How reporters miss the point
By Robert Logan Posted Sat, Sep 1 2001
Two persistent criticisms of environmental reporting are that journalists are not covering environmental science and that the research covered by the media needs more context to help the audience assess its scientific standing.
The criticisms are important because they come from peers as well as news sources. And some of the toughest critics are science and medical reporters, often within the same newsroom.
To some science and medical writers, the problems in environmental reporting begin at the top: What is news and who makes news? If the focal point is not persons who are at the edge of knowledge, then, science and medical writers wonder if green coverage is diluted.
As one veteran medical writer explains, most contemporary science and medical news is grounded in research findings published in refereed medical and science journals such as Science, Nature, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association and The New England Journal of Medicine. Readers and viewers get a steady diet of what is new to physicians and scientists, and the agenda is set by the most knowledgeable within their discipline, in contrast to strategic-communication initiatives set forth by governmental agencies, attorneys, politicians and the like.
Since refereed results are sometimes preliminary and reflect new and challengeable evidence, science and medical writers have to give a narrative context to their findings. Albeit buried in a story, readers and viewers are sometimes informed when, if ever, a new pill will be available or if a newly identified gene will result in actual medical therapy. The emphasis is to help readers understand the difference between a finding’s often delayed diffusion or migration to a textbook and the more immediate assertion within a story’s headline or lead. The context helps citizens understand the veracity, authenticity and status of the claim.
Some of the world’s leading environmental-research journals include: Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Journal of Wildlife Management, Journal of Ecological Applications, Journal of Applied Ecology, Bioscience, Journal of Forestry and Journal of Soil & Water Conservation. The fact that well-informed readers, viewers or citizens rarely recognize any of these publications is a telling commentary on contemporary environmental journalism.
The key social actors in environmental news tend to be governmental agencies, attorneys, politicians, accountants, public-interest advocates and corporate executives instead of those who study the impact of clear-cutting a forest or the effects of agricultural runoff on groundwater and rural streams.
While the research and work of natural-resources experts is not overlooked, it is sometimes de-emphasized, especially when compared with other areas within science and medical journalism. In comparison to science and medical reporters (who pore over and report the results of major journals), the emphasis on informing citizens about environmental research almost seems peripheral.
There is little incentive to help readers understand the extent of scientific grounding or veracity without an emphasis on reporting new findings. To paraphrase a veteran science writer, a context regarding evidence is a byproduct of stories that focus on scientific findings. Little focus equals little context.
In fairness, some reporting on global warming in summer 2001 explained assertions regarding climate change and supplied background about the evidentiary debate within the scientific community. A requested report by the National Academy of Sciences to President George W. Bush provided a high-profile, accessible resource that fostered some insightful reporting on the science that underlies globalwarming claims—as differentiated from geopolitics.
Journalists do have a multitude of resources to help them cover environmental issues. This spring’s CQ Researcher “On Saving the Environment,” for example, reflects the range of environmental issues currently covered by the U.S. news media. They include: environmental justice; preservation of open spaces; energy needs and environmental protection; regulation of pesticides; the financial future of recycling; traffic congestion, air pollution and development; population growth; the preservation of national parks, protection of tropical rain forests and biodiversity.
The Society of Environmental Journalists’ (SEJ) extensive list of news topics (listed under resources for reporters at sej.org) adds some high-profile issues, such as biotechnology, as well as less publicized topics like the introduction of nonnative species.
Unquestionably, SEJ and CQ’s lists provide a spectrum of environmental topics and a commendable diversity of reporting approaches. Reporters using SEJ’s Web site (or using CQ for background information) are encouraged to examine the sociological, psychological, economic, legal, public-policy and scientific angles of this topic.
SEJ’s Web site also radiates a vigorous beat that is increasingly mindful of ecology’s international implications.
The spring issue of SEJournal reports renewed interest in environmental coverage in large American news organizations and notes how environmental writers have never been better prepared to face the beat’s challenges.
CQ and SEJ’s range of topics and reporting approaches are impressive. But citizens might be better served by increased reporting about ecology as a science, which would give readers and viewers a context to evaluate the quality and social implications of environmental reporting if best evidence is ignored in environmental-policy decisions.
Robert A. Logan is a professor, director of the science journalism center and associate dean for undergraduate studies in the Missouri School of Journalism.
How Reporters Miss the Point
Most science and medical news is grounded on research findings; environmental reporting needs to do the same to gain credibility and give readers context.
By Robert A. Logan
Two persistent criticisms of environmental reporting are that journalists are not covering environmental science and that the research covered by the media needs more context to help the audience assess its scientific standing.
The criticisms are important because they come from peers as well as news sources. And some of the toughest critics are science and medical reporters, often within the same newsroom.
To some science and medical writers, the problems in environmental reporting begin at the top: What is news and who makes news? If the focal point is not persons who are at the edge of knowledge, then, science and medical writers wonder if green coverage is diluted.
As one veteran medical writer explains, most contemporary science and medical news is grounded in research findings published in refereed medical and science journals such as Science, Nature, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association and The New England Journal of Medicine. Readers and viewers get a steady diet of what is new to physicians and scientists, and the agenda is set by the most knowledgeable within their discipline, in contrast to strategic-communication initiatives set forth by governmental agencies, attorneys, politicians and the like.
Since refereed results are sometimes preliminary and reflect new and challengeable evidence, science and medical writers have to give a narrative context to their findings. Albeit buried in a story, readers and viewers are sometimes informed when, if ever, a new pill will be available or if a newly identified gene will result in actual medical therapy. The emphasis is to help readers understand the difference between a finding’s often delayed diffusion or migration to a textbook and the more immediate assertion within a story’s headline or lead. The context helps citizens understand the veracity, authenticity and status of the claim.
Some of the world’s leading environmental-research journals include: Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Journal of Wildlife Management, Journal of Ecological Applications, Journal of Applied Ecology, Bioscience, Journal of Forestry and Journal of Soil & Water Conservation. The fact that well-informed readers, viewers or citizens rarely recognize any of these publications is a telling commentary on contemporary environmental journalism.
The key social actors in environmental news tend to be governmental agencies, attorneys, politicians, accountants, public-interest advocates and corporate executives instead of those who study the impact of clear-cutting a forest or the effects of agricultural runoff on groundwater and rural streams.
While the research and work of natural-resources experts is not overlooked, it is sometimes de-emphasized, especially when compared with other areas within science and medical journalism. In comparison to science and medical reporters (who pore over and report the results of major journals), the emphasis on informing citizens about environmental research almost seems peripheral.
There is little incentive to help readers understand the extent of scientific grounding or veracity without an emphasis on reporting new findings. To paraphrase a veteran science writer, a context regarding evidence is a byproduct of stories that focus on scientific findings. Little focus equals little context.
In fairness, some reporting on global warming in summer 2001 explained assertions regarding climate change and supplied background about the evidentiary debate within the scientific community. A requested report by the National Academy of Sciences to President George W. Bush provided a high-profile, accessible resource that fostered some insightful reporting on the science that underlies globalwarming claims—as differentiated from geopolitics.
Journalists do have a multitude of resources to help them cover environmental issues. This spring’s CQ Researcher “On Saving the Environment,” for example, reflects the range of environmental issues currently covered by the U.S. news media. They include: environmental justice; preservation of open spaces; energy needs and environmental protection; regulation of pesticides; the financial future of recycling; traffic congestion, air pollution and development; population growth; the preservation of national parks, protection of tropical rain forests and biodiversity.
The Society of Environmental Journalists’ (SEJ) extensive list of news topics (listed under resources for reporters at sej.org) adds some high-profile issues, such as biotechnology, as well as less publicized topics like the introduction of nonnative species.
Unquestionably, SEJ and CQ’s lists provide a spectrum of environmental topics and a commendable diversity of reporting approaches. Reporters using SEJ’s Web site (or using CQ for background information) are encouraged to examine the sociological, psychological, economic, legal, public-policy and scientific angles of this topic.
SEJ’s Web site also radiates a vigorous beat that is increasingly mindful of ecology’s international implications.
The spring issue of SEJournal reports renewed interest in environmental coverage in large American news organizations and notes how environmental writers have never been better prepared to face the beat’s challenges.
CQ and SEJ’s range of topics and reporting approaches are impressive. But citizens might be better served by increased reporting about ecology as a science, which would give readers and viewers a context to evaluate the quality and social implications of environmental reporting if best evidence is ignored in environmental-policy decisions.