Network news got a little better this month.
CBS News announced in early May that it had hired M. Sanjayan, lead scientist at The Nature Conservancy, as its science and environmental contributor, filling a slot that’s been vacant for almost two and a half years. Sanjayan will cover a broad range of topics across multiple platforms and contribute to CBS News broadcasts, according to the network.
He’s done two nice segments so far.
The first was a helpful appearance on CBS This Morning, where Sanjayan talked about debris from the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan that was washing up along shores in the Western US. He explained that chemical toxicity was a greater concern than radioactivity from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, and went on to emphasize that, generally, it’s easier to prevent refuse from entering the oceans than it is to remove it once it’s there.
The second was a two-minute, no-nonsense report on climate change for CBS Evening New with Scott Pelley, in which Sanjayan told viewers flat out that they’d all experienced its effects “firsthand” in the form of record high temperatures. It’s a problem felt “right here, right now, in our own backyards,” he said, citing the impact of heat waves on ranchers and the elderly and the steps that insurance companies are taking to hedge against the risks of climate-related disasters.
“Asking questions comes naturally to me because science is all about inquiry and evidence,” Sanjayan said in an interview. “CBS News’s track record of credible and serious reporting seemed like a perfect match for my strengths. With broadcasts like 60 Minutes, the new format of CBS This Morning, and the hard news focus of CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley, I couldn’t think of a better news organization for contributing science and environmental stories.”
At The Nature Conservancy, the country’s largest environmental organization, Sanjayan “specializes in human well-being and conservation, Africa, wildlife ecology and media outreach and public speaking on conservation issues.” He also has an affiliate faculty appointment at the University of Montana’s Wildlife Biology Program, where he focuses on research and does some teaching. His work has been published in journals like Science and Conservation Biology.
Sanjayan’s media experience is extensive. He’s been quoted in a variety of print outlets, including The New York Times, Vanity Fair, and National Geographic. He also has co-hosted documentaries for BBC, Discovery Channel, PBS, and National Geographic TV.
As longtime environmental journalist and educator Bud Ward pointed out at The Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, “For some died-in-the-wool traditional journalism ethicists, the Sanjayan/CBS News relationship no doubt raises concerns along the church-and-state lines: The need to separate news from advocacy, notwithstanding Sanjayan’s pieces being labeled as commentaries.”
But Ward also quoted Philip Meyer, a journalism scholar who recently retired from the University of North Carolina, explaining why he thinks Sanjayan is a “a good fit” for CBS. According to Ward’s post:
Meyer added that Sanjayan ‘is not a hired gun offering his skills to anybody who can pay for them. The Nature Conservancy is a highly visible, non-profit, public interest group that tries to slow mankind’s persistent destruction of our planet. By bringing its chief scientist aboard, CBS News also serves the public interest.’
For his part, Sanjayan says he isn’t concerned about potential conflicts of interest that might arise when covering issues, like climate change, that The Nature Conservancy works on. “I am with CBS News because they value my scientific expertise and my ability to translate that on screen to their audiences in a compelling fashion,” he said. “The Nature Conservancy has me as their lead scientist because I am a conservation scientist by training who can translate good science into conservation action.”
A CBS News spokeswoman said the network doesn’t discuss its hiring practices and declined to answer questions about its approach to science and environmental coverage in general. Bringing on experts from the private and public sectors is nothing new for the outlet, however.
- 1
- 2
The lack of outcry about this is stunningly hypocritical, and reveals a huge problem within journalism broadly and environmental journalism specifically. Mr. Sanjayan's exceptional credentials and his honesty notwithstanding, if CBS hired the lead scientist from some conservative environmental advocacy organization the furor would be loud and long...appropriately so. How is this any different? Because he's with the "good guys", as Phillip Meyer's cop-out apology makes clear? What an intellectually dishonest double standard. Impartiality and objectivity are critical to how trustworthy the news is seen to be. Relying on anyone so intimately associated with an overt advocacy organization abandons that bedrock principle, no matter how righteous the cause of what that organization advocates. This is a clarion example of environmentalISM getting far too mixed up with the part of journalISM that is supposed to be just about the facts.
#1 Posted by David Ropeik, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 10:50 AM
@ David Ropeik: Well put.
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 11:00 AM
It's not entirely clear to me from this report, but as I understand it, Sanjayan will remain affiliated with The Nature Conservancy (and also with the University of Montana) while serving as a contributor to CBS News. It's the continued bifurcated responsibilities that raise conflict of interest concerns for some in the traditional journalism community. These concerns would be lessened if -as I do NOT believe to be the case -- he were ending the Nature Conservancy affiliation to begin the CBS role. And they may be lessened for some also IF CBS dontinues to fully identify his joint roles...AND labels his work as being commentary and not news. So maybe I'm too hung-up on the words "hired" and "cover" in the lead paragraph here. Clearly it's not the kind of collaboration we would have expected to see in the Walter Croinkite/Edward R. Murrow days. But, in case you haven't noticed...CBS and the other legacy networks aren't the kinds of networks we had in those days either. Get used to it, my kids might tell me.
#3 Posted by Bud Ward, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 02:03 PM
Thanks David & Bud for your comments. There's definitely room for concern about potential conflicts of interest. Sanjayan will continue his work for TNC and the Univ. of Montana. I should have made that clear, and perhaps the words "hired" and "cover" were confusing. CBS News's press release says that it "named" Sanjayan sci/env't "contributor," and unfortunately, the network declined to discuss his hiring or how it hopes he'll "cover" the beat.
I do wish that they'd hired a journalist instead, but I'm also happy that they have somebody in this roll for the first time in 2.5 years. Maybe that's me "getting used to it" or making concessions out of frustration, but Sanjayan has strong scientific credentials. It also doesn't seem like he's been involved in any of TNC's policy work or like he's gotten wrapped up in any of the political partisanship that hangs over a lot of advocates.
I also might point out, David, that many outlets—including this one—publish your writing about nuclear and chemical issues even though you continue to work as consultant for those industries, and we always disclose that. True, it's opinion writing and different from what we expect from a major news network in terms of coverage, but it goes to show how outlets are dealing with potential COIs through honesty and transparency.
Whatever the case, CBS and Sanjayan will certainly have to tread carefully with their coverage and bear these concerns in mind. Perhaps there should be a greater outcry over this, but I can't help but think that CBS News and its viewers are better off than they were a month ago.
#4 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 02:47 PM
CB,
I have no problem with CBS having him offer commentary, perspective, his views - as long as that is all clearly labeled as such - even if he maintains his other affiliations. Sort of the way I do as a pundit or commentator on stuff. Bud, that doesn't conflict with "traditional" journalism. (Remember Eric Sevareid!) The problem I do have, should he serve only in that role, is that his views - and I probably agree with most of them - are just one set of views. So the commentaries on these issues we hear is from someone who comes from a conservation perspective...as his own comments so far seem to reflect. That's both narrow, and clearly not fair in any sense to the wide range of competing views on many of these issues. That brings us back to the trust issue about journalism (the 'just-the facts' part of journalism), which is hardly merely an old school/traditional. The whole Wild West of the media world is grappling with this in lots of ways. My feeling is that when any ANY purveyor of supposedly objective information wants to make money by establishing itself as a trustworthy source of facts, crossing the line like this is not only an ethical but a financial problem.
#5 Posted by david ropeik, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 03:37 PM
I agree with Bud and David that this is a serious problem, no matter how well intentioned and no matter how hard Sanjayan works to keep his Nature Conservancy agenda out of his reports.
As Bud says, this is particularly true if the reports are not labeled commentary and made part of a regular round of commentary reflecting varied reasoned views on conservation and environment issues. And there ARE varied views by reasonable people.
#6 Posted by Andy Revkin, CJR on Sat 2 Jun 2012 at 03:36 PM
What view does the NC have that conflict with conservative views? Im not as well read on this I apologize. If hes doing his job well as a scientist his 'views' shouldn't come into play. What personal agenda are you worried about?
#7 Posted by Jason, CJR on Sat 2 Jun 2012 at 04:09 PM
Just finished reading "Storms of My Grand Children" by James Hansen. If we do not stop
burning coal as quickly as possible we should all do the following; Practise extreme yoga.Try kissing your ass goodbye. Respectfully Ed
#8 Posted by Ed Patton, CJR on Sat 2 Jun 2012 at 04:39 PM
I stopped paying attention to "serious problems" when CNN started hiring people like Glen Beck and Erick Erickson for their commentary. It's a bit McCarthyist to claim someone who has expertise shouldn't be given a platform to speak because of their view.
Conservatives have no problem getting their views out and puking their perspective on mainstream media at times and exclusively on the conservative owned media circuit, (which is why the term "puke funnel" was coined).
It must be really annoying to have to suffer the occasional voice which doesn't march with the conservative goosestep on PBS, MSNBC, and now CBS.
Here's an idea, if he spreads something false, complain. Otherwise, turn the flipping channel. If he's an expert that can communicate on an issue requiring coverage, then he's got more right than any journalist, as much right as any of the dozens of conservative "experts" from the think tank circuit, to make a point. Hey, John Stossel got to give his libertarian views a regular bullhorn. Wouldn't be nice to give someone who has a brain the same opportunity?
You say no, not because he's bad at this job, but because you don't like environmentalISM. David Simon would call this BS ad hominem.
I call it being a judgmental ass. I'm from the school of thought that says 'you should give his material a watch before you condemn it.' I plan to do so, then I'll let you know what I think (and if his work is sloppy, I will condemn it on that merit).
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jun 2012 at 10:29 PM
From the story:
"The second was a two-minute, no-nonsense report on climate change for CBS Evening New with Scott Pelley, in which Sanjayan told viewers flat out that they’d all experienced its effects 'firsthand' in the form of record high temperatures."
Laughable, then, to think this fellow will provide real journalism as opposed to green-friendly commentary.
Thimbles (#9) needs a valium.
The conservatives he cites are commentators. And very clearly labeled. Stoessel is very clearly doing commentary. No one here case to hear Thimbles' brainless ad hominem attacks.
The question is whether this a professional environmentalist has been hired to report news or offer commentary. The former is a problem; the latter isn't. That Thimbles, is what the commenters here are worried about.
And please, Thimbles, cut the histrionics. McCarthyism has nothing to do with asking intelligent questions about this decision, particularly after the forgery debacle with Mapes and Rather.
#10 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Mon 4 Jun 2012 at 03:39 PM
"Laughable, then, to think this fellow will provide real journalism as opposed to green-friendly commentary."
I know, it's crazy to report that there may be a nutty connection between the record monthly temperatures spread across America, the trend of "one of the hottest years recorded" every year in this decade, and the massive amounts of physical changes occurring across the globe because of some sort of weird weather that we dare not call climate change or global warming lest the McCarthyites get their ire up.
The media, in general, and especially after East Anglia "climatejoke" affair, have under reported the data and the risks of climate change.
Objective viewers of the data would say that there are serious observable problems taking place in our environments due to climate instability and that we should look at how to handle and reduce these risks.
This is what the insurance industry and the military are doing.
But journalists are not because it is hard to be an objective viewer when your job could be on the line (due to the complaints of McCarthyites).
As for the bogus commentary / news separation is Megan Kelly an example of this conservative news reporting? If you want, I can go into the whole Jon Stewart "Fox is a perpetual revulsion machine" routine so we can really examine the specifics of how one should be an objective environmentalist reporter, just like those objective conservative news reporters on the right wing air sirens.
And again, it's funny how you conservatives bring up those old stories of Rather and Mapes when conservative media is lucky to go a week without similar lapses in veracity and editorial judgement.
Bring your standards up, then try talking down to us, you insufferable jerks.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 4 Jun 2012 at 10:59 PM
How on earth can the CJR applaud the hiring of one of the country's leading single-issue advocates as a journalist for a major US TV new network?
This the exact opposite of what journalism is about....we have plenty of uber-vocal advocates.
What we need are serious careful dedicated journalists.
#12 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Sun 10 Jun 2012 at 11:15 AM