At the Kennedy School panel, Boyle said the cars’ “real-world application” was the stories’ selling point. “It’s something consumers can really identify with,” he said. “Where are you going to plug it in at night? What happens if it’s not as charged as you thought and you have to make a big trip? What happens when the rubber meets the road, literally?”
Good journalism on renewable energy, though, can’t always wait until the technologies are ready for market. Policy debates play out much earlier. As Venky Narayanamurti, director of the science, technology and public policy program at the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, put it, “There’s a fine line between being enthusiastic so you don’t kill it, and going to the extreme.” How to cover emerging technologies—including selling editors on stories in the first place—without getting caught in Walsh’s “three stages” trap, remains an open question, particularly in the era of shrinking budgets.
At the wind energy panel, Daley cited a number of story angles that she felt would make her reporting more effective. But it’s less clear how she can put her ideas into practice under current conditions. “The Globe used to have three science writers and one clean tech reporter,” she said; today she’s the only reporter covering the environment. “I do the big stories and the local stories. The result is you miss stories and miss going deeper into stories that deserve to be told, that need to be told. You try to balance it out, to go deeper into some stories. But it does affect how the public views these things.”
Rosenthal is also worried about an impact of shrinking budgets: story length. “Five years ago a typical story I did might’ve been 2,200 words,” she said. “Now it’s 1,200 with links.” That’s often not enough space to convey the complexity of a topic like renewable energy. Yet Times stories are longer than those in most of the country’s newspapers; elsewhere, story lengths started out shorter and have shrunk even more calamitously. Too-brief articles can oversimplify to the point of misinforming readers.
As Daley put it, nuance is key. We’re not facing a choice between wind power or “death and mayhem,” she said. “It’s not, ‘if you’re against wind in Nantucket Sound you want the world to go to hell in a hand-basket.’”
Rosenthal agreed. When it comes to energy, there’s no catch-all solution, and coverage needs to reflect that. “We have to decide as a society what we want and will tolerate,” she said. Those decisions require a type of journalism that the mainstream media needs to figure out how to deliver. Preferably soon.
I agree that if a technology is presented too enthusiastically and without any mention of flaws, the three stages will undoubtedly result. I found a news article (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1361513/Anti-aging-laser-technique-help-Madonna-Angelina-smooth-skin.html) that described a laser technology that seems to be the perfect solution for women who have exposed veins. The article describes the cosmetic process of removing the veins, but there is not mention of possible side effects, like poor circulation or loss of feeling which could feasibly result. The technology almost seems too good to be true.
We may be in stage one for this technology, and stage two could be on the way. In fact, I have written a post (at http://youlllaseyoureyeoutkid.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-lasers-could-talk.html) about the topic where I actually take the other side of the story; a kind of stage 2 post. I did, however, lead toward stage 3 when I describe that there may be a balance between benefit and detriment from the operation.
I find the three stage analysis to be very informative, and clear when one is trained to look for it! Perhaps this analysis will help us all to prevent our reports from "killing" our topics.
#1 Posted by Benito El Jefe, CJR on Mon 28 Feb 2011 at 06:09 PM
We as citizens and the reporters, the politicians and the contractors to make the various cars, energy from wind, sun, etc are all acting like spoiled brats and/or beaten athletes. If others are ahead of us, why try???!! Is that what they did with railroads, elctric wiring from Pacific to Atlantic, highways etc over the previous 100-150 years?? Too many competitors so we can't do it. Besides it's too expensive!!?? If it's expensive now, it will be more so later. Not all states need or can use wind power but those that can, should. Those that have natural gas right in state use it.
In terms of the electric car, this is where the state and federal government must work together. Like the railroad tracks covered all the various states from NY to California, so will the electric chargers at home and company parking lots and gas stations need subsidies to make sure whoever have an electric car can drive it to his destination and not be stopped by dead batteries.
Make it so the charges are all the same and so are the batteries. Cars don't need the mess we have right now with remotes, phones, camera etc that need charging and can't be done on the same cord/charger. Follow EU rules and make them standard now. Then no one needs to change their later. Working together in business shouldn't difficult. That's what most of us were supposed to have learned in Kindergarten.
Why are these things so difficult for the engineers and highly educated people in all these building fields. I don't drive, yet I can see some of the ways to do it. So it takes some paperwork. We are not China--and I hope most of you don't want to be China--so we have to do it according to the law. besides--that gives people jobs. I can't change my heating units since I live in an apt complex. That doesn't mean my landlord won't or that homeowners shouldn't. I still follow many environmental suggestions to keep the heat down, wear warm clothes in the winter, use shade instead of air conditioning. I don't exceed 2200 watts in 12 months and I am home all day. Cheap light bulbs help.
All have to quit exaggerating the negatives and start working with the positive aspects or our children will be wondering what was wrong with us that we didn't do it 20-40 years ago. Those electric cars have been on the drawing boards since the 1960's. There is NO EXCUSE to stop now--again!!
#2 Posted by Trish, CJR on Mon 28 Feb 2011 at 07:47 PM
Reporter enthusiasm apart, often technologists with lab-level success tend to exaggerate their finds in the hope of securing sufficient funding / support / market for their technology early. They obfuscate the fact that technology follows a process - concept - research - lab-level success - proof of concept - scalability - viability - field research - and all of it takes a lot of money and time. More often than not, the reporter is doing a service to humanity by exaggerating - at least some people take notice of it!
#3 Posted by Shreesh, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 02:17 AM