTIER, not cleaner. But if we keep buying and using STUFF, more people will be lifted out of poverty, more people will be able to AFFORD to worry about the environment, and more will be able to AFFORD the technology and innovation that will continue to feed, and clean the world and generally make it a better place.
“Progressives” not only hate capitalism, they apparently also hate science,and progress itself.
But one thing is sure, Annie Leonards movie and books are nothing more than outright propaganda and lies!
I find it interesting that none of the errors pointed out by American Elephant have been addressed. The video is full of lies, but it is still being promoted as useful or helpful. This video intentionally misleads, and no surprise, it was funded and written by the Tides Foundation, a George Soros venture. Ironic, given that Soros is one of the most successful buyers and sellers of “stuff” in the world.
If you want to believe this video that’s your right. But do NOT please into the schools without at least an opposing viewpoint.
Thanks for the comment, L.D. It’s a long story. Are you saying everything in The Story of Stuff is factually inaccurate? Besides your fear of burning pillows – is there anything else?
Speaking of burning pillows, in one of your critiques you site a statisticto back up the use of BFRs as beneficial, that there were 200,000 deaths per year from burning clothing in 1971. While that number sounds like a lot by itself, it’s kind of meaningless without some context. What were smoke alarms and fire detectors like in 1971? What kind of clothes started to become real popular in 1971? (Hint: rhymes with Molly Ester and is perhaps the most flammable clothing in the history of the planet). And finally, without a figure on the number of people we might be killing or making sick per year from BFRs, how can we really conduct a cost-benefit analysis?
Also, using that same example, you also make a leap from that 1971 figure of 200,000 deaths per year from burning clothes and apply it to the last 10 years (1999-2009). And when you then pull in the number that BFRs have been responsible for reducing deaths by 20%, you then conclude that 40,000 lives are saved per year from BFRs. Talk about factually inaccurate.
That said, I think The Story of Stuff does simplify the story a little too much, but it’s telling a big story. While you obviously spent a lot of time working on your critique, I take issue with your faith that the “free market” will sort it all out.