July 16 — BPA, Health, and Nuance: The few science reporters left in the “mainstream” media continued to fight the good fight, however. With a FDA ruling on the safety of bisphenol-A, an additive in plastics believed to be a hormone disrupter, imminent over the summer, STATS, a “statistical assessment service” affiliated with George Mason University, released an in-depth critique of the media’s coverage of the BPA debate. The report accused the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which had publishing an award-winning series on the subject the year before, of hyping the risks of BPA despite scientific evidence to the contrary. A CJR analysis argued that while the report made valid points about the media’s overreliance on a limited number of sources, the STATS reports suffered from the same shortcoming as many articles: reaching for conclusions where explanations of scientific uncertainty would have been more accurate.
July 17 — The New Pioneers of the West: Some of the spirit of the Seattle P-I was reincarnated over the summer when a group of its former staffers launched Investigate West, an online startup focused on environmental issues in the American West. The group was able to attract its first major grant later in the year and sent a group of journalists to cover the climate summit in Copenhagen (where one of photographers was arrested amid protests).
August 24 — Forbes on ExxonMobil: “Green Company of the Year”: Meanwhile, older, but unfortunately not wiser, publications were busy flubbing the energy story, which was one of the biggest political and business, let alone environmental, stories of the year. The quintessential example was Forbes’s fawning headline atop what could have otherwise been a very informative cover story about the theory of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” between its dirtier fossil cousins and clean energy sources like wind and solar.
August 26 — Media Hype Swine Flu Report: Likewise, the press got a little carried away with its coverage of a White House planning report about the possible impact of swine flu during the fall. The report said 30,000 to 90,000 could possibly die from the illness (36,000 is average for a regular seasonal flu), but made no specific predictions about where along that range actual numbers might fall. Nonetheless, the dominant media storyline was that the government had predicted up to 90,000 deaths, surely stoking the fears of an already worried public.
Sept 17 — Is Futurity the Future?: Citing the decline of science coverage in the mainstream news media, thirty-five of the country’s top universities have banded together to launch their own “news channel” for publicizing their best research. The consortium created a Web site, Futurity.org, to showcase edited press releases and stories written by member schools. The editor stressed to CJR, however, the project was not designed to replace impartial, critical reporting.
September/October issue — The New Energy Beat: For all of its shortcomings, the mainstream deserves credit for “re-discovering” the energy beat in 2009. The Obama administration pushed hard to reframe a shift from fossil fuels to clean energy as an economic and national security issue, in addition to an environmental one. The press followed suit, churning out more articles on energy than it had in well over a decade, but much of the coverage was disjointed, failing to connect local issues to national goals. CJR magazine’s analysis included an online sidebar with a comprehensive list of energy information resources for journalists.
October 12 — SEJ Accused of Protecting Gore: The controversy around climate change and energy began to reach a fever pitch around the fall, with Congress mulling over cap-and-trade legislation and the international climate summit in Copenhagen rapidly approaching. An independent filmmaker accused the Society of Environmental Journalists of “protecting” Al Gore at the group’s annual meeting after the filmmaker’s mic was cut while challenging the former vice president to acknowledge alleged errors in the 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. While Gore ducked the filmmaker’s questions, the challenges the latter presented were nothing new and the spectacle seemed little more than a publicity stunt.
Curtis,
I followed, closely, the climate change coverage of The New York Times through the entire year, including what they covered and what they didn't cover, and how clearly, also noting all the ExxonMobil front-page ads and double-page spreads along the way.
In my view, with respect to climate change and energy matters, the SWAT Team was an utter disappointment. How can any actual analysis of the matter suggest otherwise, when you compare the actual coverage with the substance of the matter itself and with what was actually going on but was left unreported or dismally reported? When you compare the importance of the issue with the reporting, placement, clarity, and so forth, what grade can actually be given?
And what was the net result of climate change coverage when it comes to what matters -- public understanding and warranted concern? According to the polls that I've seen, they actually declined last year, or in any case, they certainly didn't improve to the degree that they should.
If The Times had a similar "crack" window-washing team washing its windows last year, the windows would still all be dirty, smudged, and foggy -- more so at the end of the year than at the beginning! Is that excellent window-washing?
Why are CJR and The Observatory so complimentary of The Times? The public's understanding of these matters is still dismal. In many ways, concern and understanding have gone down. The Times' coverage is still spotty, confused, and hesitant at best. What standards and expectations, and aims, is journalism setting for itself? Do you get funding from The New York Times?
Sigh,
Jeff Huggins
Los Gatos, CA
#1 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Tue 5 Jan 2010 at 08:15 AM
@Jeff: So the effectiveness of climate coverage can be measured by the degree to which the average citizen buys into global warming theory? Quite an interesting take, especially in a journalism review. Whatever happened to skepticism, or don’t they teach that any more?
And Curtis, your characterization of Climategate could win a prize in spin. Conspiring to fix the peer review system and delete data under FOI request becomes “how and when to present and release climate data and how to combat climate skeptics, among other matters.” You could have a job in the Nixon white House.
I’m sure Climategate changed few minds among true believers, but much of the country has developed a healthy skepticism, especiallyamong people who actually spend time outdoors. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s cold out there.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 01:00 PM